Liturgical abuse!

[otjm]

To Basil: My question was based on the Latin Rite, OF vs EF. I think you have a chip on your shoulder about how Eastern Catholics are treated by Rome. As a pew warmer, I can say I don’t know much about Eastern Catholicism. I doubt many Latin Rite Catholics do. Given the current state of cathecesis in the Latin Church, one could say that we don’t know much about Catholicism full stop.

If Eastern bishops have resisted experimenting with their rites, I would say their flocks are lucky.

There’s nothing set in stone about the OF. It, in itself, is proof of that. It is a confection. It is a break with the past, and is constantly being modified.

Constantly? Are we not being a bit hyprebolic here? There have been a few modifications, and they were minor.

It could be dropped tomorrow and the Church would suffer barely a ripple, in terms of saving souls for Heaven.

Says who? Maybe you need to get off that tiny island and see some of the rest of the world. The vast majority of the world is using the OF, and there are few complainers. OK, lets put it in real terms; there are extremely few complainers. And out of that vast majority of the world, if you were to speak to the people in the pew, you would find that the number one thing they like about it is that it is in the vernacular. Most of them are so theologically unsophisticated that they would not understand much of what you might point out that you consider superior in terms of the prayers said, and most of them likely would not disagree to a change to some or all of the prayers, since they would not have an opinion. not a ripple? You have not the faintest clue.

I

magine, then, going to a Roman Catholic Latin Mass in any part of the world. You’ve brought your pocket Missal. Enter church, genuflect, enter pew, take it out and you’re ready to go. Got a priest shortage? Import some. Confessions could be a problem, but not a Low Mass. A retired priest could have a nice ‘gig’ saying Mass somewhere warm.

If it were all so simple, then why did so few people have a missal pre-Vatican 2 (I was there - and I had one).

It’s win-win. The Latin Mass would unite the Roman Catholic Church. The O.F. has divided it.

and the tail wags the dog. The Church is already united; it is your misperception that unity means uniformity. You are the one who is unhappy; and for you, the Pope has made provision for the EF. I can’t speak to what your bishop or parish priest has done about that; if there is an appropriate number (which, interestingly, Rome has not seen fit to define as to numbers) then you should be able to put together a group and have the EF.

The short of it is that there are some things that need to be done to the OF, to which the Pope agrees. He most certainly does not see a need, desire, or interest in replacing the OF.

And he is no fool.

I don’t see the problem about the vernacular. If you can read a missal, you can follow the Mass. The text is beautiful, reverent and uplifting. I can’t say the same about the O.F.

However, others can; others can also see some needed changes to the OF which are nowhere near as radical as you propose. the short of it is that you are in a minority that seems to be rather small, and you want to impose your feelings and impressions on everyone else. You didn’t like that you had no alternative for a very long time; are you just playing “turn-about is fair” under the guise of “this is much better”? It would seem so.

And as I have noted, when the Mass was all in Latin and missals were available, many if not most people did not have one. Nor did they speak Latin.

Welcome to reality; pre Vatican 2 ratios of men to women at Mass favored women.

 

[Layman]

Sure the O.F. is constantly changing. Let’s list a few novelties/abuses/contradictions, some which have come in only in the past 20 years:

---

It’s a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on Calvary and mirrors the blood sacrifices of the Israelites in the Holy of Holies to propritiate the Lord God.

vs

The priest now stands with his back to the tabernacle, performing for the public, centre stage.​

---

The Host is the Body of Christ the King and was treated with utmost reverence, to the extent of avoiding lay hands touching it at all

vs

Now anyone can hold it. Gives the idea it’s just bread.​

---

The sanctuary being the place where Heaven and Earth meet, is sacred ground. Only the priest and vested laymen were allowed in there during Mass. I think even the latter were blessed before Mass, in the old days.

vs

Women, with heads uncovered, can read the epistle. Female EMHCs can troop up to ‘stand by’ before Communion. Young girls in mini skirts can enter there. Lay people can orate at funerals. You can get your picture taken in it after a wedding. Young girls in street clothing can act as altar servers.​

---

The host was previously consecrated very carefully by the priest, taking care with his fingers and the vessels. He distributed it with an altar boy or deacon holding a paten underneath it to catch any crumbs.

vs

Now Mrs. EMHC can hand it over with no such ceremony. She can stand side-by-side with the priest, equal in apparent dignity, and dole it out into the laity’s hands. Like bread.​

---

The text of the E.F. is beautiful, didactic, and being said in Latin, musical and sonorous. Use of it throughout the Latin Rite countries helped unify the Church.

vs

The modern babel that occurs in any parish with a multicultural population. You think Latin is off-putting? Try going to a Spanish or Tamil Mass. You won’t have a clue. Plus the changes to the text. It’s like the Church invented ‘dumbing down’ forty years before it caught on in the wider society.​

It’s all in the symbolism. What is being said here?

