Priest response to TLM leaves me stunned

[StTommyMore]

I think the “attitude” numbers are overwhelmingly stacked on the OF side of the fence. Those that prefer the Mass that was never abrogated have lived under an unjust stigma since the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. And as far as “fine, just don’t …” is proof it continues today.

Funny to read that ending to a post that defends hostility toward the EF by a Roman Catholic priest.

Do you honestly think what you read here is reason to justify any hostility or fear of the Highest Prayer of Holy Mother Church ? Cardinal Hoyos said the Pope would be pleased to see the EF offered in every parish. Publicly. He hasn’t recanted it, so surely H.H. is ok with the statement. Let’s look here as well. If the opinions of forum posters are a measuring stick …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454571&page=33

Nearly 6 weeks running. A very simple question. Yes/No/Not Sure. It stayed around the 75% mark from day one. 198 of 265 who voted said yes to the question.

But that thread was closed. One only needs to read the very first reply to a simple question to guess why. Which side of the fence got it closed ? Which one introduced division immediately ?

Stigma. One simply can’t expect trads to shut up as long as it continues.

I call baloney. I have never heard, not even one time, the claim that the TLM is invhoalid or illicit, or that it is “not genuinely Catholic.” I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard those same charges leveled at the OF by traditionalists. There is no “stigma” attached to the EF, none whatsoever. There is downright hostility on the part of Traditionalists towards the Novus Ordo. Time to face the facts. You are just upset because the majority of Catholics do not have the same preference (and that is all it is, a subjective preference) as you.

 

[ProVobis]

I call baloney. I have never heard, not even one time, the claim that the TLM is invhoalid or illicit, or that it is “not genuinely Catholic.” I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard those same charges leveled at the OF by traditionalists.

The comparison is nowhere close. The TLM was banned by practically every bishop, its advocates treated like dirt, Latin was mocked, old customs (veils, COTT, kneeling, etc) are still being scoffed at, and many still haven’t heard of the 2007 SP. It would take a major paradigm shift to arrive at a world where the TLM attains an equal status among Church priests and members.

 

[StTommyMore]

The comparison is nowhere close. The TLM was banned by practically every bishop, its advocates treated like dirt, Latin was mocked, old customs (veils, COTT, kneeling, etc) are still being scoffed at, and many still haven’t heard of the 2007 SP. It would take a major paradigm shift to arrive at a world where the TLM attains an equal status among Church priests and members.

The TLM has equal status. NOW. The incessant whining is getting old. :crying:

 

[ProVobis]

The TLM has equal status. NOW. The incessant whining is getting old. :crying:

Me whining? What do you call this?

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard those same charges leveled at the OF by traditionalists.

There is downright hostility on the part of Traditionalists towards the Novus Ordo.

 

[Sirach2]

At Trent:

Cardinal Hoyos said the Pope would be pleased to see the EF offered in every parish.

As Jo Benedict has mentioned in the second “sticky” here, it is the “educated opinion of the author” … only. Both Card. Hoyos and Msgr. Perl are repeatedly quoted as if their words are binding.

Please note that these documents do not represent binding magisterial teaching but the educated opinions of the author.

 

[StTommyMore]

Me whining? What do you call this?

Statement of facts, my friend. Truth is the animosity towards the TLM is a fabrication.

 

[benedictgal]

Statement of facts, my friend. Truth is the animosity towards the TLM is a fabrication.

That is a blanket statement that does not necessarily ring true. I have personaly experienced the OP’s frustration with the same priest in question on not a few occasions in liturgical matters. It is interesting that the ambivelence and the animosity seem to come from the older generation and not necessarily from the younger ones. It’s not a myth, it’s a reality.

 

[StTommyMore]

That is a blanket statement that does not necessarily ring true. I have personaly experienced the OP’s frustration with the same priest in question on not a few occasions in liturgical matters. It is interesting that the ambivelence and the animosity seem to come from the older generation and not necessarily from the younger ones. It’s not a myth, it’s a reality.

I haven’t seen it. I have seen claims (frequently) that the OF is not truly Catholic. This cannot be denied.

 

[benedictgal]

I haven’t seen it. I have seen claims (frequently) that the OF is not truly Catholic. This cannot be denied.

Just because you have not seen something nor heard something about it, that does not mean that the thing does not exist. It is a reality, a very concrete reality, whether or not you choose to deny its existence.

 

[StTommyMore]

Just because you have not seen something nor heard something about it, that does not mean that the thing does not exist. It is a reality, a very concrete reality, whether or not you choose to deny its existence.

I will make you a deal. I will concede that there is a real resistance to the TLM if you concede that there is an active campaign on the part of Traditionalists to discredit the OF as “not genuinely Catholic”

 

[ProVobis]

I have seen claims (frequently) that the OF is not truly Catholic.

In person or only in cyberspace? If you have personally heard or seen this frequently, then we have more “evil” traditionalists out there than I thought and I’ll take back my claims of no equal status.

