Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[fatima1917]

Satire has a long and venerable history in the Catholic Church.

I had a bishop once tell me that he wouldn’t allow a 1962 Mass because “Vatican II outlawed Latin”.

Those were his exact words.

How anyone could be consecrated to the episcopate and seriously believe that is indeed cause for wondering if we need a book like the one for which UniversalIndult offered a satirical cover.

I had a bishop (later head of NCCB) say to me and my wife, “God is in the floor also,” after we complained about spillage of the precious blood onto the floor in the church during Novus Ordo masses in the parish we attended. This is a direct loss in the belief in the true presence which is directly attbutable to the Novus Ordo whose focus is on community and down plays the true presence. My wife and I told a priest about this incident and he was flabergasted. At first he couldn’t believe it but then he said he would never allow for the distribution of the precious blood in his parish and he stuck to that promise until he retired.

 

[universalindult]

I had a bishop (later head of NCCB) say to me and my wife, “God is in the floor also,” after we complained about spillage of the precious blood onto the floor in the church during Novus Ordo masses in the parish we attended. This is a direct loss in the belief in the true presence which is directly attbutable to the Novus Ordo whose focus is on community and down plays the true presence.

A dear friend, a retired priest, once overheard a debate between his bishop and several fellow priests about mass stipends. The bishop wanted to eliminate mass stipends entirely.

His reason?

“Masses don’t do any good for the dead anyway.”

 

[brotherhrolf]

I’m sorry. I just don’t know when the term Novus Ordo became a demeaning term. That is what it was called in 1970. When did it become demeaning? Seeing as I was 19 at the time and still have my mental faculties, I can’t recall any time in the last 35+ years where I have not thought of it as the NO - plainly and simply.

 

[palmas85]

I’m sorry. I just don’t know when the term Novus Ordo became a demeaning term. That is what it was called in 1970. When did it become demeaning? Seeing as I was 19 at the time and still have my mental faculties, I can’t recall any time in the last 35+ years where I have not thought of it as the NO - plainly and simply.

Its only demeaning to those who want it to be. Not a few people, on both sides of the issue, want to perpetuate the argument over the different type of Masses. Those who hate the Traditional form of the Mass will use every criticism of the Pauline Rite, real as well as perceived, to bolster their position. Ditto for the hard core Traditionalists who hate the Pauline Rite.

To me the two groups are exactly the same.

While I prefer the Traditional form, I don’t and have never doubted the validity of the Pauline. I deplore the abuses that seem endemic with it and I positively hate the general feeling that anything is all right as long as it purports to further the worship of God.

 

[AlexV]

"It does in this case. The primacy of the Pauline Mass within the Latin Rite has been set by the Church. It is the ORDINARY rite of the Mass.

Before your carp about words like “primary” and “normative”, perhaps you should stop applying the demeaning label “Novus Ordo” to the Mass of Pope Paul IV? The Church never labeled the Pauline Mass as such, yet it’s used by many in the most debasing of manners."

First of all, there is no “Mass of Paul VI”. The term NOVUS ORDO MISSAE was stamped in gold on the red cover of the Ordinary of Mass as published in 1969, second edition 1970. I have both editions. We didn’t make this up to denigrate the liturgy. It is WHAT ROME CALLED IT.

As for “primacy” of a liturgical form, there is also NO SUCH THING. Show a juridical document that says the Missal of 2002 (which I doubt your parish is even using) is the “primary” form of the liturgy.

In other words, your post is founded in ignorance and inaccuracy that seeks ultimately to downplay and denigrate the extraordinary form of the Rite, making it out, in the end, to be some sort of SECONDARY concession we allow for who knows what reason.

 

[lukewarm]

Everyone in my family who remembers the pre-Vatican II Mass claims it was terribly borring and no one even paid attention, old ladies did their rosary or read from cards while everyone else tried to figure out what was going on. Not one of them prefers the TLM over the Novus Ordo Mass. Take it for what it’s worth, granted my family isn’t the most devout, but I tend to agree with the Pastor who said relatively few prefer the TLM. A vast majority of dedicated Catholics may prefer it, but the vast majority of Catholics are not dedicated Catholics.

