Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[Seamus_L]

I’m always perplexed when I hear liberal bishops like Weakland, Mahony, the French bishops, etc along with liberal lay people express concerns over the possible growth of TLM. I really wonder what it is they fear, and the best I can come up with is that they’re as ashamed of the pre-1960’s church as many of us are ashamed of a large part of the post 1960’s church. We want to return to a strong vibrant, reverant church, and they feel that would be offensive to those of other religions.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Who said that it did?

Being extremely well read on a subject is not the same as living through the experience written about.

It is like people who are 20 or so and ‘into’ the TLM saying the focus on private devotions while hearing mass did not happen when the TLM was the norm.
They did not read about it, their peers probably don’t do it (as it is probably not the model handed down to them - unlike those of us who experienced things prior to Vat II) so to them it is just a story made up to put down the TLM.

 

[pieta05]

We have had a daily TLM (and several times each Sunday) in our city (pop. 150,000) since the mid-80s, and relatively few Catholics attend it.

It’s right there, easy to get to, lots of parking, safe (right across the street from the police station), and beautifully-done according to the people I know who attend it regularly.

Most of the Catholics in our city prefer the NO in their own parish.

So my conclusion is “Relatively few Catholics prefer the TLM”. Same as the title of this thread.

BTW, our diocese actually has a surplus of vocations, including many from the parishes that offer NO Masses, so I tend to doubt that there is a connection between TLM and vocations.

Yep! Same here. We even have a Latin Rite Parish and our city is over a million. Nice to have it but not that many attend given our large population. And we are ranked as #1 for vocations in a diocese of our size. Most people still seem to prefer the NO.

So claiming the priest is wrong doesn’t float IMO and experience. btw…I like the TLM and was raised in it. I do understand the Latin.

 

[pieta05]

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.

Amen! For sure.

 

[AlexV]

I did not live through the late 1960s, but I can say that someone who has read in detail…in academic sources…the history of what actually happened in the liturgical revolution of that period does indeed end up knowing more than the average person in the pew who neither cares nor is concerned about liturgy.

The great masterstroke of Bugnini et al. was they knew all too well that in large part NOTHING ever changes: the average Catholic shows up for an HOUR (nice nickname you have) on Sunday and the occasional holy day and vegetates.

Let’s ask the average person leaving Mass to summarize just one of the three Novus Ordo readings on Sunday. I’d love to see the results.

The average Catholic didn’t pay much attention to the liturgy in 1962, and doesn’t pay much attention today.

 

[TMGallyon85]

Technically, Latin rite catholics should be praying that the “reform of the reform” actually is completed and we have what the council envisioned. We have a new missal translation in the works as we speak that will be a great improvement over 1970. It will neither be 1962 or 1970 missal. Granted we will still have the missal of 1962 available, but the ordinary form of the mass will be different from what we currently experience. We shouldnt be having huge fights over this. Pray for the new missal translation so we don’t wind up with 1970 again.

 

[RevDrNorth]

A younger priest once said that when all the old hippie priests that were ordained in the '60’s and '70’s are gone, the Church will go back to Tradition. There may be some truth to that because all the Trad seminaries are full and our diocesan seminary, which is now teaching Latin and the TLM, is full. The younger generation is leaning more towards tradition.

The pendulum always swings the other way when it can go no further in the opposite direction. As time passes and the Church slowly goes back to it’s Traditions, this priest will look out of touch in his beliefs. It’s just something that requires alot of patience!

In many respects I think you are correct. The so called JP II generation of youth seem more traditional. We endured the “dumbing down” of liturgy in many denominations in response to the 60’s and 70’s generation.

Hopefully, we are in a time of renewal. God Bless B16 for his adherence to tradition and faith grounded in Christ.

 

[rien]

St. Brendan’s in San Francisco?

First of all, 22 is nothing to sneeze at when you consider that absolutely nothing has been done by the San Francisco Archdiocese to encourage or publicize the motu proprio. I know. I live there.

It’s disingenuous to ban something for 40 years, and have your local Archbishop and priests completely ignore or discourage it, and then turn around and point to a lack of interest by the lay people.

Second, we were talking previously about parishes that produce vocations. St. Brendan’s in San Francisco is the sort of parish that hasn’t produced a vocation to the priesthood in decades. The whole archdiocese ordains perhaps a couple of priests per year (and they’re typically immigrants from Vietnam or the Philippines, God bless 'em).

Yes indeed that church. As you know it is in a more “suburban” and certainly middle class conservative (by SF terms) neighborhood.

But there is no interest. In the EF or orthododxy.Not surprised no vocations.

I know a couple who struggled but pulled their kids out of the parish scholl because it is too inclusive. Waters down the uniqueness of catholicsm.

