Latin mass.. to be celebrated in all parishes

[netmilsmom]

Kielbasi:

This priest sounds like a real fast learner, almost a genius. The instructions , rules and rubrics for the Latin mass are quite complex. I’ve seen (although not read them in any detail) and it looks pretty difficult.

Back in the day, it typically took longer than 3 weeks to train young men on how to serve mass , much less actually to say the mass.

Yup! I would say!
Please understand that Our Beloved Pastor has said the NO in Latin every Wednesday for a few years now.
He is brilliant! Speaks five languages and is a concert pianist.
I can’t say the Holy Mass was perfect (I wasn’t there) but everyone seemed to be satified with the results according to the Detroit TLM thread.

God Bless Father Ben (and all priests, may we have many more)

 

[jimmy]

rcn:

The indult regarding the TLM says that it can be made available to those who request it.

Most parishes do not have even a single person who still remembers the TLM, much less would want to have it in their parish.

So you are saying it should be crammed down everyone’s throat, whether they want it or not?

It doesn’t matter what most people want, it matters what is best. If the New Mass is not what is best for the people of the Church, then they should abandon it. The TLM was the best show of faith we had. The Mass is for Catechesis as wee as for the sacraments.

Requesting it does not do much to get it in your area, otherwise there would be TLMs in every diocese.

 

[otm]

aspergesme:

Yes, it will be a Glorious day when the Mass of All Times is offered in every parish!

As to Latin, it has been and still is the official language of the Church. The excuse that one cannot understand what is going on is simply that, an excuse. I didn’t know Latin from Adam when I started attending a TLM. It doesn’t take long though.

Either you are a genius at languages, or extremely good at memorization, or totally clueless. You know Latin (or any language) when you can either speak it fluently or read it and translate on the fly. I would seriously doubt that if you have been to a few Masses in Latin that you know much more Latin than a 6th or 7th grade boy knew as an altar server in, say, 1961. They memorized phrases, and might know what that meant, but could not translate at all.

aspergesme:

And once you’ve gone to a TLM you quickly realize how little the NOM actually resembles the Mass that nutured countless souls and Saints for nearly 2000 years.

You show an abysmal lack of knowledge of the Mass at all. A side by side comparison of the Mass in the current rite with the Mass of, say, the 1962 Missal would show very little serious change. some of the prayers have been changed, some shortened and some lengthened, but they genrally all occur in the same relative positions they occured in before. Furthermore, Trent actually reduced the number of variations; the Tridentine rite has only been with us for about 500 years.
aspergeme:

As to the Indult. The TLM has never been abrogated and therefore every Priest has the right to offer the Mass without fear of conscience. No Indult requried.

There would be no indult if there was no need for an indult. To say otherwise is to walk awfully close to schism.
aspergeme:

HHPJPII ordered that the Bishops provide a “wide and generous application” of the TLM. To date this has not been done. One can only wonder why?

In part it is due to the fact that there is so little real demand.

 

[otm]

UKcatholicGuy:

I must disagree here, Sgt. There is no reason why, with as many people want the TLM, there could not eventually be a TLM in every parish. The Holy Father (JP2 that is) told every bishop to be generous with the “indult” to celebrate the TLM. I say it’s time we stop letting the modernists tell us it’s impossible to have a TLM in every parish, that the TLM is dead, those who like it are stuck in the old days, etc.

We must remember that it was the official Mass of the Church for 1,500 yrs pre-Vatican II. Now it’s treated as some disease.

Amen. And I’d be willing to bet that if the Church went back to the TLM, you would see an explosion in Adoration. On a side note, I think Eucharist Adoration–or the lack of it-- truly exposes the modernists for who they are. They’re people who don’t love Our Lord. When I say modernist, of course, I mean those who promote the “spirit of Vatican II”, which usually differ enormously from the teachings of V2. Anyway, if you notice, it’s always the orthodox, faithful parishes that have Adoration (perpetual). The “liberal” parishes are too busy focusing on how to celebrate themselves to worship our Eucharistic Lord, I suppose.