**1) We, the laity are important. We are more prominent.

1. The Host is less important than it was. It must be, if we can handle it thusly. Or we have become more holy, to allow us to handle it. Or those old guys were wrong in the past, how they did it. We’re smarter.
2. We have no fear of the Lord’s wrath, to behave so casually in His temple, where previously we kneeled in relative silence, before the Mystery that was being enacted.**

The thing about the O.F. is that it has given the idea to an army of amateur liturgists that the Mass is something you can play around with. This can, and does, allow it to descend into absurdity. This causes people to seek spiritual nourishment elsewhere, or, sadly, stop going to Mass; if the main participants are getting more casual about it, if it’s more and more about them and what they think is ‘nice’ or ‘lovely’, why should a sober man sitting at the back take it seriously?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sure the O.F. is constantly changing. Let’s list a few novelties/abuses/contradictions, some which have come in only in the past 20 years:

---

It’s a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on Calvary and mirrors the blood sacrifices of the Israelites in the Holy of Holies to propritiate the Lord God.

vs

The priest now stands with his back to the tabernacle, performing for the public, centre stage.​

---

The Host is the Body of Christ the King and was treated with utmost reverence, to the extent of avoiding lay hands touching it at all

vs

Now anyone can hold it. Gives the idea it’s just bread.​

---

The sanctuary being the place where Heaven and Earth meet, is sacred ground. Only the priest and vested laymen were allowed in there during Mass. I think even the latter were blessed before Mass, in the old days.

vs

Women, with heads uncovered, can read the epistle. Female EMHCs can troop up to ‘stand by’ before Communion. Young girls in mini skirts can enter there. Lay people can orate at funerals. You can get your picture taken in it after a wedding. Young girls in street clothing can act as altar servers.​

---

The host was previously consecrated very carefully by the priest, taking care with his fingers and the vessels. He distributed it with an altar boy or deacon holding a paten underneath it to catch any crumbs.

vs

Now Mrs. EMHC can hand it over with no such ceremony. She can stand side-by-side with the priest, equal in apparent dignity, and dole it out into the laity’s hands. Like bread.​

---

The text of the E.F. is beautiful, didactic, and being said in Latin, musical and sonorous. Use of it throughout the Latin Rite countries helped unify the Church.

vs

The modern babel that occurs in any parish with a multicultural population. You think Latin is off-putting? Try going to a Spanish or Tamil Mass. You won’t have a clue. Plus the changes to the text. It’s like the Church invented ‘dumbing down’ forty years before it caught on in the wider society.​

It’s all in the symbolism. What is being said here?

**1) We, the laity are important. We are more prominent.

1. The Host is less important than it was. It must be, if we can handle it thusly. Or we have become more holy, to allow us to handle it. Or those old guys were wrong in the past, how they did it. We’re smarter.
2. We have no fear of the Lord’s wrath, to behave so casually in His temple, where previously we kneeled in relative silence, before the Mystery that was being enacted.**

The thing about the O.F. is that it has given the idea to an army of amateur liturgists that the Mass is something you can play around with. This can, and does, allow it to descend into absurdity. This causes people to seek spiritual nourishment elsewhere, or, sadly, stop going to Mass; if the main participants are getting more casual about it, if it’s more and more about them and what they think is ‘nice’ or ‘lovely’, why should a sober man sitting at the back take it seriously?

i so agree with you. i see priests joking before begin the first prayer of the Mass. he has to get people laughing first. a distraction from God.

just this sundown Mass on saturday i saw the music director walking into the Church wearing shorts and t shirt with a cup of coffee or milk shake in her hand and drinking it, i am not sure what, to play the piano and sing. her songs are just like radio music. but why a priest would say anything about it if he himself behaves just like. today, everything goes. just love ane another and everything is ok, sometimes i think that people misuse the word love to do what ever they like and must be accepted. if we dotn accept the wrong, it is not loving the other. what happened to the teachings of the Church? i wonder what St Peter is saying about the Church today.