 

[stmaria]

It may be getting a little older than you think.
Does “Just 1 hr a wk” remind you of “thecoach” in this thread? Or in this thread?

James

I think “Just 1 hr a wk” goes to Church just one hour a week. The rest of the time he lurks on the Traditional Forums. And yes I think he is “thecoach”

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

It’s possible to be devastatingly insulting under a false veneer of charity and politeness.

Next provocateur comment?

I will wait till you stop with bearing false witness against me before I ask you anything.

 

[AlexV]

Well get ready for a long wait, since your accusation is inaccurate and, alas, typical of your provocateur method of discourse.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Everyone in my family who remembers the pre-Vatican II Mass claims it was terribly borring and no one even paid attention, old ladies did their rosary or read from cards while everyone else tried to figure out what was going on. Not one of them prefers the TLM over the Novus Ordo Mass. Take it for what it’s worth, granted my family isn’t the most devout, but I tend to agree with the Pastor who said relatively few prefer the TLM. A vast majority of dedicated Catholics may prefer it, but the vast majority of Catholics are not dedicated Catholics.

***These things did happen very often when I attended the TLM before Vat II.

Some of those habits still show up (though much less often) among older folks who were well in the practice when the liturgies changed.***

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I don’t see any problem with the terms Novus Ordo and TLM. Each can be meant to be pejorative or not. I think that Summorum Pontificum does make clear that NO is the Ordinary Form and that the TLM is the Extraordinary Form, so I have taken to using those terms. It will be interesting to see what terms are used in the promised “clarification” of the Summorum Pontificum. I’m guessing it will be OF and EF.

I agree that SP is a de facto change to the way the EF is handled. It may or may not have been a de jure change, but de facto is what effects real Catholic’s lives. Seems to me that when I was a kid (in the 70s) a Latin mass was available in my diocese because I remember some of my mother’s friends went to it. Not sure under what authority or whatever, or when and why it stopped, but that’s my recollection.

BTW, I am not convinced that the clarification of the SP will really change anything. I am also not really convinced that there is some mass disobedience to the SP now, although there appear to have been some instances. I’m guessing that most bishops are trying to implement it in a way that balances the needs of their parishoners with the limited pastoral resources they have.

***One thing I have noticed is that some treat the MP as making the TLM a ‘gimme’ and that no one dare deny offering it.

I have seen it suggested that priests and parishes should be forced to offer it no matter the level of interest.

I hope the new statement will deal with these items.***

 

[AlexV]

The so-called TLM was unjustly denied to countless Catholics for four decades.

It’s still being denied by clergy (and laity, in some cases) who cannot stand the idea of this liturgy being offered in their territories.

THAT’S the central issue, and always has been. For those on the front lines to try to get even one of these Masses a week (maximum), it’s been a long and frustrating fight against lies and disingenuous prevarication.

 

[fatima1917]

Everyone in my family who remembers the pre-Vatican II Mass claims it was terribly borring and no one even paid attention, old ladies did their rosary or read from cards while everyone else tried to figure out what was going on. Not one of them prefers the TLM over the Novus Ordo Mass. Take it for what it’s worth, granted my family isn’t the most devout, but I tend to agree with the Pastor who said relatively few prefer the TLM. A vast majority of dedicated Catholics may prefer it, but the vast majority of Catholics are not dedicated Catholics.

Ah yes the good old scape goat of the 1950’s and 60’s. No body understood the liturgy so let’s protestantize the mass so everybody can understand it. Save a dozen protestants and lose millions of US Catholics.

Here is a novel idea. Maybe the lax priests and nuns of the 50’s and 60’s could have gotten out of their solf digs and taught some classes on what the mass was all about so the laity could understand it.

I can assure you that every traditionally minded Catholic that went through the catacombs of 1970 to 2007 and goes to the TLM today KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry. I just don’t know when the term Novus Ordo became a demeaning term. That is what it was called in 1970.

I understand why it was called “new” 38 years ago. My only question is how long is something considered new. I know of nothing else that is called “new” for so long. I think it is important to realize that truly no insult is intended by the phrase, though. On the other hand, would minorities be offended by a term that referred to civil rights, intergration and other sixties stuff still being called “new?”

