H
harinkj
Guest
Is this in the United States?
- Kathie :bowdown:
- Status
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Yes, from the same USCCB link a bit higher on the thread.
The Catholic Church is quite healthy in the US, particularly in comparison to most of the other faiths which have been actually losing members(e.g.,Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism), but also in mass attendance among Catholics in comparison to other developed countries.
J
JNB
Guest
These numbers include mostly Catholic(at least nominally) and mostly illegal immigrants from Latin America. If it wasnt for this influx of immigrants, the church in the US would be no better off in terms of numbers than it is in Europe.
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
I love Latin, incense and ceremony. My spirituality is centered on the liturgy, on the traditions of my Fathers. Yet I cannot but feel aprehensive on the TLM. Looking at photo’s of the Pontificial High Mass I realise “Toto we’re not in Post Vatican 2 Rome any more.” It’s another world, totally different liturgically speaking. I see men in intricate vestments kneeling behind just one Priest to hold up his vestments as he consecrates (btw, whats up with that?) I see vestments that are totally different from the Gothic-Neo style I grew up with. No doubt when I experience it I will see the beauty of the liturgy that gave us such Saints as Francis of Assisi, Dominic and even Karol Wojtyla. Oh well.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Quite honestly, the number of people willing to check a box saying they’re Catholic is not indication at all of the health of the Church in the US. Dissent is rampant, priestly disobedience is in some dioceses (like mine) the norm, at least a dozen “Catholic” members of congress are staunchly pro-choice, and the next generation of Catholics is getting raised by this cadre of Catholic-lite. Numbers don’t tell the whole story. Many parts of the US Church are seriously ill.
P
palmas85
Guest
Interesting times we live in.
I recall hearing somewhere that the Holy Father felt that the Church might have to become smaller and more theologically conservative in order to retain its’ integrity.
Actually, it could be kind of Biblical in nature. Remember that when Christ died he was basically abandoned by just about everybody. Only a few faithfully stood by his side. So could very well be the state of the Church in the oncoming years.
Only time will tell.
I recall hearing somewhere that the Holy Father felt that the Church might have to become smaller and more theologically conservative in order to retain its’ integrity.
Actually, it could be kind of Biblical in nature. Remember that when Christ died he was basically abandoned by just about everybody. Only a few faithfully stood by his side. So could very well be the state of the Church in the oncoming years.
Only time will tell.
F
Freeway4321
Guest
Here’s a letter that an Una Voce Newsletter got a hold of. I’m going to leave out the commentary they provide.
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger
To a Renowned German Theologian – 2004
*Translated from the German by George Mueller, Ph. D.
Commentary by George Mueller, Ph. D. and Barbara A. Schoeneberger, M.A.
(taken from Una Voce Springfield July 2005 newsletter, with permission)*
“On June 23, 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter in German to Herr Doctor Heinz-Lothar Barth, a reputed theological author and professor at the University of Bonn. This letter was in response to a letter Dr. Barth wrote to the Cardinal regarding the Traditional Latin Mass. Dr. Mueller has translated it faithfully from the original German. We have here a most important and recent record of our Holy Father’s thinking on the Sacred Liturgy and his desire concerning how we are to promote the celebration of the Traditional Mass.”
"Very honored Doctor Barth!
Heartfelt thanks for your letter of April 6th, the response to which I only now find the time to make. You ask that I involve myself in the wider authorization of the old Roman Rite. You yourself already know that for my part, such a request does not fall on deaf ears; indeed, my involvement in this wish has, as it happens, become generally known.
However, whether the Holy See “will once again worldwide and without limit authorize” the old rite as you wish it and have heard through rumor may happen, cannot be simply said or entirely confirmed. One must always reckon with the fact that too many Catholics have been inoculated for years with an aversion to the traditional liturgy, which they disdainfully call “pre-conciliar” and likewise with considerable opposition on the part of many bishops against a general reauthorization [of the old rite].
The situation is different if one considers a limited re-authorization: indeed the demand for the old liturgy is also limited. I know that its value does not depend on demand, but the question about the number of interested priests and laity plays, nevertheless, a sure role in this [re-authorization]. Moreover, such a measure can be translated into action only step by step today, now a good thirty years after the introduction of the liturgy reform of Pope Paul VI: to act hastily would not be for the good.
I believe, however, that in the long run the Roman Church must again have a single Roman rite: the existence of two official rites in practice is for the bishops and priests quite hard to “manage.” The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite; it could take in some new elements that have proven themselves, such as new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, a wider order of readings – more choices than before, but not too many – an “Oratio fidelium,” i.e., a fixed litany of prayers after the Oremus before the Offertory, where it earlier had its place.
If you, honored Doctor Barth, involve yourself in this manner in your request for the Liturgy, you will assuredly not stand alone, and you will prepare “public opinion in the Church” for eventual measures in favor of an expanded use of the earlier liturgical books. However, one ought to be cautious in awakening all too high, maximum expectations in the tradition-bound faithful.
I take the opportunity to thank you for your treasured involvement with regard to the liturgy of the Roman Church in your books and lectures, even though here and there I should wish for more love and understanding for the teaching authority of the Pope and bishops.
May the seed that you sow, grow up, and bear fruit for the renewed life of the Church, whose “source and summit,” indeed whose true heart is and must remain the liturgy.
Gladly do I bestow on you the blessing you ask and I remain with heartfelt greetings,
Yours,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger"
latinmassjax.org/augustnewsletter.htm
unavocespringfield.org/newsletters/2005/July_05.pdf
Here’s what seems to be the original German version.
wolfganglindemann.net/html/brief_an_dr_barth.html
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger
To a Renowned German Theologian – 2004
*Translated from the German by George Mueller, Ph. D.