 

[ncjohn]

Sure the O.F. is constantly changing. Let’s list a few novelties/abuses/contradictions, some which have come in only in the past 20 years:

---

It’s a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on Calvary and mirrors the blood sacrifices of the Israelites in the Holy of Holies to propritiate the Lord God.

vs

The priest now stands with his back to the tabernacle, performing for the public, centre stage. As compared to priest faces the tabernacle, performing for the public, center stage. Yeah, you’re right, all those priests who celebrate OF Masses made the sacrifices and answered the calling to become priests so they could be the center of attention! What arrogance to be projecting your perceptions on to the motivations of priests who have given their lives to God!​

---

The Host is the Body of Christ the King and was treated with utmost reverence, to the extent of avoiding lay hands touching it at all

vs

Now anyone can hold it. Gives the idea it’s just bread. Maybe in your opinion. Didn’t seem to bother the Church for centuries, and centuries of saints received that way without thinking it was “just bread”. If it makes it seem just bread to you to receive that way, then don’t, but can we please get off the whole idea of discerning other’s thoughts until your Ph.d in omniscience comes through?—

---

The sanctuary being the place where Heaven and Earth meet, is sacred ground. Only the priest and vested laymen were allowed in there during Mass. I think even the latter were blessed before Mass, in the old days.

vs

Women, with heads uncovered, can read the epistle. Female EMHCs can troop up to ‘stand by’ before Communion. Young girls in mini skirts can enter there. Lay people can orate at funerals. You can get your picture taken in it after a wedding. Young girls in street clothing can act as altar servers.​

---

The host was previously consecrated very carefully by the priest, taking care with his fingers and the vessels. He distributed it with an altar boy or deacon holding a paten underneath it to catch any crumbs.

vs

Now Mrs. EMHC can hand it over with no such ceremony. She can stand side-by-side with the priest, equal in apparent dignity, and dole it out into the laity’s hands. Like bread.​

---

The text of the E.F. is beautiful, didactic, and being said in Latin, musical and sonorous. Use of it throughout the Latin Rite countries helped unify the Church.

vs

The modern babel that occurs in any parish with a multicultural population. You think Latin is off-putting? Try going to a Spanish or Tamil Mass. You won’t have a clue. Plus the changes to the text. It’s like the Church invented ‘dumbing down’ forty years before it caught on in the wider society.​

It’s all in the symbolism. What is being said here?

**1) We, the laity are important. We are more prominent.

1. The Host is less important than it was. It must be, if we can handle it thusly. Or we have become more holy, to allow us to handle it. Or those old guys were wrong in the past, how they did it. We’re smarter.
2. We have no fear of the Lord’s wrath, to behave so casually in His temple, where previously we kneeled in relative silence, before the Mystery that was being enacted.**

The thing about the O.F. is that it has given the idea to an army of amateur liturgists that the Mass is something you can play around with. This can, and does, allow it to descend into absurdity. This causes people to seek spiritual nourishment elsewhere, or, sadly, stop going to Mass; if the main participants are getting more casual about it, if it’s more and more about them and what they think is ‘nice’ or ‘lovely’, why should a sober man sitting at the back take it seriously?

Wow, when someone is that convinced that their judgmental personal opionions reflect some kind of objective truth, and that their preference for something of the last few hundred years trumps the overall of Church history, it’s really hard to carry on any kind of disccusion.

I really just gave up answering point by point after the first couple items. It really had just become a matter of repeatedly stating the things that personally grate on your sensibilities that don’t aggravate the Church, and then making disparaging remarks about them and implying evil intents to the overwhelming rest of the Church that isn’t all offended by the things that so concern you.

The gospels are full of comments from Jesus regarding those of his own time who got so caught up in the externals and disparaging those who in their eyes just didn’t measure up. It is amazing that 2000 years later so little has changed. Even St. Paul dealt with this on far too many occasions, castigating both the Corinthians and the Phillipians for such things and for putting stumbling blocks of “works of the law” in people’s way.