 

[Ockham]

I will make you a deal. I will concede that there is a real resistance to the TLM if you concede that there is an active campaign on the part of Traditionalists to discredit the OF as “not genuinely Catholic”

Your logic is seriously flawed.

Not all Traditional Catholics are campaigning to discredit the OF.

There is most certainly Catholics opposed to the EF.

One statement does not need to be true to prove the other.

 

[benedictgal]

I will make you a deal. I will concede that there is a real resistance to the TLM if you concede that there is an active campaign on the part of Traditionalists to discredit the OF as “not genuinely Catholic”

Again, you are trying to paint these things with a wide brush storke and it does not work. Generalizations are never good. With all due respect, you are still failing to see the reality of the situation.

 

[StTommyMore]

Again, you are trying to paint these things with a wide brush storke and it does not work. Generalizations are never good. With all due respect, you are still failing to see the reality of the situation.

So the you deny that there is not an effort to discredit the OF? Talk about failing to see the reality…

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The level of charity is dropping quickly.

Let me give you folks a word of advice. You’re going to keep pushing each other’s buttons to the point that the thread is going to be closed and the subject can even be frozen for a while until cooler days prevail.

Whether you believe that the EF was in bondage or the OF is being attacked by the other side has nothing to do with the OP, it only creates arguments and debates. For the sake of keeping the thread open and having a civil exchange, keep these comments to yourself.

Also, your clergy and bishops are not under discussion here, nor may you make them the topic of discussion, unless you’re going to say something appropriate about them. If it’s not nice, keep it to yourself.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[malphono]

Your quote from the canons is what I was referring to when I said that Pope John Paul II had changed the rules about Latin. Since 1983, the rule is that you must be able to do more than read it. You must be proficient in Latin. Those who are not proficient in it are going to shy away from the Latin mass in either form. Let’s remember that the OF is also celebrated in Latin, not just the EF.

With due respect, isn’t this making a mountain of the proverbial mole-hill? And in the process, it seems to me you’ve contradicted yourself. Canon 249 is pretty clear: it is directed at formation and it says nothing about LSL (“Latin as a Second Language”).

Because of the length and detail of the post, I can’t go item-by-item, but will have to settle for a few selections. In any case, it goes on to say:

Having tuaght in the seminary and in religious theologates, I can tell you that unless you’re getting an advanced degree in theology, you’re not going to be exposed to enough Latin to claim proficiency. You have to study it on your own or take courses outside of school. There is no time in the curriculum for Latin.

which amounts to a direct violation of canon 249 which is, again, directed to formation. (As an aside, apparently there’s little time in the curriculum for the study of liturgy either, but always plenty for liturgics (another whole ball of wax which usually involves what I’ll call “inventive” liturgy), social work, and other such things. )

To conclude, I understand why the average deacon and priest shy away from the mass in Latin, in either form. They don’t feel comfortable with the language requirement.

In former (i.e. pre-conciliar) times, the language requirement was much stronger, yet we all know that the vast majority of priests were not “fluent” in Latin. But they did know enough to understand the Missal, Office, and the rubrics. These days, I would posit that the “average priest” shies away from offering Mass in Latin (in either form) for other reasons. I won’t address deacons here, since the number of deacons actually involved with Mass in Latin (in either form) is far more limited.

Even at the Vatican you need Italian, not Latin, to work there.

That really depends on the particular position involved.

When you enter a conference room with the Holy Father, he speaks in Italian, no longer in Latin.

Not much difference if one doesn’t speak Italian. I can manage some, but I doubt I’d be comfortable having a conversation with PP Benedict XVI in Italian.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

So the you deny that there is not an effort to discredit the OF? Talk about failing to see the reality…

So the you deny that there is not an effort to discredit the OF? Talk about failing to see the reality…

I often have a discussion on some point or other of the Catholic faith. If one sticks to Church teachings it’s pretty hard to lose. Often the person arguing against Church teachings will offer up some desperate example of where Church teaching is unfair or oppressive. They will conjure up circumstances designed to win the day or make Church teaching look unfeeling, ridiculous or even callous. For example, a pro-choice person might invent a situation where a partially blind woman was gang raped by a group of men one of which was her brother and a pregnancy resulted. She cannot work, she lives on welfare, she is traumatized, has no family support and is now having mental issues. Certainly the charitable thing to do is get her an abortion. Bringing a child into such circumstances is cruel to say nothing of the burden it places upon the woman. Anyone who opposes this view is labled as a religious zealots or worse. But what does the Church say about abortion? It is an intrinsic evil…period. The Church forbids the killing of a child to bring about some other perceived good.

What’s my point. We seem to be the same thing in the discussion of the TLM verses the NO mass. Both masses are licit. Anyone saying anything to the contrary is in serious error.

However, the Church has spoken on this matter. Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum settled this matter:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

I think we can all agree that a priest can say, without anyone’s approval, the TLM under the circumstances outlined above.

But SP went on to broaden what any priest can do.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Hopefully we can agree that the priest can say the TLM mass and if others would like to attend it is perfectly licit.

These are the salient points. All the circumstantial stuff is just that, circumstantial and stuff that does not abrogate these articles in any way.