They send their kids to an evangelical Christian school now. B ecause they thought their kids might begin to question Chritianity if they continued to attend the parish school. They still attend mass on Sunday but the parents are now also attending an evangelical Bible study on Wednesdays. I would not be surprised to see them leave the church. They are simply not being fed in SF by this arch-bishop and his priests or the previous one. Now a high Vatican official. Several memebers of that parish have converted to Orthodoxy in receent years. Again, not being fed.

By SF standards this is actually a conservative “orthodox” parish. Yes, that is how bad it is here.

Sadly, if you leave an orthodox mag or article on the reading rack it gets removed or simply not picked up.

SF has said 30 minimum request for a parish to get the Extraordinary form.

In all honesty I suspect you will be lucky to get one parish in SF where 30 want that form.

From my perception the diocese is in defacto schism and was so with the previous two archbishops.

CWR has carried any number of articles on the “heresy” of this archdiocese and its bishops.

If you search you will find an article/post on the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” and the scandal that went on here months ago with the latest bishop.

It has all passed. The Vatican has done nothing and Holy Redeemer caries on the scandals.

 

[LarryRay]

SF has said 30 minimum request for a parish to get the Extraordinary form.

In all honesty I suspect you will be lucky to get one parish in SF where 30 want that form.

Hopefully the new guidelines from Ecclesia Dei will prohibit a numerical minimum (or reduce it to 1 or 2).

If not, I don’t know how hard it will be to get 30 in any given parish. We’ll see. Certainly, if TLM devotees cross parish lines and consolidate, it wouldn’t be difficult to attain the number.

 

[pnewton]

Hopefully the new guidelines from Ecclesia Dei will prohibit a numerical minimum (or reduce it to 1 or 2).

I hope not. If resources of priests were unlimited, then it would not matter. As it is, only so many hours in the week exist, Masses can not be infinitetly added.

 

[ac_claire]

Technically, Latin rite catholics should be praying that the “reform of the reform” actually is completed and we have what the council envisioned. We have a new missal translation in the works as we speak that will be a great improvement over 1970. It will neither be 1962 or 1970 missal. Granted we will still have the missal of 1962 available, but the ordinary form of the mass will be different from what we currently experience.

I’m interesting in hearing more about this. Can anyone point me in the right direction, any links, etc…?

Thanks!

 

[Cathryn]

I hope not. If resources of priests were unlimited, then it would not matter. As it is, only so many hours in the week exist, Masses can not be infinitetly added.

In some cases, an Ordinary Form Mass time slot can be changed to an Extraordinary Form Mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

In some cases, an Ordinary Form Mass can be changed to an Extraordinary Form Mass.

Indeed. It was my hope that the 10:00 sung “high Mass” at my cathedral could be EF once a month. Would that be asking too much? That my children be exposed to what I grew up with? The choir is perfectly capable of singing chant, motets, etc. in Latin - they already do this. The congregation chants the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei during Lent. Would it be so hard or bothersome to once a month add the Gloria and Pater Noster in Latin and have the Mass (NO is absolutely fine with me) in Latin so that we don’t loose our heritage?

 

[James0235]

I’m interesting in hearing more about this. Can anyone point me in the right direction, any links, etc…?

Thanks!

The Vatican released a new Latin Typical Edition of the Roman Missal in 2002. It is essentially the same as the 1970 Roman Missal released under Pope Paul VI but with a few tweaks (new Saints, etc.). I believe it is considered to be the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal for the Novus Ordo Mass.

Translation into English has been slow. The Vatican released guidelines on Liturgical Translations in '01. The Congregation For Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments has made it clear that the new translation of the Missal into English must not be like the old translation.

The English Translation of the Novus Ordo Mass that is used now was made in the early '70s - 1973 I think. And it is not what you would call a very faithful translation.

A first year Latin student could have done better. Just a couple of quick examples:

the response to “The Lord be with you” was translated as “and also with you”. However “et cum spititu tuo” is literally “and with your spirit”.

In the Eucharistic Prayer we find the translation “for you and for all” when it should be “for you and for many” which is what the Latin says as well as the Gospels.

So, for whatever reason, the translators in the '70s took many liberties. They removed many references to the spirit, the soul, and sin. And now the Vatican is making it right with a new translation.

You can see some examples of accurate (but unofficial) Mass translations on Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s site (links to different Mass parts on the left sidebar).

And here is an early draft of the new proposed translation (may have been revised since then).

Hope that helps.

James

 

[pnewton]

In some cases, an Ordinary Form Mass time slot can be changed to an Extraordinary Form Mass.

And that would be a good decision in many cases, but not for the sake of one or two, as was mentioned earlier. For sure if a sufficient number existed, this could be done. Another solution, even for a handful, would be an occasional TLM, perhaps in a daily Mass slot. This might even be a solution when one can count those desiring the TLM on one hand. Even a limited acknowledgement to a small group can do wonders to show that the priest is interested in the whole parish. Plus, it would give hope that if demand expanded, so would availablity.

