Is the Traditional Latin Mass getting more widely accepted?

[Bridey]

“prayers that were originally said in the sacristy were
moved to the foot of the altar at the start of Mass.”

A now ancient form obsolete… Quo Primum removed them. (Pope Pius XII forbade any “older forms” by his own ex cathedra, --no more future and constant needless tinkering. Pope St. Pius V promulgated permanently. Pius XII reinforced it. What’s the matter? Do you hate popes? Do you hate “in perpetuity?” Your examples are moot.

Saturday does not fulfill the day of obligation, this time the obligation is violated. The “burden” is given Pius XII, practically comatose in his last five years, hardly capable of taking the “burden.” You are definitely too young. You couldn’t read then. It doesn’t invalidate, but it makes “murky” a inexcusable sabbath tradition-- and breaks the Church Commandment of “sabbath” as St. Peter established it. Hello? Trent trumps this change. We should have started screaming then!

The V-2 manipulators cover their tracks with an invented word, “vigil.” Regular Mass for Sunday has no vigil. Again, the purpose was to break down the resolve of the pew-sitters, malice not excluded, and pave the way for the coming illicit “council” with its numerous ad nauseum doctrinal violations already typed, dittoed, printed and ready to go even in 1942.well before Pius died.

“Earliest Christians”

again-- has no bearing on Quo Primum which trumps all previous forms, its purpose. Keep thinking “in perpetuity” and you will get it right yet.

No it doesn’t. To begin with, it is doctrinally correct;

It is scripturally used, but not at the Last Supper; also de fide correct.

you need to read the Gospels and the epistles a little bit closer.

You need to memorize Quo Primum. I know where you are going with this.

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.

Careful there. Quote me correctly. Heresy is denial of doctrine. The burden is on those who have defied de fide doctrine. What Montini does is not ex cathedra. “Rome” cannot invent doctrine not in the Patristic Record. The Trent Consecration of Mass is codified as “for Many” direct from scripture. And from a de fide encyclical. From a valid Council. From Canon Law. You can’t get better than that.

The “fruit” of the Sacrifice is what Christ was speaking of. He knew all would not be saved. To change His words is to pretend He was stupid and Bugnini smarter.

Further, “pro multis” is not part of the words of Consecration;

Now there’s a REAL heresy! The minimum is “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”.says St. Thomas, but he does not say it is enough for the “fruits” of the sacrifice, the actual “many” who receive it. Well, maybe Montini was revealing something here.

“And in fact, in the Eastern rite churches, “

You are Western. Speak as one. Whatever Easterns do has nothing to do with you. Your Western obligation is not theirs. You can’t quote them as example for Western.

“red herring are not theologians and are leading people astray.

Omlor, Matatics and Coomaraswamy are overqualified to beat down these heretical violations of the Mass and sacraments. Overqualified. You & the bishops just don’t go there because you know your house of cards can’t take it. As long as there are “apologists” who do what you do, deceive and trick, quote out of context, and out of sequence, the people are fooled. You have to keep the lid on. I may get deleted, too Isn’t that the usual style-? Must protect the left flank of the hierarchy.

The Missale Romanum, the real one, has not changed its precious and ancient Patristically correct prayers since 1570. Check that dusty 1937 St. Andrew’s Regular Daily you tossed in a bin, rotting away. There is no “mass of 1962”, even of “holy week” inventions” and certainly not of “1965” ‘1967” or the next one and the next… When Vatican 14 comes around you will get ” Mass of 2020 ! No wonder no one needs a leather-bound gilded copy.
Yours,
Marilyn

 

[Alindawyl]

In case you weren’t aware, Bridey, sedevacantism has been a banned topic on these forums for quite a while now. Unless of course I’m the unaware one and it was permitted again very recently, in which case feel free to ignore me.

 

[Joe17]

Regarding the words or cosecration, the Missale Romanum clearly indicates which words should be spoken for the consecration to occur. This includes pro multis as well as mysterium fidei. For backup, I recommend a rereading of De defectibus which is in the front of the MR, including the 62’. While true that Christ died for all, meaning the sacrifice of Calvary is sufficient to save all men, the fruits of the Sacrifice will only, in the end, be applicable to the many that, by the grace of God, were receptive of Chist’s salvific act and followed his will, dying in the state of sanctifying grace. Christ, being God, said for many for a reason. He knew that for a certain amount of all mankind, his offer of a life of grace would not be accepted. When the Mass is being said, it is in reality for those who accept the grace God offers through it, not those, who in the end, reject it.

