Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[LarryRay]

It is quite possible that the Archbishops have information that you or even FSSP does not have

Like what?! Give me one good reason!!!

 

[AlexV]

A bishop once told me he’d rather have a parish without a priest than allow the indult 1962 Mass (this was after a traditionalist order offered to send him a priest).

THAT’S why people are angry. We have had prelates who are openly admitting they’d prefer no sacraments in a church to the 1962 liturgy.

AFTER, of course, the pope asked them to be g-e-n-e-r-o-u-s.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Like what?! Give me one good reason!!!

Not only am I not Coach - I am not either of these Archbishops.

Neither of them sent me the detailed information they used for their decisions just like the Pope did not consult me before issuing the MP.

Sorry.

 

[LarryRay]

A bishop once told me he’d rather have a parish without a priest than allow the indult 1962 Mass (this was after a traditionalist order offered to send him a priest).

THAT’S why people are angry.

Exactly! We know full well the fear and loathing of the TLM that exists out there, and to be told that it doesn’t exist when we’ve seen and heard it with our own eyes and ears is downright infuriating.

As Judge Judy says, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

 

[AlexV]

The Supreme Legislator said to be “generous”.

Refusal of ALL REQUESTS is not “generosity”.

If half the US dioceses hadn’t rejected the pope’s 1988 letter, you wouldn’t have needed or seen SP in 2007.

 

[LarryRay]

Neither of them sent me the detailed information they used for their decisions just like the Pope did not consult me before issuing the MP.

Use your imagination if you have one. What would be an example of a good reason for declining the FSSP’s offer to send a priest willing to offer the TLM?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Use your imagination if you have one. What would be an example of a good reason for declining the FSSP’s offer to send a priest willing to offer the TLM?

We can all guess from now to Judgement day - but we won’t know the specifics unless they let us in on them. Such guessing is useless and unproductive.

BTW, I have decided to not bother with folks who can’t maintain basic common decency. Ta Ta!

 

[pnewton]

Like what?! Give me one good reason!!!

I can see where the bishop could be taken at face value. You said no reasonable person could see it any other way. I will take you literally and give you an alternative reason. Perhaps the TLM folks in his parish really are a group seekin division. I do not find that too incredible seeing some of the statements I have read here. Here are quotes from earlier:

In order to get something out of the TLM you must be spiritual. For those who are more attached to this matierial world then the next the New Mass is more to their liking.

When the majority continuously atrophies while the minority enjoys healthy growth, it’s just a matter of time before the minority becomes the new majority. And the N.O. establishment is collapsing while the TLM is booming.

. 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,”

Well, break out the Pampers and the baby wipes. Latin can be used for medicine, law and science, but not worship?

I like the T-shirt - “Don’t worry. Satan hates Latin, too!”

This was just on this one thread. I can see where the issue of divisivness and elitism could be seen as valid.

In any case, the bishop’s judgement should never affect the decision. The Holy Father said to be generous, not generous unless there is a problem. I sure do get tired of the defiant priest and bishops. I don’t despair because I know they get more press than the thousands who humbly go anout their job every day.

 

[LarryRay]

I can see where the bishop could be taken at face value. You said no reasonable person could see it any other way. I will take you literally and give you an alternative reason. Perhaps the TLM folks in his parish really are a group seekin division.

It wasn’t one parish. We’re talking about a policy that was in effect for an entire archdiocese (of hundreds of thousands of Catholics) for three decades. Every one of the Catholics who wanted the TLM during that time and were rebuffed were divisive elitists? Oh, come on.

 

[pnewton]

Every one of the Catholics who wanted the TLM during that time and were rebuffed were divisive elitists? Oh, come on.

I was referring to the perception, no the reality. I could also be dead wrong with my conjecture. That is why it is a conjecture. I just don’t believe in jumping to conclusions.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

**
Maybe it is time to let go about what ‘happened in 1969’.**

I only bring up what happened with the NO in 1969 as a response to those who would consider the possibility of allowing a parish the option of having a Sunday TLM without taking a poll as “forcing” the TLM on people. I like to point out what “forcing” really is.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Well I am thankful that your extreme suggestion has not be considered by those who can change things. Considering how overworked priest are it would be weird to force on Mass that was unattended just to satisfy ultra-traditionalists that aren’t even members of the parish. On the bright side, it would be one less Mass that I would not have to bother with covering for music.

Allowing a parish the option to have one Sunday obligation TLM without number counting is extreme? Are you joking? Yes, you must be kidding. It’s the only explanation.

Actually, I would be fine with replacing a NO Mass with the TLM so there doesn’t have to be an extra Mass scheduled.

And you really don’t know that it would be unattended, do you? Wonders may happen when the TLM is actually made available at a parish. After all, when the NO was introduced, there certainly was no concern about the level of interest. And apparently the level of interest was in negative numbers since so many Catholics stopped going to Mass after the introduction of the NO.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We should never forget our history, but learn from it. What I find disturbing is wanting to screw with others out of revenge for what happened to you.

I look upon giving people the chance to attend the TLM, even if they are not familiar with it (along with Gregorian chant) as a great gift and in no way “screwing with others.” That notion is totally ridiculous.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I find the ‘they should have consulted us’ or ‘they should have let us choose’ view 40 yrs down the road disturbing.

ing

First, if you haven’t already, you might consider turning off the bold type so that every post doesn’t look like you are shouting.