 

[jflare29]

In the interest of fairness, I propose the following:

• Has the TLM ever been truly declared illicit by a competent authority?
  Yes (IMHO)
  Except when allowed by indult or by duly appointed bishop.
  
  Either a bishop has authority on these matters within his diocese, or he doesn’t. Since the Pope never over-ruled a bishop or group of bishops, the TLM was illegal with a few reasonable exceptions, such as when an individual bishop (Bruskewitz in Lincoln for example) allows it in his own diocese, or when a religious order (FSSP or ICK for example) acquire the Pope’s permission. In either case, the authority must be in communion with Rome, else their permission is fundamentally invalid.
  Interestingly, FSSP and ICK, priestly orders in communion with Rome, legally offered Latin Mass the whole time by the Pope’s own persmission. I hear that their seminaries are usually closer to overflowing than to closing. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
• Why was the Latin Mass abrogated? (Even if only region by region?)
  Mostly because of politics and the nature of human beings.
  Though Vatican II apparently intended for “organic growth” and change, two battle lines drew up fairly quickly around the Mass not long afterward: “Traditionalists” refused to change anything, “Modernists” insisted on changing almost everything. Neither side would give an inch without a hellish fight.

What does a bishop or a group of bishops really do when that happens?

Decide whether the Coucil was legitimate, then act.

A few bishops (Lefebrvre may be the most famous) rejected Vatican II completely. They famously continued on as though nothing had happened in Rome. Ultimately, they were declared to be schismatic and formally excommunicated from the Universal Church.

Others decided the Council was legitimate and faced nasty decisions.

How do you go about challenging people with a Council whose teachings are difficult?

One way is to require everyone to practice “the Council’s Mass”–even if the Council itself didn’t technically write it.
Thus, the USCCB declared the Latin Mass to be illicit except where approved by local bishops.

Now, some will not like this perspective, partly because some priests and bishops did indeed abuse their authority.

On the whole though, I think it’d be interesting to see the reactions to the TLM that Catholics would’ve had around 1590, 1600 or so. Beings that this Mass was still fairly new at that time, I suspect many clergy and laity would’ve complained about it as well.

Change, especially worthwhile change, has NEVER been easy!

John

 

[LarryRay]

On the whole though, I think it’d be interesting to see the reactions to the TLM that Catholics would’ve had around 1590, 1600 or so. Beings that this Mass was still fairly new at that time, I suspect many clergy and laity would’ve complained about it as well.

But the so-called Tridentine rite wasn’t actually new in 1600. Pope Pius V simply codified and reissued a liturgy that had existed essentially unchanged as the Roman Rite for more than 1,000 years.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hopefully the new guidelines from Ecclesia Dei will prohibit a numerical minimum (or reduce it to 1 or 2).

If not, I don’t know how hard it will be to get 30 in any given parish. We’ll see. Certainly, if TLM devotees cross parish lines and consolidate, it wouldn’t be difficult to attain the number.

I hope so too. In fact, why not just tell a parish that they can have one TLM Mass a week without number counting? One that actually would fulfill the Sunday obligation? It’s interesting to hear people talk about how many people want to attend the TLM and what the minimum would be to render the TLM “acceptable” to be celebrated. Well, when the NO order was introduced there certainly wasn’t any poll-taking of how many parishioners actually wanted it. Nor was there any room left for the TLM at all. Exposing some Catholics to the liturgy that has nourished the Church for at least 1,600 years might actually be a good thing, even if some Catholics don’t realize that at first.

After all, if we took a poll about whether we should reintroduce traditions like no meat on Friday or a longer fast before Mass the measures would probably not be popular at all. But would it be good for Catholics? I’d say yes.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I hope so too. In fact, why not just tell a parish that they can have one TLM Mass a week without number counting? One that actually would fulfill the Sunday obligation? It’s interesting to hear people talk about how many people want to attend the TLM and what the minimum would be to render the TLM “acceptable” to be celebrated. Well, when the NO order was introduced there certainly wasn’t any poll-taking of how many parishioners actually wanted it. Nor was there any room left for the TLM at all. Exposing some Catholics to the liturgy that has nourished the Church for at least 1,600 years might actually be a good thing, even if some Catholics don’t realize that at first.

After all, if we took a poll about whether we should reintroduce traditions like no meat on Friday or a longer fast before Mass the measures would probably not be popular at all. But would it be good for Catholics? I’d say yes.

The MP’s wording implies having a sense of number(s) of those with ongoing interest and NOT to just put one on the schedule.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The MP’s wording implies having a sense of number(s) of those with ongoing interest and NOT to just put one on the schedule.

Yes, I know that. I was discussing a possible wish for the future.