My Statement

[latinmasslover]

See my feeling is latinmasslover is asking to put me on the spot - not to get any clarification on something said.

In another thread I pointed out a error - possible heresy - and another poster wanted me to affirm my belief in Church doctrine.
The request came out of context of anything said - the person just wanted to test/embarass/whatever.

IF/WHEN I post something contrary to the Faith, HMC etc THEN such questions are appropriate.

I said some of you posts have suggested that maybe you’re not in line with Church doctrine.

You continuously avoiding to answer a simple question proves what I suspected.

What is there to be embarrassed about if you truly accept every doctrine? How are you being put on the spot, how are you being trapped? This is called paranoia. If you accept all the teachings, the answer is “yes, I accept all the teachings of the Church, whole and entire.” If the answer is no, I totally understand why you don’t answer. This isn’t as difficult as you’re making it out to be.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I said some of you posts have suggested that maybe you’re not in line with Church doctrine.

You continuously avoiding to answer a simple question proves what I suspected.

What is there to be embarrassed about if you truly accept every doctrine? How are you being put on the spot, how are you being trapped? This is called paranoia. If you accept all the teachings, the answer is “yes, I accept all the teachings of the Church, whole and entire.” If the answer is no, I totally understand why you don’t answer. This isn’t as difficult as you’re making it out to be.

If I have said nothing contrary it calls YOUR actions into question.

YOU should be embarrassed for being so paranoid you need to pressure folks for no good reason. It is that paranoia that makes you see things that are not ‘suggested’.

I won’t play that game - so get used to it. I won’t foster your paranoia.

 

[latinmasslover]

If I have said nothing contrary it calls YOUR actions into question.

YOU should be embarrassed for being so paranoid you need to pressure folks for no good reason. It is that paranoia that makes you see things that are not ‘suggested’.

I won’t play that game - so get used to it. I won’t foster your paranoia.

How redundant. Paranoia has nothing to do with my posts, the issue was really simple until you flipped out turning my words, once again, into something they’re not to support your bias.

Well, I couldn’t care less at this point. Your skirting of the question is answer enough.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

How redundant. Paranoia has nothing to do with my posts, the issue was really simple until you flipped out turning my words, once again, into something they’re not to support your bias.

Well, I couldn’t care less at this point. Your skirting of the question is answer enough.

If you were not paranoid you would not be overly interpreting my posts to come up with something other than what is plainly said.

I am not ‘skirting the issue’ as it is not a valid issue (since I have never said anything contrary to doctrine). I am trying hard to not tell you what you can do.

 

[palmas85]

Seperating the reforms from the abuse of the reforms, there is no demonstrable proof that the reforms have been destructive to the Church.

Well Kirk something sure has been. If not the reforms, then what was the cause?

 

[latinmasslover]

If you were not paranoid you would not be overly interpreting my posts to come up with something other than what is plainly said.

I am not ‘skirting the issue’ as it is not a valid issue (since I have never said anything contrary to doctrine). I am trying hard to not tell you what you can do.

At this point there’s nothing left to do but nod and smile.

nodding and smiling

 

[Derbingo]

This is part of an ongoing problem, and is especially visible on a public board such as this.
While there are those who do hold with VatII being wrong, the majority of people have accepted, at least in principle, VatII.
Some of the confusion now has come from the issuance of the Motu Proprio on the use of the TLM. One of the main reasons for the issuance of the document was to try and make it clear from Rome that the TLM is NOT in invalid mass. A lot of this has to do with the ongoing discussions between Rome and the SSPX.
The Holy Father wants it to be clearly understood that, where a population exists that wants the TLM, the bishop needs to make every reasonable effort to accomodate them. If they don’t it simply risks driving them into an SSPX or sedavacanist church.
The MP on the TLM has the added advantage of giving those persons who prefer the TLM, but stayed with the church through the changes to the NO, the option to attend a TLM (now called the Extrordinary Form - (EF)) that is in perfect communion with Rome.

Despite all the arguing back and forth, there is only one thing that will ultimately resolve these things, and that is time.

Peace
James

Time. You are right. All this will pass. The lovers of TLM don’t seem to have the clergy on their side. The priests who came out of the 50’s and 60’s. They are retiring now or, soon, and yet, this board is a desert - without priests supporting the TLM. Large Archdioceses - like Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S. - have at most 5 TLM masses per week, and there are 5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese.