I don’t know how we get past this “sniping of superiority” that is going on but the Church is being ever further torn asunder by it. Wakeup call: it ain’t Latin that unifies the Church. It is our love of God and willingness to sacrifice our personal desires to follow the will of God that unifies or separates us. It is THAT that separates father from son and mother from daughter. And it is when we do things to disturb the peace rather than to promote it that we are doing to him what we do to the least of our brothers.

“They’ll know we are Christians by the way we love one another.” How do we get back to that? I continue to weep and pray at the constant acrimony.

May God help us all!

 

[bpbasilphx]

All you are giving, Layman, are your own personal opinions and perceptions of the OF.

I don’t think that those who frequent it would agree with you.

In any case, that’s off the subject of this thread, which is about the MISUSE of the term “liturgical abuse.”

 

[otjm]

i so agree with you. i see priests joking before begin the first prayer of the Mass. he has to get people laughing first. a distraction from God.

Wow. I assume you asked the pastor why he did that and he told you he was trying to distract people from God. I suppose the same should have been applied to my pastor pre-Vatican 2 when - EVEN WORSE!!! - he did it during the sermon!!

just this sundown Mass on saturday i saw the music director walking into the Church wearing shorts and t shirt with a cup of coffee or milk shake in her hand and drinking it, i am not sure what, to play the piano and sing. her songs are just like radio music. but why a priest would say anything about it if he himself behaves just like. today, everything goes. just love ane another and everything is ok, sometimes i think that people misuse the word love to do what ever they like and must be accepted. if we dotn accept the wrong, it is not loving the other. what happened to the teachings of the Church? i wonder what St Peter is saying about the Church today.

I have no doubt that people are too often casual and lack reverence. But your presumption seems to be that it is due to the form of the Mass - the OF as opposed to the EF.

However, there is a lack of critical thinking resulting in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallicy. It is so well documented as to not be arguable that catechesis went into the toilet 35 to 40 years ago. Your presumption is that what you see today - a small group well versed in things theological and often seeking the reverence they see lacking elsewhere going to the EF and being very reverent - that it is due to the form of the Mass. What you are missing is that it - the lack of reverence - is due to lack of catechesis; trying to ascribe it to the form of the Mass leaves you with no explanation of why people at the OF can be just as reverent. There are just shy of 19,000 parishes in the US. Your experience is minimal, yet you feel compelled, it would seem, to ascribe what you see in a small sampling to the whole. Reverence is an attitude; so is lack of reverence. You confuse substance with form; give everyone the EF only and you would still have the same reverence or lack thereof which subsides in general in each parish.

The form of the Mass does not make one reverent; there were plenty enough or irreverent people pre Vatican 2; but social customs of society in general made them less blatant. Society in general has become much more casual in attitudes over the last few decades. Couple that with lack of catechesis and you get what you have observed.

 

[Layman]

This, I think, sums it up pretty well for me. It’s a side by side listing, without comment, of the old traditional Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form. vs the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form.

Have a read of it.

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Having read it, I have to wonder what the authors of the new rite were thinking. I fail to see how it’s an improvement. It looks more like a ‘Mass Lite’; an odd attempt to trim it down, or something.

Still, I suppose if such radical changes can be made, there’s no impediment towards more changes, back in keeping with tradition. And I would say the effects of modernisation, changing the Mass to suit the times, as a method of proselytising, are now known. So it has had that good effect. I doubt Bishops or priests these days, and in the future, will be as keen on modifying the rite, to suit current, passing, tastes.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wow. I assume you asked the pastor why he did that and he told you he was trying to distract people from God. I suppose the same should have been applied to my pastor pre-Vatican 2 when - EVEN WORSE!!! - he did it during the sermon!!

I have no doubt that people are too often casual and lack reverence. But your presumption seems to be that it is due to the form of the Mass - the OF as opposed to the EF.

However, there is a lack of critical thinking resulting in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallicy. It is so well documented as to not be arguable that catechesis went into the toilet 35 to 40 years ago. Your presumption is that what you see today - a small group well versed in things theological and often seeking the reverence they see lacking elsewhere going to the EF and being very reverent - that it is due to the form of the Mass. What you are missing is that it - the lack of reverence - is due to lack of catechesis; trying to ascribe it to the form of the Mass leaves you with no explanation of why people at the OF can be just as reverent. There are just shy of 19,000 parishes in the US. Your experience is minimal, yet you feel compelled, it would seem, to ascribe what you see in a small sampling to the whole. Reverence is an attitude; so is lack of reverence. You confuse substance with form; give everyone the EF only and you would still have the same reverence or lack thereof which subsides in general in each parish.