Back on the topic of the thread, I think no one doubts that a minority of Catholics prefer the TLM, at least no one has challenged that statement. If this is the case, those of us who do not attend the TLM can easily fall into the false assumption that those that do think they are the elite and better than everyone else. Goodness knows some of the statements that are made here perpetuate such a stereotype. Likewise, it is easy for those that do attempt to fall into the false impression that they are the elite and therefore persecuted. Many times the claim has been made that there are enemies of the TLM and those that hate this Mass. I asked earlier and have yet to get even one person on the board who says they hate the TLM.

 

[pnewton]

Well get ready for a long wait, since your accusation is inaccurate and, alas, typical of your provocateur method of discourse.

I have noticed that many accusations have been made against this member, if not by you. If anyone doubts, read back over the short posts. Remember that when a reasonable intellegent person read these conversations and see the level of personal attacks, not only does it speak poorly of Catholic charity, but it also reflects the the poster has little of substance left if he must resort to such tactics.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I understand why it was called “new” 38 years ago. My only question is how long is something considered new. I know of nothing else that is called “new” for so long. I think it is important to realize that truly no insult is intended by the phrase, though. On the other hand, would minorities be offended by a term that referred to civil rights, intergration and other sixties stuff still being called “new?”

Perhaps because Pope Paul VI was still alive in 1970? Perhaps because there are still a whole lot of us who are alive today who remember what it was like before 1970? I certainly don’t mean anything pejorititve by the term NO nor do I think the Mass of Pope Paul VI is correct either. That would make the TLM the Mass of Pope? Or the Mass of the Council of Trent? Or what?

 

[lukewarm]

Ah yes the good old scape goat of the 1950’s and 60’s. No body understood the liturgy so let’s protestantize the mass so everybody can understand it. Save a dozen protestants and lose millions of US Catholics.

Here is a novel idea. Maybe the lax priests and nuns of the 50’s and 60’s could have gotten out of their solf digs and taught some classes on what the mass was all about so the laity could understand it.

I can assure you that every traditionally minded Catholic that went through the catacombs of 1970 to 2007 and goes to the TLM today KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON.

Why are you so angry? All I did was relate a little anecdote, I said take it for what it’s worth…

 

[AlexV]

The poster in question is a provocateur who is here simply to carp and snipe at the so-called TLM. Nothing more.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Why are you so angry? All I did was relate a little anecdote, I said take it for what it’s worth…

You have to understand first that the change from the TLM to the NO was wrenching. We didn’t have a choice. Over the course of a little over two years, we went from the TLM to the NO. Inexorable, relentless change announced from the pulpit every few months. It is a complete fabrication and fiction that the majority of Catholics were bouncing up and down in the pews going “change, change, change”. We were completely bewildered.

We also submitted to HMC w/o question and w/o protest. I can’t say the same for those today who are getting so upset by the release of the EF. The Holy Father has spoken. Why then does my bishop merely “acknowledge” the Motu Proprio and sits on his hands? I am baffled. The transition from the TLM to the NO in 1967-68 was relentless and without question.

What double standards! It would have been inconceivable to any of us back then to protest the transition. Catholics submitted to the magisterium of HMC. You have been deceived by all of those who say stuff like “no one understood the Mass back then”; we all wanted Mass in the vernacular, etc.

Let’s put it into terms of social context as well. The late 60s was a time of social turbulence. I was a teenager. Do you honestly think that all of us were long-haired protestors? Guess again.

Years ago there was the concept of the Silent Majority. May I submit to you that those folks who were members of the Silent Majority years ago are still around?

I don’t necessarily have to have the TLM but by golly, I sure would like to see a return to the reverence that we had before 1970.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

We also submitted to HMC w/o question and w/o protest. I can’t say the same for those today who are getting so upset by the release of the EF. The Holy Father has spoken. Why then does my bishop merely “acknowledge” the Motu Proprio and sits on his hands? I am baffled. The transition from the TLM to the NO in 1967-68 was relentless and without question.

Don’t forget many WALKED AWAY from the church then too - including priests and religious.