There are 100, 200 priests, maybe more who were trained in the TLM, and yet, there are 5 Masses per week in Los Angeles. If it were so wonderful as a liturgy, you’d think there would be an on-rush, even for sentimental reasons. But no. They have the freedom to offer the TLM ad libitum, even on a daily basis where they may not celebrate before a large crowd - yet they don’t

Can you explain why the clergy is turned off by the TLM? Why? The language. There is no purpose to celebrating in a foreign tongue which they have to struggle to understand. I don’t know if you have tried to grasp St. Paul in latin? English is tough enough. Or, the reading of the Collect. Tough to translate that prayer exactly.

Time is not on the side of the TLM. More and more priests will die who have been trained in it. It is what happened to the Mass in the 16th century in England, and eventually memories of it died. So too here. It will be stranger and stranger for the younger clergy.

Amen, amen.

 

[Derbingo]

How redundant. Paranoia has nothing to do with my posts, the issue was really simple until you flipped out turning my words, once again, into something they’re not to support your bias.

Well, I couldn’t care less at this point. Your skirting of the question is answer enough.

Picking on people on this thread too, and you have the nerve to accuse me of such?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Picking on people on this thread too, and you have the nerve to accuse me of such?

 

[ProVobis]

“A fascinating diatribe. Can you provide a Church-recognized definition of “liberal”, so that I may better understand your posts?”

Maybe we can start by identifying all those that stated that the Latin Mass was abrogated in the last 40 years? Or shall we just call them “misinformed”?

 

[JRKH]

Time. You are right. All this will pass. **The lovers of TLM don’t seem to have the clergy on their side. **The priests who came out of the 50’s and 60’s. They are retiring now or, soon, and yet, this board is a desert - without priests supporting the TLM. Large Archdioceses - like Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S. - have at most 5 TLM masses per week, and there are 5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese.

And yet the FSSP seminaries are full. Not of old priests “from the 50’s and 60’s” but of young men who wish to celebrate the TLM.

I cannot say why any Diocese has a specific number of EF masses. It could be due to anything from lack of interest on the part of the faithful to a profoundly negative attitude on the part of the bishop.
I would ask you this. When you say that L.A. has only five TLM masses, are you including any SSPX chapels/churches? I only ask this because, if one is considering the amount of interest in an area one should include those who have gone outside of the church to find it.

There are 100, 200 priests, maybe more who were trained in the TLM, and yet, there are 5 Masses per week in Los Angeles. If it were so wonderful as a liturgy, you’d think there would be an on-rush, even for sentimental reasons. But no. They have the freedom to offer the TLM ad libitum, even on a daily basis where they may not celebrate before a large crowd - yet they don’t

I do not know that the priests trained in the TLM are not celebrating it. You have not posted any source for you claim either so I really cannot address this. I can say that when I attend the TLM here in Cincinnati, I see persons of every age. I see families with small children. I see teens and young adults coming alone or in groups.
You seem to have the sense that the TLM is some kind of nostalgia thing, and for some it may be, but there is much more to it than that.
The MP-SP on the TLM has been out less than a year.
Time still remains the biggest factor.

Can you explain why the clergy is turned off by the TLM? Why? The language. There is no purpose to celebrating in a foreign tongue which they have to struggle to understand. I don’t know if you have tried to grasp St. Paul in latin? English is tough enough. Or, the reading of the Collect. Tough to translate that prayer exactly.

You’ve asked me the question and then gone on to answer it - But wrongly I think.
Latin is no harder a language to learn than any other. Yes I know something about it because I learned the latin necessary to serve mass when I was in School. If a priest chooses not to learn the Latin so that he can celebrate a valid liturgy he is, in my opinion, lazy. If he has not been taught latin in seminary then the seminary has failed him because latin is the official language of the church.
As to reading and understanding St Paul in Latin, the MP made provision for doing the readings in the vernacular if the priest so chooses. Our priest chooses to read them in Latin at the altar and again in English before the Sermon.

Time is not on the side of the TLM. More and more priests will die who have been trained in it. It is what happened to the Mass in the 16th century in England, and eventually memories of it died. So too here. It will be stranger and stranger for the younger clergy.