The form of the Mass does not make one reverent; there were plenty enough or irreverent people pre Vatican 2; but social customs of society in general made them less blatant. Society in general has become much more casual in attitudes over the last few decades. Couple that with lack of catechesis and you get what you have observed.

i dont know why you are angry about this. have we also become bad listeners? what i am saying is that i see not just one or two parishes with these problems, it is all of them in my area. the diocese where the bishop is, during easter before the new people came into the Church, i saw catechesis teacher dancing with the music they played. i heard priest on another parish saying that we dont sin anymore like the people in the past. and when i went to confession, the priest told me he cannot forgive sins. he was dressed in jeans and tshirt. i have seen catechesis teachers telling the kids that they would not want to be left behind. i have many other stories. my point is, the people are irreverent because the leaders have become irreverent and the people are just following. i see a lot of pride in the leaders of the Church today that i did not see in the past. i am not blaming the NO, but it all came in a package.

blessings.

 

[wisdomseeker]

plus there is a purpose for the Church. it is to guide the people and not the other way around which is what is happening today. the gate was opened and the wolves got in and caused great disruption. confusion is all there is left. we will stand behind the bishops and priests when the message is right. i heard priest saying that the Church belongs to the people. i say the Church belongs to Christ the founder of the Church to teach and guide the people. the Church seems to have lost its purpose.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This, I think, sums it up pretty well for me. It’s a side by side listing, without comment, of the old traditional Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form. vs the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form.

Have a read of it.

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Having read it, I have to wonder what the authors of the new rite were thinking. I fail to see how it’s an improvement. It looks more like a ‘Mass Lite’; an odd attempt to trim it down, or something.

Still, I suppose if such radical changes can be made, there’s no impediment towards more changes, back in keeping with tradition. And I would say the effects of modernisation, changing the Mass to suit the times, as a method of proselytising, are now known. So it has had that good effect. I doubt Bishops or priests these days, and in the future, will be as keen on modifying the rite, to suit current, passing, tastes.

lately i hardly hear the word priest. it is mostly called pastors now.

 

[otjm]

This, I think, sums it up pretty well for me. It’s a side by side listing, without comment, of the old traditional Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form. vs the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form.

Have a read of it.

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

Having read it, I have to wonder what the authors of the new rite were thinking. I fail to see how it’s an improvement. It looks more like a ‘Mass Lite’; an odd attempt to trim it down, or something.

Still, I suppose if such radical changes can be made, there’s no impediment towards more changes, back in keeping with tradition. And I would say the effects of modernisation, changing the Mass to suit the times, as a method of proselytising, are now known. So it has had that good effect. I doubt Bishops or priests these days, and in the future, will be as keen on modifying the rite, to suit current, passing, tastes.

You fail to see any improvement because you have a bias. If nothing else, the increase of readings of Scripture is an improvement. Having read the MP widening the use of the EF, and the Pope’s letter, it is clear that he sees both sides eventually making some changes (which seems to horrify some who see the EF as immutable). Time will resolve that, and it won’t be in the next year or two. It may well not be in this Pope’s lifetime, but he certainly seems to see a blending of the two until there is one form.

 

[Layman]

Errrr… if you modify the old rite, won’t it, in effect, become a Novus Ordo?

Innovation and change are touted as good things in themselves, in the secular world e.g. “New, improved Daz whiteness” or even “Change, we can believe in!”. I understand change was farily gradual in the Latin rite up until the 20th century(?) “If it works, don’t mess with it” is a formula in engineering that could apply to religious rites. Our religion should be a beacon of stability is a chaotic world, in my opinion.

Here’s a question: just how has the O.F. added to the reverence and beauty of the Latin Rite? How have the changes encouraged piety and sanctity in the laity? Are there any saints intimately associated with the O.F.?

But, hey, now, at least, we can see what modernism does. The most progressive priest can have at it, if his Bishop is obliging. If you’re a trendy young priest, keen to reach The Young People, you can say a Teen Mass with guitar accompaniment, even a bit of dancing, and see what happens, long term.