Commentary by George Mueller, Ph. D. and Barbara A. Schoeneberger, M.A.
(taken from Una Voce Springfield July 2005 newsletter, with permission)*
“On June 23, 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter in German to Herr Doctor Heinz-Lothar Barth, a reputed theological author and professor at the University of Bonn. This letter was in response to a letter Dr. Barth wrote to the Cardinal regarding the Traditional Latin Mass. Dr. Mueller has translated it faithfully from the original German. We have here a most important and recent record of our Holy Father’s thinking on the Sacred Liturgy and his desire concerning how we are to promote the celebration of the Traditional Mass.”
"Very honored Doctor Barth!
Heartfelt thanks for your letter of April 6th, the response to which I only now find the time to make. You ask that I involve myself in the wider authorization of the old Roman Rite. You yourself already know that for my part, such a request does not fall on deaf ears; indeed, my involvement in this wish has, as it happens, become generally known.
However, whether the Holy See “will once again worldwide and without limit authorize” the old rite as you wish it and have heard through rumor may happen, cannot be simply said or entirely confirmed. One must always reckon with the fact that too many Catholics have been inoculated for years with an aversion to the traditional liturgy, which they disdainfully call “pre-conciliar” and likewise with considerable opposition on the part of many bishops against a general reauthorization [of the old rite].
The situation is different if one considers a limited re-authorization: indeed the demand for the old liturgy is also limited. I know that its value does not depend on demand, but the question about the number of interested priests and laity plays, nevertheless, a sure role in this [re-authorization]. Moreover, such a measure can be translated into action only step by step today, now a good thirty years after the introduction of the liturgy reform of Pope Paul VI: to act hastily would not be for the good.
I believe, however, that in the long run the Roman Church must again have a single Roman rite: the existence of two official rites in practice is for the bishops and priests quite hard to “manage.” The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite; it could take in some new elements that have proven themselves, such as new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, a wider order of readings – more choices than before, but not too many – an “Oratio fidelium,” i.e., a fixed litany of prayers after the Oremus before the Offertory, where it earlier had its place.
If you, honored Doctor Barth, involve yourself in this manner in your request for the Liturgy, you will assuredly not stand alone, and you will prepare “public opinion in the Church” for eventual measures in favor of an expanded use of the earlier liturgical books. However, one ought to be cautious in awakening all too high, maximum expectations in the tradition-bound faithful.
I take the opportunity to thank you for your treasured involvement with regard to the liturgy of the Roman Church in your books and lectures, even though here and there I should wish for more love and understanding for the teaching authority of the Pope and bishops.
May the seed that you sow, grow up, and bear fruit for the renewed life of the Church, whose “source and summit,” indeed whose true heart is and must remain the liturgy.
Gladly do I bestow on you the blessing you ask and I remain with heartfelt greetings,
Yours,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger"
latinmassjax.org/augustnewsletter.htm
unavocespringfield.org/newsletters/2005/July_05.pdf
Here’s what seems to be the original German version.
wolfganglindemann.net/html/brief_an_dr_barth.html
T
Tax_Collector
Guest
I think that many look at the Tridentine Mass through “rose coloured” spectacles.
I spent the first 30 years of my life attending such Masses. I spent over 15 years as an altar server of such Masses. I believe that I could tomorrow serve aTLM without needing a missal to answer the responses.(might have a problem with the Confiteor).
The High Masses with Deacon, Sub Deacon and choir, and the solemn sung masses were lovely, but the average daily or Sunday Low Mass, was often a garbled, murmured celebration in which the congregation were “ear straining” observers. When I compare those with the daily Masses I sometimes attend now, with the priest facing the congregation, speaking and including the congregation in a language that they understand, I know which I prefer.
I believe that one of the reasons for the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul was to stop the sort of liturgy that I refer to above. He kept the Latin if wanted, so that the Solemn High Mass was still available.
I do not live in the United States and never have, but I have lived in the U.K. and now live in Australia. I read on Catholic Forums of abuses in the modern Mass that I have never witnessed. It would not trouble me, if the Tridentine mass became the “norm” once again, but I do feel that it would be a retrograde step.
Thats my 2 cents australian
Tax Collector
I spent the first 30 years of my life attending such Masses. I spent over 15 years as an altar server of such Masses. I believe that I could tomorrow serve aTLM without needing a missal to answer the responses.(might have a problem with the Confiteor).
The High Masses with Deacon, Sub Deacon and choir, and the solemn sung masses were lovely, but the average daily or Sunday Low Mass, was often a garbled, murmured celebration in which the congregation were “ear straining” observers. When I compare those with the daily Masses I sometimes attend now, with the priest facing the congregation, speaking and including the congregation in a language that they understand, I know which I prefer.
I believe that one of the reasons for the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul was to stop the sort of liturgy that I refer to above. He kept the Latin if wanted, so that the Solemn High Mass was still available.
I do not live in the United States and never have, but I have lived in the U.K. and now live in Australia. I read on Catholic Forums of abuses in the modern Mass that I have never witnessed. It would not trouble me, if the Tridentine mass became the “norm” once again, but I do feel that it would be a retrograde step.
Thats my 2 cents australian
Tax Collector
H
harinkj
Guest
Yes, I heard the same thing when Pope Benedict XVI was first chosen. Pope Benedict I had been pope in 575 AD when the Church was is such a situation and he guided the Church through such a smaller but conservative phase. I can’t remember if Pope Benedict XVI actually said this or if it was surmised from Benedict I’s situation. It may have been put forward by people who were analyzing why Cardinal Ratzinger picked Benedict as his name.
- Kathie :bowdown:
- Status