Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because there was a choice:

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
Pope Benedict XVI

What unfortunately the Pope does not address - because he can’t ? - is the *actual *status of that very Missal over the last 40 years.​

It is a fact - not a traditionalist fantasy - that those in authority said, time after time after time after time after time (but you get the idea ), in the USA, in the UK, in France, in other countries, that the 1962 Missal had been banned/superseded/improved upon - & that those who stood by it were schismatics, or heretics, or (at the very least) bad Catholics.

“Permission in principle” is a fat lot of good in those circumstances.

It is thoroughly immoral to try to sweep under the carpet all the wrong that traditionalists have suffered. If we are not careful, exactly the same miserable history is going to be repeated. To be followed - of course - by the same lack of apologies to those who have been victimised & deceived in the meantime.

 

[AlexV]

Anyone who wants to know what happened between c. 1965 and 1975 would do well to read Annibale Bugnini’s book on the liturgy. No single man was more at the center of what happened in those ten tumultuous years. His book is at least honest, that much can be said. It’s a harrowing tale.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am glad you shared your story.

It is sad you that opted to walk away at that point.

OK, let’s back up a bit. In the course of a little over two years, I had the rug yanked out underneath me. I hereby state without question that in 1968, I was perfectly comfortable with the TLM. I was not the only one either in my parish or in my Catholic boy’s high school.

I sang in the choir for the seniors of 1968’s graduation. It was Latin.

Have you ever heard “Sons of God”? “Bridge over Troubled Waters”? Sounds of Silence"? “They’ll Know We are Christians”? Sung at my graduation in 1969 - no choir just a few of my classmates with guitars…sound familiar?

The change was just that sudden. We put a lot of emphasis on the youth of today. We were not consulted then.

 

[LarryRay]

“Traditional” has been the new form of Cafeteria Catholic for quite a while now.

Wrong. The “cafeteria Catholic” rejects fundamental parts of the Catholic faith that he or she finds distasteful. The traditional Catholic only rejects what wasn’t Catholic in the first place.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Wrong. The “cafeteria Catholic” rejects fundamental parts of the Catholic faith that he or she finds distasteful. The traditional Catholic only rejects what wasn’t Catholic in the first place.

AT the core - a Cafeteria Catholic picks and choses what to believe in.

That could be which mass is valid or that it is ok to practice ABC.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The change was just that sudden. We put a lot of emphasis on the youth of today. We were not consulted then.

***I was not consulted either.

WE should not have been.

It was the Church’s choice - including how to roll out the NO’s changes.***

 

[LarryRay]

AT the core - a Cafeteria Catholic picks and choses what to believe in.

That could be which mass is valid or that it is ok to practice ABC.

The vast majority of traditional Catholics don’t dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo. They feel that the new Mass can be problematic or less-than-fully-Catholic or irreverent or, in the words of one famous Catholic, a “banal, on the spot fabrication,” but they don’t claim that it’s invalid.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t feed the trolls.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I was not consulted either.

WE should not have been.

It was the Church’s choice - including how to roll out the NO’s changes.

And have I not been anything but an obediant son of HMC after all these years? I make no bones about it…some of my classmates all those years ago did embrace the change. But, hello?!! I submit to you that it would have been inconceivable for any of us to protest the change to the NO back in 1968.

But here you are, today, with the Motu Proprio , and are questioning. Is the pot or the kettle black?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

And have I not been anything but an obediant son of HMC after all these years? I make no bones about it…some of my classmates all those years ago did embrace the change. But, hello?!! I submit to you that it would have been inconceivable for any of us to protest the change to the NO back in 1968.

But here you are, today, with the Motu Proprio , and are questioning. Is the pot or the kettle black?

I question the view I have seen voiced that the MP means the end of the NO, that is an affirmation that the NO was a mistake, that there are tons of people looking to go to it, I question the ‘gimme’ view some have voiced. I question that it should have been something to petition for and walk away from the church for.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The vast majority of traditional Catholics don’t dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo. They feel that the new Mass can be problematic or less-than-fully-Catholic or irreverent or, in the words of one famous Catholic, a “banal, on the spot fabrication,” but they don’t claim that it’s invalid.

I have seen far too many posts from traditional Catholics that absolutely dispute the validity of the NO.

Maybe those who don’t see it as invalid don’t post about it.

 

[AlexV]

“Far too many” posts? Show them. Or be exposed as a liar.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I question the view I have seen voiced that the MP means the end of the NO, that is an affirmation that the NO was a mistake, that there are tons of people looking to go to it, I question the ‘gimme’ view some have voiced. I question that it should have been something to petition for and walk away from the church for.

I have never said anywhere on these forums that the MP means the end of the NO, nor have have I ever said on these forums that the MP meant that the NO was a mistake. At the very deepest level, we are Catholics. We have a heritage - which got thrown out in 1969 to make things more “relevant”. You will excuse me if I don’t think that holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster in case you’ve forgotten) and lifting them up at the added “For the Kingdom, etc” is either traditional or Catholic. Nor do you understand me and my complete disgust with the music I was forced to sing because it was more “relevant”.

Bridge over Troubled Waters and Sounds of Silence are not appropriate Offertory or Communion hymns. And, it has gone rapidly downhill since 1969.

Sorry, I grew up in a very Catholic New Orleans where we Catholics were in the majority and Corpus Christi processions were all over the city. All of that got abandoned so that we might be “relevant” to protestants - like my father. How odd it is that for the last two years Corpus Christi processions have been restored in the Archdiocese of New Orleans.