So a pastor can elect to have one TLM mass a week-end or a during the month or during the week etc. and he does not need the approval of his ordinary.

That is the core teaching and all of the circumstances et. al. serve only to confuse the issue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Hesychios]

He also brushed it off by saying that he needed the mandate of a bishop (I thought we didn’t need that anymore according to Pope Benedict XVI?) and killed it just like that.

Perhaps this has already been addressed ( I haven’t read all four pages yet) but it appears to me that the priest does not wish to, and he is telling you that he would have to be assigned to celebrate it by his bishop, in which case he would do his job as assigned.

So probably the place to go is to the chancery and seek this.

That is not the same as a priest who wants to, such a priest would not need permission (although I would suppose he ought to receive some instruction to assure he does it correctly). If the priest does want to, and is not the pastor, he would have to work with the pastor on the schedule for a publicly celebrated liturgy (presumably for his private Mass he wouldn’t need to do this).

I agree with some others though, that the bishop is still the man most responsible for how a parish building is used in his diocese. The Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, but he is simply not there. The day to day operations are still going to be controlled by the local ordinary and if one does not like how he is doing things, the complaint can go to Rome and the correction can come from there.

Still, as I see it the Pope will probably not force a priest to say the EF over the wishes of the priest, nor assign the priest (which he would leave to the local ordinary), he is protecting the right of the priest to say the EF if he should want to.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I think the “attitude” numbers are overwhelmingly stacked on the OF side of the fence. Those that prefer the Mass that was never abrogated have lived under an unjust stigma since the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. And as far as “fine, just don’t …” is proof it continues today.

Funny to read that ending to a post that defends hostility toward the EF by a Roman Catholic priest.

Do you honestly think what you read here is reason to justify any hostility or fear of the Highest Prayer of Holy Mother Church ? Cardinal Hoyos said the Pope would be pleased to see the EF offered in every parish. Publicly. He hasn’t recanted it, so surely H.H. is ok with the statement. Let’s look here as well. If the opinions of forum posters are a measuring stick …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454571&page=33

Nearly 6 weeks running. A very simple question. Yes/No/Not Sure. It stayed around the 75% mark from day one. 198 of 265 who voted said yes to the question.

But that thread was closed. One only needs to read the very first reply to a simple question to guess why. Which side of the fence got it closed ? Which one introduced division immediately ?
Stigma. One simply can’t expect trads to shut up as long as it continues.

At Trent,
As the poster who wrote the first reply to your post, I can say in all honesty, that it is this type of attitude that keeps me away from more “traditional circles”, much to my own dismay.

I want to know how, when I was speaking from my own experience, in my own community, you can blame me for having an over 30 page thread closed?

You asked a question, and asked for comments regarding the answers, which is exactly what I did, ***in light of my own experiences! ***

I have copied my reply in that thread below. Please point out where I introduced division, all I did was call out the “division” I have experienced being a post-VII Catholic from some of my more “traditional” brethren.

***I have a EF Mass available in my diocese every Sunday, in a parish that is about 3 miles from my home. Most of the time it is a “low Mass”, but usually once a month there is a “high Mass”.

I have never been, even though I would like to.,
so I did not vote in your poll, as you do not have an answer that would suit my needs.

What is keeping me from going?

Attitudes of many (NOT ALL!!!) of the “traditional set” in my community.
Every thing from the “OF is an abomination” to “I lack spirituality and am not “Catholic” enough.”

We also have a couple of very traditional OF parishes in my area, where I have been told to “Get out of my pew”, “You don’t belong to this parish, why are you here?” and a few things that I will not comment on.

I am not saying that this happens everywhere or even all the time, but it has made me shy away from more “traditionally minded people”, as I find many of them to be hypocritical and very un-Christian.

The Pope has said, time and time again that the OF is the “norm” and that the EF, can and should be celebrated but not instead of the OF.
Now, all I know is the OF (we both celebrated our 40th this year), and in many cases have been told that “I don’t know what being Catholic is all about”, because of it.

Sorry, with that kind of attitude, I will stay with my OF parish, abuses and all, and hope that my prayerful and respectful presence there can help to be an example to others. ***

 

[At_Trent]

I call baloney. I have never heard, not even one time, the claim that the TLM is invhoalid or illicit, or that it is “not genuinely Catholic.” I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard those same charges leveled at the OF by traditionalists. There is no “stigma” attached to the EF, none whatsoever. There is downright hostility on the part of Traditionalists towards the Novus Ordo. Time to face the facts. You are just upset because the majority of Catholics do not have the same preference (and that is all it is, a subjective preference) as you.

How about a Cardinal’s words St Tommy ?

“The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council. But there is no participation by the people, and I don’t believe that instills the spirit of Christ among us.”
ncregister.com/blog/cardinal_mahony_vs._latin_mass

Guess there is a first time for everything huh ? You are making this one easy, baloney rhymes with Mahony, especially when you spell it wrong as you did

EDIT : lol, there isn’t a word of truth in that statement by the Cardinal.