Secondly, I personally don’t think the Vatican has to consult anyone on anything it does. They have the authority to completely come up with a New Mass and impose it worldwide tomorrow.

However, I bring up the lack of consultation when people act as if the possibility of having a TLM without number counting is almost akin to horribly cruel and unusual punishment and just forcing it on everyone.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I would think so. Moreover, I think any number would be enough to grant some acknowledgement. Let us put this in perspective. I we were not talking about the TLM, but some other initiative, **the level of introduction would be commensurate with interest. As time went one, if interest grew, so would the program. The reverse being true if interest waned. **A wise pastor would be willing to be open-minded either way and at least try it.

Honestly, too bad you weren’t in charge of the introduction of the NO .

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That goes along with a Phillipino friend at work. She attends a large mostly Phillipino parish in S, Sf. She certainly is not interested in the TLM (she ain’t young, approaching 60) and says no one in her parish is.

She is very orthodox and devout. Been to Fatima several times.

I really think the Vatican miscalculated the interest. It is or seems to be mainly a remnant group in the US and France.

Look at Africa - the large majority of African Catholics never heard/did not grow up with the TLM. The conversions their mostly have been in the last 15 years.

I support allowing the TLM for the apparent few who want it. But I have no doubt this will not be any kind of resurgence as TLM die-hards want to beleive.

Already we are seeing excuses that the lack of interest since the MP is because it was not advertised or parish councils/priests opposed it. Come on. That dog doesn’t hunt anymore.

Look at the indult FSSP parishes. Many around for years now. They have remained quite small and not drawn new members. IMO that is the reality which will continue to play out under the MO. The interest is simply not there in the US from what I see.

Yes, and people in the U.S. are often interested in TV game shows and the life and music of Britney Spears. How wonderful it is to know that we can have a liturgy which is right at their level.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Yes…and no.

I’ve heard that Pius V codified the Mass one way to handle two problems:

1. Regional differences had existed that weren’t always OK.
2. Reformation interests (like Luther) had taken on such, er, popularity, that some clergy and/or laity may have been accustomed to some “reformed” practices that weren’t always licit.

** Were the changes nearly as obvious or obnoxious? I doubt most of us can quickly answer that.** There has always been some degree of disagreement within the Church regarding how the liturgy should be offered. If we insist that everyone did it all the same way everywhere, prior to Pius V, I think we need better education regarding the Church’s history.

Actually, I think that’s part of why the rite needed to change in a visible manner. All this debate about how the Church changed so dramatically seem to me to reflect the reason why the Council was convoked in the first place: Too many Catholics had been going through the motions too much and knew too little about why.

That’s not to say that anyone was willfully ignorant per se, so much as to point out that human beings sometimes require being forced to change the appearance of something simply to challenge them to learn what they’re supposed to know more thoroughly.

** As I think someone suggested, perhaps many people oppose the Novus Ordo partly because it required them to learn their faith more deeply,** else their complaints were based mostly on resistance to change.

I do hope though, that more people will become better acquainted with the TLM. Even the Low Mass was quite beautiful, though that might be because the priest was dressed in white with a gold band on the back. Looking at that for 30 minutes can’t have hurt my impressions!

John

First, the question above can be answered quickly by anyone with the slightest acquaintance of liturgical history. The answer would be no.

Secondly, how on earth did you reach the conclusion that too many Catholics were going through the motions and didn’t know why? Did you peer into their hearts and minds? My impression has been that Catholics prior to Vatican II were taught their faith far better than after the Council.

The Novus Ordo challenges people to learn their faith more thoroughly? How is that working out so far?

It would be interesting for you to show any evidence that anyone opposed the NO because it required them to learn their faith more deeply. Good grief and then some!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I quite agree. How the Mass is celebrated matters not so much. If the old Mass was so perfect and right how did virtually everyone give it up so quickly. The faith as inspired by the old Mass may have been miles and miles wide but it was obviously inches deep if we go back and read the histroy of the time.

Okay, it was given up so quickly because, as brotherholf has pointed out a number of times, it was imposed on everyone without a choice. And Catholics were trained to obey the Church. And they did, or just stopped going to Mass altogether.

But if it was a case of forbidding the TLM from a non-Catholic source, such as England under Elizabeth, or France during the Revolution, many Catholics were willing to risk death to celebrate or participate in this Mass rather than give it up.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

And you really don’t know that it would be unattended, do you? Wonders may happen when the TLM is actually made available at a parish. After all, when the NO was introduced, there certainly was no concern about the level of interest. And apparently the level of interest was in negative numbers since so many Catholics stopped going to Mass after the introduction of the NO.

There is no, and was never, a reason to worry about level of interest for any OF missal in Church history. We are looking at level of interest for the EF.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

There is no, and was never, a reason to worry about level of interest for any OF missal in Church history. We are looking at level of interest for the EF.

Okay, you’ve taken out the boldface but now I think your font is too small.

Actually, prudence might have suggested being a tad bit concerned about the effect of completely altering the liturgy and then imposing it on the entire Church at once (even if you have the authority to do so). This concern was voiced by Cardinal Ottaviani’s intervention, however.