Amen, amen.

The TLM will die only when the interest of the faithful dies and I don’t think that will happen. You use 16th century England as an example but omit the fact that that church was in schism and being catholic was punishable by death. Saying a valid latin mass in England was impossible except in the deep underground.
Finally, if the memories of the Latin mass Died in England, How come there are Latin masses said there today?

You may be right.
The EF may someday become extinct. But not in the foreseeable future.
The reasons are simple.
There are “Stable Communities” that request it.

The majority of Catholics will, no doubt, continue to attend the OF for one simple reason. It’s easier. However there will always be those who seek out a fuller, richer, more unworldly celebration that they can only find in the EF.
Unless and until the OF can recreate that sense of awe that is inspired by the EF, the EF will always be in demand.

Peace
James

 

[latinmasslover]

Time. You are right. All this will pass. The lovers of TLM don’t seem to have the clergy on their side. The priests who came out of the 50’s and 60’s. They are retiring now or, soon, and yet, this board is a desert - without priests supporting the TLM. Large Archdioceses - like Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S. - have at most 5 TLM masses per week, and there are 5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese.

There are 100, 200 priests, maybe more who were trained in the TLM, and yet, there are 5 Masses per week in Los Angeles. If it were so wonderful as a liturgy, you’d think there would be an on-rush, even for sentimental reasons. But no. They have the freedom to offer the TLM ad libitum, even on a daily basis where they may not celebrate before a large crowd - yet they don’t

Can you explain why the clergy is turned off by the TLM? Why? The language. There is no purpose to celebrating in a foreign tongue which they have to struggle to understand. I don’t know if you have tried to grasp St. Paul in latin? English is tough enough. Or, the reading of the Collect. Tough to translate that prayer exactly.

Time is not on the side of the TLM. More and more priests will die who have been trained in it. It is what happened to the Mass in the 16th century in England, and eventually memories of it died. So too here. It will be stranger and stranger for the younger clergy.

Amen, amen.

Don’t forget that in the early Church, the majority of bishops accepted the Arian heresy.

The TLM is not that difficult for those who pay attention.

 

[latinmasslover]

Picking on people on this thread too, and you have the nerve to accuse me of such?

Don’t accuse me of something you know nothing about. Trace the posts back to my original question, then comment.

 

[latinmasslover]

Picking on people on this thread too, and you have the nerve to accuse me of such?

Trace the posts to my original question. I’m not picking on anyone…I asked a question, which this particular person refused to answer while accusing me of lying. I simply pointed out the obvious. If you consider that and disagreeing to be “picking on” someone, I can make a suggestion to help solve the problem, otherwise I’ll leave it at this.

 

[latinmasslover]

And yet the FSSP seminaries are full. Not of old priests “from the 50’s and 60’s” but of young men who wish to celebrate the TLM.

I cannot say why any Diocese has a specific number of EF masses. It could be due to anything from lack of interest on the part of the faithful to a profoundly negative attitude on the part of the bishop.
I would ask you this. When you say that L.A. has only five TLM masses, are you including any SSPX chapels/churches? I only ask this because, if one is considering the amount of interest in an area one should include those who have gone outside of the church to find it.

I do not know that the priests trained in the TLM are not celebrating it. You have not posted any source for you claim either so I really cannot address this. I can say that when I attend the TLM here in Cincinnati, I see persons of every age. I see families with small children. I see teens and young adults coming alone or in groups.
You seem to have the sense that the TLM is some kind of nostalgia thing, and for some it may be, but there is much more to it than that.
The MP-SP on the TLM has been out less than a year.
Time still remains the biggest factor.

You’ve asked me the question and then gone on to answer it - But wrongly I think.
Latin is no harder a language to learn than any other. Yes I know something about it because I learned the latin necessary to serve mass when I was in School. If a priest chooses not to learn the Latin so that he can celebrate a valid liturgy he is, in my opinion, lazy. If he has not been taught latin in seminary then the seminary has failed him because latin is the official language of the church.
As to reading and understanding St Paul in Latin, the MP made provision for doing the readings in the vernacular if the priest so chooses. Our priest chooses to read them in Latin at the altar and again in English before the Sermon.