For a much more authoratative and succinct rendering of what I have just written, I recommend you to the “The Roman Catechism,” aka “The Catechism of the Council of Trent.” You will find it there as described, eliminating the myth that using “for all” in the consecration is in line with what the Church has always taught.

Joe

 

[otjm]

Regarding the words or cosecration, the Missale Romanum clearly indicates which words should be spoken for the consecration to occur. This includes pro multis as well as mysterium fidei. For backup, I recommend a rereading of De defectibus which is in the front of the MR, including the 62’. While true that Christ died for all, meaning the sacrifice of Calvary is sufficient to save all men, the fruits of the Sacrifice will only, in the end, be applicable to the many that, by the grace of God, were receptive of Chist’s salvific act and followed his will, dying in the state of sanctifying grace. Christ, being God, said for many for a reason. He knew that for a certain amount of all mankind, his offer of a life of grace would not be accepted. When the Mass is being said, it is in reality for those who accept the grace God offers through it, not those, who in the end, reject it.

For a much more authoratative and succinct rendering of what I have just written, I recommend you to the “The Roman Catechism,” aka “The Catechism of the Council of Trent.” You will find it there as described, eliminating the myth that using “for all” in the consecration is in line with what the Church has always taught.

Joe

Just to be clear, I did not say that the Church has always taught that for all was to be used in the Mass or had been. It has taught consistently that Christ died for all, and also has taught consistently that all will not be sauve, only some.

Rome has also answered that “for all” does not invalidate the Consecration; it is not an accurate translation but neither does it impact the Consecration itself. Those who obstinately hold otherwise are in defiance of Rome. They are also in a very small minority.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

In case you weren’t aware, Bridey, sedevacantism has been a banned topic on these forums for quite a while now. Unless of course I’m the unaware one and it was permitted again very recently, in which case feel free to ignore me.

The ban on sedevacantism still stands, to my knowledge, and Jo Benedict has said that it has no place here on these forums.

 

[Alindawyl]

Hopefully the angst over things like pro multis will go away once the new and more accurate English translation of the Mass is put into use. The Vatican has already approved it, and my priest is ecstatic. He’s eagerly anticipating the “teaching opportunity” it presents on a variety of topics

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Please get the conversation back to the topic in question – the acceptance of the Tridentine Latin Mass. Thank you.

 

[Joe17]

In Massachusetts, we have 40 something people coming to our mission. There is a small mission in RI. Also, up in Maine, near Augusta, maybe close to 40 on a Sunday.

Joe

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Tridentine mass is very popular in St. Louis

The following is a list of the churches in the St. Louis are the celebrate it: (Impressive list, isn’t it)?

SAINT LOUIS Archdiocese Apple Creek St. Joseph Church (W) Sunday: 11:15 AM Even Months
(See Biehle for Odd months)

  	Biehle 	St. Maurus Church 	(W) 	Sunday: 11:15 AM Odd Months
(See Apple Creek for even months)

  	Creve Coeur 	Oratory of SS Gregory and Augustine 	W D 	Sunday: 7:30, 10:30 AM; Holy Days 7:00 PM; Weekdays, 7:30 AM
replaces Mass in Ellisville, !2/07.

  	Mattese 	Assumption Parish 	W 	Sunday: 3:00 PM

  	New Haven 	Assumption Parish 		Wednesday: 7:30 AM

  	Richmond Heights 	St. Theresa Little Flower 	W 	Sunday: 9:15 am

  	Saint Louis 	Shrine of St Joseph 	W 	Sunday: 9:00 AM

  	St. Louis 	St. Francis de Sales Oratory 	W D 	Sunday: 8:00 & 10:00 AM
daily: 8:00 AM

St Francis de Sales Oratory is an Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. It is a beautiful church:

institute-christ-king.org/stlouis/

Approximately 1,200 attend Sunday mass there.

One of the reasons I don’t attend regularly is because I am in choir in my parish. Also, my parish is very close, and not so liberal that I feel compelled to leave it.

 

[Alindawyl]

Wow, that’s a lot of churches offering the TLM in St. Louis.

It’s been mostly full but not packed when I’ve attended at the one parish that offers the TLM in San Antonio. The location is central and relatively easy to get to from anywhere in town. But there doesn’t seem to be a huge call in this city for the TLM, which is unfortunate. I know I’m the only person at my parish who’s ever expressed an interest, so I’m not the least surprised we don’t offer it.