We don’t need to return to the TLM as the Mass. We do need to remember that we are Catholics and that we have a HERITAGE.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I have never said anywhere on these forums that the MP means the end of the NO, nor have have I ever said on these forums that the MP meant that the NO was a mistake. At the very deepest level, we are Catholics. We have a heritage - which got thrown out in 1969 to make things more “relevant”. You will excuse me if I don’t think that holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster in case you’ve forgotten) and lifting them up at the added “For the Kingdom, etc” is either traditional or Catholic. Nor do you understand me and my complete disgust with the music I was forced to sing because it was more “relevant”.

I never said you personally - that does not mean plenty of others haven’t.

I also never said the TLM was banned nor have I ever used any other word meaning the same thing as banned (unlike what has been claimed).

We have LOTS of heritage - and it is NOT just the TLM (or statues or whatever you want to insert that one thinks has been totally messed up since Vat II). The church changed around us - just like it changed around the folks at other times in history when changes were made.

 

[AlexV]

The Churched changed on 7 July, 2007.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The church changed around us - just like it changed around the folks at other times in history when changes were made.

As in Trent in oposition to the protestant reformation? Or do you mean after the Synod of Whitby which affected the Celtic Church?

I lived through the change. I was a teenager in high school and and altar boy. You will pardon me in that I do have the background in history and anthropology and I can tell you that the most drastic, wrenching change in all of HMC’s history came in 1969. There is no way around that. Accept it for what is was. We had our roots yanked out from beneath us and presented on a platter.

 

[LarryRay]

The church changed around us - just like it changed around the folks at other times in history when changes were made.

Wrong. The post-Vatican II changes were NOT like what had happened before at other times in history.

Allow me to cite one Joseph Ratzinger (in Milestones: Memoirs: 1927-1977):

The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is much different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth.

 

[TMGallyon85]

When we all watch The Midnight mass with the Pope, That is the Novus ordo. It is also the proper way it is celebrated and i am sure we can all agree we enjoy it. What most of us experience in the ordinary form today is not what the council visioned. It was no the Mass of abuses or the mass of shake hands. It was meant to retain alot of the heritage that we once retained. Somehow we had the “spirit of vatican II” invade the air and we wind up with the Mass we have today. This is one of the reasons the motu proprio expanded the use of the TLM. It was meant to infleunce the Novus ordo and restore some of the sacredness envisioned by the council. When you watch EWTN or a Papal mass with Pope benedict, you experience what the Novus ordo is supposed to be like. Hopefully we can make some peace in this thread. It would actually be a perfect time for us to sing kumbayah and hold hands

 

[JW10631]

For the record, there have been several different liturgies used through the centuries in the Latin Church, such as the Ambrosian Rite, one for Milan, Italy, one for the archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, as well as the Sarum Rite in England.

Therefore, it is fine and well to have different liturgies, such as the Mass of Paul VI and the Mass of Blessed John XXIII as we have now - as well as the Anglican Use parishes that have the 16th century Latin Mass translated into English.

Fr. John Trugilio hosted a show on EWTN a few years ago explaining the documents of Vatican II. Latin was to be given “pride of place” and Gregorian Chant the same.

We saw how that turned out.

I have no problem with a reverently celebrated Novus Ordo Mass, even if it is entirely in English, although the translation of *et cum spiritu tuo *annoys the living daylights out of me. I always say “and with your spirit”. The problem is that in the aftermath of Vatican II, beautiful churches were “wreckovated”, priests, nuns and brothers left the religious life, vocations went lacking, ugly churches were built, bad music was introduced into the Mass, the tabernacle was shoved off into a corner and sound catechesis virtually disappeared. In addition, the ICEL did a very bad job of translating the Missal of Pope Paul VI into English.

Pope Benedict saw what happened firsthand as Cardinal Ratzinger while heading the CDF. Cardinal Ratzinger saw and heard what disobedient bishops did and said under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict knows what needs to be done and he is doing it. Pope Benedict started slowly but he is making changes at a much more rapid pace now.

The Missal of Blessed John XXIII has much in common with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Holy Quorbono of the Maronite Church.
The laity does not set foot on the altar during the Liturgy. It is a sacred space for the priest and acolytes alone. The Byzantine Churches have iconostases, which separate the altar from the laity, just as the communion rail separated the altar from the laity in the TLM. The Body and Blood of Our Lord is handled only by the priest in all of these liturgies, further exemplifying the sacredness of the event.

The changes permitted in the Mass of Paul VI have obliterated the sense of the holy. A member of the laity reads the Scripture. A member of the laity reads the prayer intentions. Members of the laity distribute Holy Communion. I submit that there is no need for any of this for any reason.

Summorum Pontificum has many purposes. It is intended to allow for expanded use of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. It is intended to create a greater appreciation for the use of Latin - Latin prayers and hymns especially - in our Latin Church. It is intended to have a gravitational effect on the Mass of Paul VI so that the abuses can be weeded out.

Change always upsets someone. Summorum Pontificum has upset many. Pope Benedict knew it would, but it had to be done. Vatican II was not a complete and total break with what had preceded it, even though many bishops, priest and nuns believe it to be so and the proceeded to tell everyone it was.

Do relatively few Catholics prefer the TLM?

Do relatively few Catholics belong to the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church/Maronite Catholic Church/Syro-Malabar Catholic Church?

What significance do the numbers have?
**NONE!

The Catholic Church is unity of belief in diversity of liturgies, traditions and customs.
**

 

[TMGallyon85]

Well said JW.