At the very least, given the fact of ageing clergy, parish mergers, widespread decadence and insane levels of entitlement (pride) in western society, a smart Bishop would be wise to encourage the TLM, just to cover all eventualities. Snap up those priestly fraternities like they were gold nuggets and ease the manpower shortage! Maybe even publicly (and privately) state that he supports the TLM and is happy if his seminarians make it their Mass of choice.

If the TLM were promoted by your diocese with the same level of enthusiasm as, say these LifeTeen masses I hear about, it would be interesting, if only from a religio-sociological point of view.

However, If you’re just going to have one TLM in the entire diocese on a Wednesday evening once a month, well …

…

…

… It’s a start [heh, heh].

.

 

[otjm]

Errrr… if you modify the old rite, won’t it, in effect, become a Novus Ordo?

I am not going to argue semantics. What we have as the EF today is a Mass that has been changed since Trent. How much and how often are things we could all argue about. I am more than willing to agree with those who say that the change from the EF was far too abrupt, and not necessarily what was contemplated by the bishops at V2. No matter what happens to the EF, there will be someone who will argue that it is too much, or too soon, or unnecessary. That comes from human nature, but not necessarily from good liturgical reasoning. Depending on how much the EF might be changed, it might still be noted as the EF. It could be called the Mass of 1962, modified, or dated as of the modification (as was 1962).

Innovation and change are touted as good things in themselves, in the secular world e.g. “New, improved Daz whiteness” or even “Change, we can believe in!”. I understand change was farily gradual in the Latin rite up until the 20th century(?) “If it works, don’t mess with it” is a formula in engineering that could apply to religious rites. Our religion should be a beacon of stability is a chaotic world, in my opinion. See my notes above.
Layman;5426866:

Here’s a question: just how has the O.F. added to the reverence and beauty of the Latin Rite? How have the changes encouraged piety and sanctity in the laity? Are there any saints intimately associated with the O.F.?

Some people find beauty in complexity; some find it in simplicity. I will not argue about the translation we have in the OF; we can all agree that some of it is simply dumbed down. and I will not be drawn into the God-imminent vs. God-transcendent discussion as I simply do not agree that we have “lost” the transcendence or the issue of sacrifice. They are not as strong as in the EF, but onj the other hand, the EF paid lip-service to the fact that the Mass is both sacrifice and sacred meal. Some say that is all we have; that too is redicuulous. As to the balance needed, I will leave that to the liturgists. As far as I am concerned, if you want God-transcendent and mystery, you are better off in the Eastern rites.

Encouraging piety and reverence? I fail to see that additional scripture readings fail in that department. But I certianly experience these in attending Mass, for example, at the Trappist abbey nearby.

Some of what is blamed on the OF is not due to the OF, but rather to general changes in society (we are a whole lot less formal than we were in the 1950’s), and poor catechesis over the last 40 years (and that is improving). Saints? I don’t keep track of who has been canonized, but JP2 is in process. and he was an integral part of not only Vatican 2, but the implementation of the documents both before and after he was made Pope.

But, hey, now, at least, we can see what modernism does. The most progressive priest can have at it, if his Bishop is obliging. If you’re a trendy young priest, keen to reach The Young People, you can say a Teen Mass with guitar accompaniment, even a bit of dancing, and see what happens, long term.

Trendy young priests? They don’t faccry the baggage of the odler ones, and are much more likely to be the ones who say Mass reverently - at least, here in the states.

[At the very least, given the fact of ageing clergy, parish mergers, widespread decadence and insane levels of entitlement (pride) in western society, a smart Bishop would be wise to encourage the TLM, just to cover all eventualities. Snap up those priestly fraternities like they were gold nuggets and ease the manpower shortage! Maybe even publicly *(and privately)

state that he supports the TLM and is happy if his seminarians make it their Mass of choice.

If the TLM were promoted by your diocese with the same level of enthusiasm as, say these LifeTeen masses I hear about, it would be interesting, if only from a religio-sociological point of view.

Yes, it would be interesting. I won’t hold my breath.

[However, If you’re just going to have one TLM in the entire diocese on a Wednesday evening once a month, well …

…

…

… It’s a start [heh, heh].

.

In some areas, I have no doubt that it is being actively discouraged. I have yet to see where it has been actively encouraged that there has been much change; there just is not a lot of infromation out there, and what information there is often needs to be looked at critically. My recollection is that the whole issue was to be reviewed in three years after B 16 issued the change. I guess we will all wait and see. I have not heared much out of Rome; the onlly comment I came across was some rather harsh words for some of the people who wanted the TLM and had appealed to Rome, coming from the Cardinal who was head of the dicastery.