Much as I’m all in favor of the TLM, I just can’t bring myself to leave this parish. Anyone who’s left our parish has done so because they don’t like hearing things like abortion is evil, regular confession is necessary, or Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. But if the TLM was offered here, I’d make that my weekly Mass time no matter how early or late it was.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Wow, that’s a lot of churches offering the TLM in St. Louis.

It’s been mostly full but not packed when I’ve attended at the one parish that offers the TLM in San Antonio. The location is central and relatively easy to get to from anywhere in town. But there doesn’t seem to be a huge call in this city for the TLM, which is unfortunate. I know I’m the only person at my parish who’s ever expressed an interest, so I’m not the least surprised we don’t offer it.

Much as I’m all in favor of the TLM, I just can’t bring myself to leave this parish. Anyone who’s left our parish has done so because they don’t like hearing things like abortion is evil, regular confession is necessary, or Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. But if the TLM was offered here, I’d make that my weekly Mass time no matter how early or late it was.

I think it is very important that you support your pastor. I feel the same as you about my parish. There is a very liberal movement there, women priests, etc. We had a WomenPriest ordination here in Nov 2008 (at at synagogue!!). Several people from our parish attended. There is a church here that went into schism. Many people supported this parish in it’s fight against the archdiocese. The pro-life committee has very little support. Our beloved Archbishop Burke was severely maligned. It hurt me. I feel I need to be a presence of Orthodoxy.

Our seminary is full and they need to add on. This is a direct result of Archbshp Burke’s policies. The seminarians love him. They are teaching Latin mass in the seminary. I wonder if they are doing it at all seminaries in the US?

 

[Alindawyl]

Our seminary is full and they need to add on. This is a direct result of Archbshp Burke’s policies. The seminarians love him. They are teaching Latin mass in the seminary. I wonder if they are doing it at all seminaries in the US?

Assumption Seminary in San Antonio was considering it at one point, but don’t know if it became part of the curriculum.

 

[otjm]

Our seminary is full and they need to add on. This is a direct result of Archbshp Burke’s policies. The seminarians love him. They are teaching Latin mass in the seminary. I wonder if they are doing it at all seminaries in the US?

The whole issue to a certain extent is a Catch-22. Seminaries are not going to add professors and class time if they do not perceive a need, or if they feel the need can be met by having a few priests trained in the EF.

There is a feeling, and not entirely wrong, that most people have no clue whatsoever about the EF. That is not entirely true, because if on traces back to 1965 and moves 7 to 10 years beyond that - someone born in 1955 to 1958 - they would be old enought to have some memory of the EF. and statistically, as age drops, so does attendances - the 18 - 30 age group is about 21%.

Some of it is that people in the pew may not be aware that the EF is or can be available. It is hard to want something if you don’t know that it exists.

Some of it is a lack of priests who know the rubrics of the EF.

Some of it is a simple lack of priests - if there is one in a parish and he is saying 3 Masses on Sunday, he won’t be saying a fourth, as (it is my understanding) Canon law restricts him to two, and three only by permission. In such a circumstance, it is unlikely that one of the OFs will be changed to an EF if there are only a few people desiring it.

So the short of it is that a) we still have some bishops that want nothing to do with the EF and will do what they can to side-step it; b) we have other bishops who simply do not perceive a wide need; no one essentially is coming forward to request more than may be available now; c) we have a lot of people who don’t know if they would want it because they either don’t know of its availability or have never experienced it; d) we have too few priests who are trained in it to make it widely available; e) we have too few priests in general. The net result is that at least the appearance is that it is not widely desired.

It may take another 5 or 10 years to really assess how much the EF is desired. Part of that is time to have some bishops die and/or retire; some of it is for word to circulate more; some of it is for more priests to be available and trained.

Or as I have said before, time will tell.

 

[otjm]

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?

There have been two ex cathedra doctrinal statements by a Pope in 2000 years. One of them was the definition of the Immaculate Conception; the other was the Assumption.

Wher ever you got your theological training, you might want to go back and get a refund, as they did not train you according to the Magisterium. As I said before, In Perpetuity on a disciplinary matter is language that was used centuries ago, and is not used today because it sounds as if one pope was binding another, and they did not then and do not now have that power. What one binds in disciplinary matters another can, and does, loose.

 

[malphono]

There have been two ex cathedra doctrinal statements by a Pope in 2000 years. One of them was the definition of the Immaculate Conception; the other was the Assumption.