If you really want to talk about how many people want the TLM, make an accurate count of how many Masses are said on any given Sunday in the US, and how many of these are TLM; then make a count of how many people attend the TLM on that Sunday, as opposed to those attending Mass that weekend.

You will most likely find that you have not come up to 1/100th of 1%.

And by the way, the TLM didn’t start until after Trent. That is why it is called the Tridentine rite. Trent occured in the 16th century, not the 6th.

 

[Kielbasi]

If you really want to talk about how many people want the TLM, make an accurate count of how many Masses are said on any given Sunday in the US, and how many of these are TLM; then make a count of how many people attend the TLM on that Sunday, as opposed to those attending Mass that weekend.

That’s really not a very fair way of figuring. Latin Masses are only said in a small number of American Catholic parishes, and often in parishes which have very small populations.

In the Pittsburgh area, the Latin mass is said in a grand total of one parish, St. Boniface, which has been largely depopulated due to interstate highway construction. Elsewhere , the sole parish in Detroit in which it is said is in Poletown, another community with a very small population, in Detroit’s case due to industrial development.

If Latin mass were said in growing and prosperous parishes, would it make a difference? Quite possibly, indeed even probably. After all, when Latin mass was said in big parishes, it did have a large number of folks in attendence.

 

[Fogny]

rcn:

Most parishes do not have even a single person who still remembers the TLM, much less would want to have it in their parish.

So you are saying it should be crammed down everyone’s throat, whether they want it or not?

You hit the nail right on the head. Most people don’t remember the Latin Roman Rite Mass. In another generation most will be dead, just what the liberals counted on.
What was crammed down everybody’s throat, you must be young or ignorant, the NO mass was and that is not revisionist history but the truth.

Fogny

 

[alih]

i find it interesting reading some of the replies regarding the so-called tridentine mass vs. the novus ordo. in reading the pros vs. the cons, i just wonder if any one knows what the mass is, what it represents and what is going on. it seems to me, anyway, if one does not have the basics of the mass, it would not make too much difference to the attendee what language is being used.
have a good year. alih.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

well if it is impossible to every parishes, i think at least in every cathedral (main church of a diocese)… An EWTN like mass will be enough to re live the Latin prayers and some part of the TLM…

Latin is not just the Language of the Latin Catholic church but also used during the time of Jesus Christ… (Roman Empire) am i right?

 

[jimmy]

Kielbasi:

That’s really not a very fair way of figuring. Latin Masses are only said in a small number of American Catholic parishes, and often in parishes which have very small populations.

In the Pittsburgh area, the Latin mass is said in a grand total of one parish, St. Boniface, which has been largely depopulated due to interstate highway construction. Elsewhere , the sole parish in Detroit in which it is said is in Poletown, another community with a very small population, in Detroit’s case due to industrial development.

If Latin mass were said in growing and prosperous parishes, would it make a difference? Quite possibly, indeed even probably. After all, when Latin mass was said in big parishes, it did have a large number of folks in attendence.

St. Boniface is pretty full though at each mass. I think there are about 1000 families that attend there. It is kind of out in the middle of nowhere, with that interstate running right there. I think that if they put it in the middle of a populated part of town it would get much more people. I go to mass there often when I am home, it is beautiful.

 

[jimmy]

Fogny:

You hit the nail right on the head. Most people don’t remember the Latin Roman Rite Mass. In another generation most will be dead, just what the liberals counted on.
What was crammed down everybody’s throat, you must be young or ignorant, the NO mass was and that is not revisionist history but the truth.

Fogny

Go to a latin Mass though, you will not find only old people who remember pre-Vatican II. You will find people of all ages, from months old to the old people. You don’t need to be old to enjoy it. (I realize you were not saying that it is only for the old, but I felt like adding this.)