The TLM will die only when the interest of the faithful dies and I don’t think that will happen. You use 16th century England as an example but omit the fact that that church was in schism and being catholic was punishable by death. Saying a valid latin mass in England was impossible except in the deep underground.
Finally, if the memories of the Latin mass Died in England, How come there are Latin masses said there today?

You may be right.
The EF may someday become extinct. But not in the foreseeable future.
The reasons are simple.
There are “Stable Communities” that request it.

The majority of Catholics will, no doubt, continue to attend the OF for one simple reason. It’s easier. However there will always be those who seek out a fuller, richer, more unworldly celebration that they can only find in the EF.
Unless and until the OF can recreate that sense of awe that is inspired by the EF, the EF will always be in demand.

Peace
James

Nicely put.

 

[peregrinator_it]

"JKirkLVNV:

Seperating the reforms from the abuse of the reforms, there is no demonstrable proof that the reforms have been destructive to the Church.

We believe what we pray, and when the Mass is diluted, so is the Faith, as we’ve seen throughout the years.

I’m going to ignore all the other sniping on this thread and try and underscore JKirk’s position (which I happen to agree with strongly) and which is denied implicitly in brotherhrolf’s original posts. I’m using latinmasslover’s quote above as it’s a good jumping off point.

Now, since you all are sharing anectdotal evidence, here’s another piece for your picture:

I’m a member of Generation X. I grew up surrounded by the toxic secular culture of the 1980s SF Bay Area. Literally none of my extended family is Catholic (both my parents are converts.) I attended public schools (off & on) and a very CINO college, and had a more than ordinary share of personal trials as a child/teenager (which I’m not going to discuss on public forum, so you’ll have to take my word for it.)

Although I was born into a Catholic household and baptized as an infant, I should not be Catholic. Deprived of the “superior” TLM and pre-Vatican II Catholic culture, and exposed to more than the usual worldly temptations & pressures, I should have (if some on this thread are to be believed) fallen away. A “diluted” Mass surely could not keep a person in the Church.

And yet, I’m very aware that what kept me in the Church was my parish, and its liturgy, which literally fed me. If you had asked me this at age 12, I would have given you the same answer I am giving now.

Thanks to my parish, I can not only translate the last three words of brotherhrolf’s orginal post, [btw that should be *unam sanctam ecclesiam] I can tell you in which prayer of the Mass those words are found. I’m blessed that, through attending the “Novus Ordo,” I can chant the Mass (and for me antiphonal chant is a treasure, a most effective form of prayer.)

But I run into difficulties because there just aren’t words that do justice to the profound affect the “Novus Ordo” had on me. Nothing I can say expresses it properly; my efforts above seem paltry, ineffective, and I realize that many of the “Traditionalists” on this thread will simply disbelieve me. I can only add that though my parents and fellow parishoners did their best to catechize me, I was an average kid. I listened with half an ear, at best, to what they said, and misunderstood a fair portion of what I heard. But the liturgy was so obviously a source of truth and beauty to me (even as a child) that I would have pointed to it as evidence of the goodness of the Church and reason for faithfulness.

I have experienced the reforms without the abuse of the reforms and not alone, the vast majority of my peers from my parish are still faithful Catholics (those who could afford to (cost of living in the Bay Area is just obscene) have stayed in the parish and I now see them at church with their children.)

While I do not call myself a Traditionalist, I am an heir to and lover of the liturgical and cultural patrimony of the Church just as much as those who love the EF, as also are those who attend the Ordinary Form but frequent this forum. I am frustrated by, saddened by, and irritated with the baseless implication that only Traditionalists care for the traditions (small “t”) of the Church, and that all other Catholics cannot have a share in them.

And I’m further irritated by the awareness that the sound of internet crickets chirping is all the response this post is likely to get.

 

[JRKH]

I’m going to ignore all the other sniping on this thread and try and underscore JKirk’s position (which I happen to agree with strongly) and which is denied implicitly in brotherhrolf’s original posts. I’m using latinmasslover’s quote above as it’s a good jumping off point.