Actually, neither was doctrinal: both were dogmatic. In fact, both pronouncements were merely Rome’s “official codification” of beliefs that had been accepted (even in the canonical East, albeit with varying language) for many hundreds of years.

 

[malphono]

The whole issue to a certain extent is a Catch-22. Seminaries are not going to add professors and class time if they do not perceive a need, or if they feel the need can be met by having a few priests trained in the EF.

It’s the bishops who mandate what is to be taught in seminaries, not the seminaries themselves. St Louis is an example.

There is a feeling, and not entirely wrong, that most people have no clue whatsoever about the EF. That is not entirely true, because if on traces back to 1965 and moves 7 to 10 years beyond that - someone born in 1955 to 1958 - they would be old enought to have some memory of the EF. and statistically, as age drops, so does attendances - the 18 - 30 age group is about 21%.

I find that to be a bit of a misuse of statistics. Taken to its root, what it says is “out of memory, out of mind” and that just is not true. We have, for example, Colonial Williamsburgh. And the medieval jousts at Sterling Forest. I doubt there are very many folks around who actually lived through either, yet both are popular. But in order to be popular, the public had to know what they are and that they exist.

Some of it is a simple lack of priests - if there is one in a parish and he is saying 3 Masses on Sunday, he won’t be saying a fourth, as (it is my understanding) Canon law restricts him to two, and three only by permission. In such a circumstance, it is unlikely that one of the OFs will be changed to an EF if there are only a few people desiring it.

But of course there is no valid reason why one of the OFs could not be a true “reform of the reform” which, while not the EF, is as close as the OF gets to it. That could be very helpful as a “stepping stone” to the EF.

So the short of it is that a) we still have some bishops that want nothing to do with the EF and will do what they can to side-step it; b) we have other bishops who simply do not perceive a wide need; no one essentially is coming forward to request more than may be available now; c) we have a lot of people who don’t know if they would want it because they either don’t know of its availability or have never experienced it; d) we have too few priests who are trained in it to make it widely available; e) we have too few priests in general.

Item (a) is, unfortunately, true. Item (b) is also true, but is often (again unfortunately) due to “episcopal blinders” more than anything else. Item (c) is a direct result of item (a): lack of chatechesis. And there really is no valid reason for that lack. Item (d) is true, but can be remedied very easily. Item (e) is also true, and while not so easily remedied, it has little to do with the matter.

The net result is that at least the appearance is that it is not widely desired.

Huh??? the “net result” of what?

It may take another 5 or 10 years to really assess how much the EF is desired. Part of that is time to have some bishops die and/or retire; some of it is for word to circulate more; some of it is for more priests to be available and trained.

And part of it is for bishops and their clergy to start the chatechetical process. Avoiding both the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF appears to be the approach of choice. IMHO, that is the biggest part of the whole problem.

 

[otjm]

Actually, neither was doctrinal: both were dogmatic. In fact, both pronouncements were merely Rome’s “official codification” of beliefs that had been accepted (even in the canonical East, albeit with varying language) for many hundreds of years.

Whether they are consdiered doctrinal or dogmatic, they are accepted by most theologians as the only two instances of the exercise of papal infaillibilty per an ex cathedra statement. And as such they are not considered “merely Rome’s official codification” but actual ex cathedra statements. Bridey is the one using ex cathedra and my response was to that usage.

 

[malphono]

Bridey is the one using ex cathedra and my response was to that usage.

Yes, I know.

 

[otjm]

It’s the bishops who mandate what is to be taught in seminaries, not the seminaries themselves. St Louis is an example.

And the rest of my post pretty much sums up why we may not see much activity in most seminaries.

I find that to be a bit of a misuse of statistics. Taken to its root, what it says is “out of memory, out of mind” and that just is not true. We have, for example, Colonial Williamsburgh. And the medieval jousts at Sterling Forest. I doubt there are very many folks around who actually lived through either, yet both are popular. But in order to be popular, the public had to know what they are and that they exist.

On the contrary, It is not an issue of “out of memory, out of mind” but just the opposite.There is a sizeable number of people attending Mass each week in the pre-Vatican 2 age group; attendance is about 52% for that group, so there should be a good deal of what could be called institutional memory. That age group knows the EF. Whether they know that it can be made available, or whether they think that it was superceded (or whatever word you wish to use) may be another story, depending on whether they read the news at all in the Catholic press. those born much closer to 1965 or subsequently will not have that memory.