 

[Shlemele]

viktor aleksndr:

well if it is impossible to every parishes, i think at least in every cathedral (main church of a diocese)… An EWTN like mass will be enough to re live the Latin prayers and some part of the TLM…

Latin is not just the Language of the Latin Catholic church but also used during the time of Jesus Christ… (Roman Empire) am i right?

Nope, latin was the language of the early church but not that of christ, watch Mel Gibsons “Passon of the Christ” , I believe the language is aramaeic (sp?). More than likely many spoke some sort of latin but it wouldn’t have been that language of the poeple and thus not the language Jesus would have used to speak to the people.

 

[jimmy]

Shlemele:

Nope, latin was the language of the early church but not that of christ, watch Mel Gibsons “Passon of the Christ” , I believe the language is aramaeic (sp?). More than likely many spoke some sort of latin but it wouldn’t have been that language of the poeple and thus not the language Jesus would have used to speak to the people.

Yes, Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke. Greek was also spoken by many. Latin was more in the western part of Europe I think. Latin and Greek were both used as the early languages of the Church. Many of the big theologians were Latin speaking, like Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose.

 

[garfield]

It might be interesting to have an aramaic mass and hear the words Jesus spoke as they would have sounded.

 

[jimmy]

garfield:

It might be interesting to have an aramaic mass and hear the words Jesus spoke as they would have sounded.

I think the Chaldean Catholic Church is Aramaic.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Kielbasi:

In the Pittsburgh area, the Latin mass is said in a grand total of one parish, St. Boniface, which has been largely depopulated due to interstate highway construction. .

I don’t know how long you’ve been away from Pittsburgh, but your statement is not accurate. The highway you talk about was completed 20 years ago! I attend the TLM at St. Boniface’s and I assure you it is packed every Sunday. The 8 AM Low Mass gets a pretty good crowd, and the 11 AM High Mass is packed. Packed!!!

And FYI - the local, NO Mass that lets out right before our High Mass (the one with the tamborine hymns and women wearing tank tops, etc.) is also pretty well full. So, that Church most definitely gets its use.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

jimmy:

St. Boniface is pretty full though at each mass. I think there are about 1000 families that attend there. It is kind of out in the middle of nowhere, with that interstate running right there. I think that if they put it in the middle of a populated part of town it would get much more people. I go to mass there often when I am home, it is beautiful.

Bite your tongue! St. B’s is only about 5 minutes from my house and I like it that way!!!

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

otm:

And by the way, the TLM didn’t start until after Trent. That is why it is called the Tridentine rite. Trent occured in the 16th century, not the 6th.

You should brush up on Church history. You sound like one of those anti-Catholics who says, “The Church didnt ‘invent’ transubstantiation until the Council of Trent!”

The TLM was officially codified at the Council of Trent, but the basic form of the TLM had been around for at least 900-1,000 yrs prior. Trent sought to codify the Mass to make sure it was uniform.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I support the Indult Mass, where it is desired by sufficient people as to be supportive of it. If it is for only a tiny number, then no, I don’t think provision should be made. I think we have to be realistic. If a Maronite Catholic moved to my old diocese of Gallup, New Mexico (the Catholics there were mostly Navajo, Pueblo, or Hispanic), I don’t think the bishop would be under much obligation morally to provide him with a priest that could serve his rite. He should be made welcome, but it’s obvious that he would have to attend the Latin Rite Mass. Same applies if he were French or Polish or was someone who wanted the Indult. If he’s it, then no.

 

[jimmy]

Scotty PGH:

Bite your tongue! St. B’s is only about 5 minutes from my house and I like it that way!!!

Hahaha, it’s a beautiful church, and the mass is even more so. I can’t wait for the next chance to go to mass there.

 

[catholicanarchy]

Shlemele:

Nope, latin was the language of the early church but not that of christ, watch Mel Gibsons “Passon of the Christ” , I believe the language is aramaeic (sp?). More than likely many spoke some sort of latin but it wouldn’t have been that language of the poeple and thus not the language Jesus would have used to speak to the people.

Right. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but not because the film “The Passion of the Christ” says so.