Now, since you all are sharing anectdotal evidence, here’s another piece for your picture:

I’m a member of Generation X. I grew up surrounded by the toxic secular culture of the 1980s SF Bay Area. Literally none of my extended family is Catholic (both my parents are converts.) I attended public schools (off & on) and a very CINO college, and had a more than ordinary share of personal trials as a child/teenager (which I’m not going to discuss on public forum, so you’ll have to take my word for it.)

Although I was born into a Catholic household and baptized as an infant, I should not be Catholic. Deprived of the “superior” TLM and pre-Vatican II Catholic culture, and exposed to more than the usual worldly temptations & pressures, I should have (if some on this thread are to be believed) fallen away. A “diluted” Mass surely could not keep a person in the Church.

And yet, I’m very aware that what kept me in the Church was my parish, and its liturgy, which literally fed me. If you had asked me this at age 12, I would have given you the same answer I am giving now.

Thanks to my parish, I can not only translate the last three words of brotherhrolf’s orginal post, [btw that should be *unam sanctam ecclesiam

] I can tell you in which prayer of the Mass those words are found. I’m blessed that, through attending the “Novus Ordo,” I can chant the Mass (and for me antiphonal chant is a treasure, a most effective form of prayer.)

But I run into difficulties because there just aren’t words that do justice to the profound affect the “Novus Ordo” had on me. Nothing I can say expresses it properly; my efforts above seem paltry, ineffective, and I realize that many of the “Traditionalists” on this thread will simply disbelieve me. I can only add that though my parents and fellow parishoners did their best to catechize me, I was an average kid. I listened with half an ear, at best, to what they said, and misunderstood a fair portion of what I heard. But the liturgy was so obviously a source of truth and beauty to me (even as a child) that I would have pointed to it as evidence of the goodness of the Church and reason for faithfulness.

I have experienced the reforms without the abuse of the reforms and not alone, the vast majority of my peers from my parish are still faithful Catholics (those who could afford to (cost of living in the Bay Area is just obscene) have stayed in the parish and I now see them at church with their children.)

While I do not call myself a Traditionalist, I am an heir to and lover of the liturgical and cultural patrimony of the Church just as much as those who love the EF, as also are those who attend the Ordinary Form but frequent this forum. I am frustrated by, saddened by, and irritated with the baseless implication that only Traditionalists care for the traditions (small “t”) of the Church, and that all other Catholics cannot have a share in them.

And I’m further irritated by the awareness that the sound of internet crickets chirping is all the response this post is likely to get.

Well you won’t get any “chirping” from me my friend. One of my goals is to try to be a voice of reason and compromise between the “factions” so often seen here.
I am quite impressed by your post, and in fact, I believe it brings out some wonderful points. The main one being that the N.O. is a perfectly wonderful rite in and of itself when it is properly and reverently celebrated.
Perhaps, if the N.O. had not been so “experimented with” but rather had been carried forward with the sense of reverence that so many find in the EF, we wouldn’t have the issues we have today.
Unfortunately that has not been the case. Too many mistakes were made early on, and too much “experimentation” has become engrained in too many places.
There does appear to be a swinging of the pendulum back toward the reverent - the Holy - The type of celebration you describe at your church. There will be resistance to this as well but hopefully, through prayer and the guidance of the HS, we will all join together and seek an inclusive solution.

Peace
James

 

[Indyann]

I’m not a cricket (actually, I detest them), but I agree with what you have said.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The main one being that the N.O. is a perfectly wonderful rite in and of itself when it is properly and reverently celebrated.

Perhaps, if the N.O. had not been so “experimented with” but rather had been carried forward with the sense of reverence that so many find in the EF, we wouldn’t have the issues we have today.

Unfortunately that has not been the case. Too many mistakes were made early on, and too much “experimentation” has become engrained in too many places.

Indeed. I am happy for all who experience this. In the last thirty years, I have resided in three different parishes. Only one of the three had (and has today) a reverent OF. As I have said before, they are the reasons why I have driven 25 miles to attend my reverent OF cathedral parish for the last 25 years.

 

[lak611]

As to reading and understanding St Paul in Latin, the MP made provision for doing the readings in the vernacular if the priest so chooses. Our priest chooses to read them in Latin at the altar and again in English before the Sermon.

That is actually nothing new. My parents and older people I know have said that the priest always read the epistle and gospel in English at the pulpit before giving his sermon. That was also done when I attended the TLM when it was by indult before the MP.