But of course there is no valid reason why one of the OFs could not be a true “reform of the reform” which, while not the EF, is as close as the OF gets to it. That could be very helpful as a “stepping stone” to the EF.

We had one in Portland for quite a time; it wasn’t exactly kept under the proverbial bushel basket. attendance was moderate, which is a sad commentary on people’s level of interest - it certainly was not difficult to get to (I live 20 miles away in the suburbs, and would truck our RCIA members there to introduce them to it - hardly a chore).

Item (a) is, unfortunately, true. Item (b) is also true, but is often (again unfortunately) due to “episcopal blinders” more than anything else. Item (c) is a direct result of item (a): lack of chatechesis. And there really is no valid reason for that lack. Item (d) is true, but can be remedied very easily. Item (e) is also true, and while not so easily remedied, it has little to do with the matter.

I sould suspect that the Archdiocese of Chicago, having 12 churches that have the EF, would not be categorized as against the EF, or falling into category a); so I disagree that the lack of knowledge on the part people in the pew is necessarily faulted there. I think there are bishops whose perception is that there simply is not much interest, and therefore see no reason to do more, not that they are unwilling to do more. As to e), we have - at least in our area, maybe not New York, priests who are doing all they can to take care of their flock. If they have a parish of several thousand, and 150 want the EF, it is likely not to happen there simply because what applies to the 150 also applies to the remaining several thousand, and there is physically (and per Canon law) no room left. That does not mean that several churches cannot consolidate to have the EF; but it simply is going to limit the number of parishes it will be available in.

Huh??? the “net result” of what?

The net result of the preceeding paragraphs. I was trying to say that for a number of reasons, no one acutally knows how much interest there is in the EF.

And part of it is for bishops and their clergy to start the chatechetical process. Avoiding both the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF appears to be the approach of choice. IMHO, that is the biggest part of the whole problem.

True. However, given the comments by the Pope that even he does not anticipate it being widely used, it would appear that the bishops do not anticipate much, and their lack of anticipation is being fed by the silence.

 

[malphono]

On the contrary, It is not an issue of “out of memory, out of mind” but just the opposite.There is a sizeable number of people attending Mass each week in the pre-Vatican 2 age group; attendance is about 52% for that group, so there should be a good deal of what could be called institutional memory. That age group knows the EF. Whether they know that it can be made available, or whether they think that it was superceded (or whatever word you wish to use) may be another story, depending on whether they read the news at all in the Catholic press. those born much closer to 1965 or subsequently will not have that memory.

The bolded portion is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? How can the EF (or even the “reform of the reform” OF) grow without that?

I sould suspect that the Archdiocese of Chicago, having 12 churches that have the EF, would not be categorized as against the EF, or falling into category a);

Best re-read. Your item (a) is a given.

so I disagree that the lack of knowledge on the part people in the pew is necessarily faulted there. I think there are bishops whose perception is that there simply is not much interest, and therefore see no reason to do more, not that they are unwilling to do more.

That refers to your item (b). I stand by my earlier comment on it.

As to e), we have - at least in our area, maybe not New York, priests who are doing all they can to take care of their flock. If they have a parish of several thousand, and 150 want the EF, it is likely not to happen there simply because what applies to the 150 also applies to the remaining several thousand, and there is physically (and per Canon law) no room left. That does not mean that several churches cannot consolidate to have the EF; but it simply is going to limit the number of parishes it will be available in.

And what does that have to do with offering the OF in its “reform of the reform” mode, aka according to the editio typica?

True. However, given the comments by the Pope that even he does not anticipate it being widely used, it would appear that the bishops do not anticipate much, and their lack of anticipation is being fed by the silence.

Here we go again. Where’s the chatechesis? And what about the “reform of the reform” OF? As I’ve said before, it’s the OF. So what’s the problem there? Could it be there is no interest on the part of many bishops and their clergy?

I’m going to make a light analogy here: I am one of those who doesn’t like chocolate ice cream. If we go to the store, what do we find? Chocolate ice cream. In a dozen different guises, but they’re all chocolate in one way or another. Even if we know that other flavors exist, it doesn’t matter because the store doesn’t carry them. The philosophy is: you buy what we want to sell you.

The situation on the ground is basically the same: you get the OF Mass that they want to give you.

Anyway, enough. Time for me to retire into the background again. This ride on the merry-go-round is making me dizzy.