Other than that, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of news.

 

[Layman]

Well, the Church deals in decades and centuries, and Christ has eternity as his work bench.

I think Pope Benedict is making some interesting moves, and I hope he has a long tenure and that any wolves opposed to him shall starve to exhaustion in the wilderness.

 

[malphono]

At the very least, given the fact of ageing clergy, parish mergers, widespread decadence and insane levels of entitlement (pride) in western society, a smart Bishop would be wise to encourage the TLM, just to cover all eventualities. Snap up those priestly fraternities like they were gold nuggets and ease the manpower shortage! Maybe even publicly (and privately) state that he supports the TLM and is happy if his seminarians make it their Mass of choice.

Great idea, but considering that current bishops are products of the post-conciliar age, and that most became bishops during the previous pontificate, it’s not likely. Still, though, to be fair, there are a few bright spots among them (and that even despite those “handicaps” as it were). Some have openly encouraged ad orientem celebration, even in the OF. Yes, I know, there are those people who might consider that a small step, but it is a step (and by my reckoning, not at all small).

However, If you’re just going to have one TLM in the entire diocese on a Wednesday evening once a month, well …

The downside is far too many bishops remain what I call “obstructionist” in dealing with Summorum Pontificum. Oh, they (usually, at least) accept the letter of the law, but they do anything but accept its spirit, nor do they encourage the EF.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i believe a new Missal is coming soon, still this year for the Bishops approval. let’s see what happens. am right?

 

[Layman]

As I understand it, the Missal is being changed to bring it in line with the old rite and the language used in the Latin Vulgate, which is the the authoritative Latin translation of the Bible.

catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml

I hope they’re going to address the ‘pro multis’ (‘for the many’) controversy. Saying “for all men”, instead, is too glaringly different from what’s in the Bible.

I’ve heard American bishops are obstructing this missal at the moment, but that the Bishop in charge has given them a deadline or they will be left out of the approval process.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=348551

 

[bpbasilphx]

As I understand it, the Missal is being changed to bring it in line with the old rite and the language used in the Latin Vulgate, which is the the authoritative Latin translation of the Bible.

catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml

I hope they’re going to address the ‘pro multis’ (‘for the many’) controversy. Saying “for all men”, instead, is too glaringly different from what’s in the Bible.

I’ve heard American bishops are obstructing this missal at the moment, but that the Bishop in charge has given them a deadline or they will be left out of the approval process.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=348551

1. Which Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate or Nova Biblia Vulgata? There are no major changes from the Pauline rite in the present Missale (2002).
2. That’s already taken care of. Please see the USCCB’s site and click on “white book” for the already approved text of the Ordinary. Keep in mind that the new translation of the Missal will not be introduced piecemeal, but all at once when it is entirely finished.
3. You’ve heard wrong. One bishop in particular has questioned the use of certain phraseology, claiming that John and Mary Catholic in the pew wouldn’t understand it, but I think that J&M Catholic have more sense than he credits them.

Anyway, there are always things about the Liturgy you might not get the first or second or third time–as well as new flashes of insight that come after years.

 

[malphono]

As I understand it, the Missal is being changed to bring it in line with the old rite and the language used in the Latin Vulgate, which is the the authoritative Latin translation of the Bible.

What it is amounts to a revised English text, this time more of translation of the Latin editio typica. But not of the “old rite” which I take to be the EF. This concerns strictly, 100%, the OF.

I hope they’re going to address the ‘pro multis’ (‘for the many’) controversy. Saying “for all men”, instead, is too glaringly different from what’s in the Bible.

Yes, that is one of the things to be done away with.

I’ve heard American bishops are obstructing this missal at the moment, but that the Bishop in charge has given them a deadline or they will be left out of the approval process.

Probably better to say that Rome has imposed the so called deadline.

 

[otjm]

i believe a new Missal is coming soon, still this year for the Bishops approval. let’s see what happens. am right?

They have been working on a better translation; how extensive it is I don’t know, but it is designed to clean up at least some of the more egregious parts. Whether or not it will be called a new missal, I also don’t know, but as far as I have heard it only applies to the translations, not the rubrics.