The American hierarchy & the TLM.

[CradleCath]

Um, you could’ve fooled me. I replied based on your post below.

And now back to our regular programing, the Bishop’s feelings
about the Pope’s wishes to clarify the fact that the TLM. was never abrogated. The Bishop’s feelings about the Latin Mass itself & following the wishes of our pope. **What do you think posters? **

Not going to nitpick with ya, CC…

Good, but I do realize that it’s important for you to get the last word, so be my guest. I’m done with this.

 

[laszlo]

Agreed! The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the Novus Ordo. The TLM. is the Extraordinary form. I believe that the majority of Catholics will probably stick with the the OF.,…for now, at least. But, that is NOT what this thread is about. This thread is about what the hierarchy in this country AND you AND I have been asked to do…that is to **open our hearts **

 

[CradleCath]

The grace and heavenly treasure are funny things. It is not enough that they are present, people had to receive them. The bishop is responsible for his flock, and the goal is to keep them and make them receivers of the grace.

In 2010 in England they made a poll: 40% of the Catholics who attend Masses regularly would be ready to to attend TLM. This is 10% of the total number of Catholics.

In the Church what I attend since the Ordinary Form is offered toward the Tabernacle, the Holy Communion is received kneeling at the bars of the altar people turn from the TLM to that English Masses. TLM is offered since 1994, the East (tabernacle) facing celebration since 2008

Given this fact the bishop should prefer the form which draws more people.

The bishop can do what Bishop Finn did, celebrate TLM, establish a personal parish for those who want the TLM, and outside of that promote the Ordinary form which draws 10+ times as many people to Jesus Christ, who is the same in any valid Mass.

The holiness is different. Holy (sacred) is what is set aside to God, separated from the world. The more holy is meaningful, but only for a small segment of the population for the contemplative orders. The rest, including the hierarchy, the diocesan clergy shall live in the world and for the people of the world.

**the visible problem with the Holy Mass was that the Mass was entirely the affair between Christ and In 1950 the priest, people were not even listeners, they were mere spectators of this affair, They get together because there was nothing else to do, and that was the tradition, but they prayed the Rosary, walked the stations of the cross, read from their books., slept, gazed the other side (girls boys and vice versa). They were only physically present, and this was the requirement. **Twice a year they confessed their sins, and the next Sunday they received communion. The regular time for a Sunday Low Mass with 3 prayers for each collect-secret-postcommunion, reading the Gospel in vernacular, with sermon, some receivers of communion and the Leo XIII prayer at the end, - took less than 50 minutes.

Can you suppose that the priest listened what he read from the Missal in Latin in soto voice? Should any bishop want this back?

Lazlo, both the moderator & myself have asked you to **PLEASE quit **comparing the two Masses. I would LOVE to reply to you… You have slandered the Catholicism of the 40’s 50’s, which I was a part of… but I won’t reply in the way I’d like to. ** It’s against the rules.****Let it go. **

 

[At_Trent]

"the visible problem with the Holy Mass was that the Mass was entirely the affair between Christ and In 1950 the priest, people were not even listeners, they were mere spectators of this affair, They get together because there was nothing else to do, and that was the tradition, but they prayed the Rosary, walked the stations of the cross, read from their books., slept, gazed the other side (girls boys and vice versa). They were only physically present, and this was the requirement. "

What a blatant distortion and outright fantasy.

 

[laszlo]

Lazlo, both the moderator & myself have asked you to **PLEASE quit **comparing the two Masses. I would LOVE to reply to you… You have slandered the Catholicism of the 40’s 50’s, which I was a part of… but I won’t reply in the way I’d like to. ** It’s against the rules.****Let it go. **

This was the message to what I answered:

This thread is about what the hierarchy in this country AND you AND I have been asked to do…that is to open our hearts & not only “accept” the TLM., **but accept it as EQUAL in holiness & grace & a treasure that we should embrace. **

In my6 world equal is comparison, part of the trio: less, equal, greater.

All faithful bishop, clergy, layman shall believe that Jesus Christ is One, and Jesus Christ is present in the Holy Mass regardless of the form equally.

To suppose that the American Hierarchy today is not faithful is slanderous.

My description of the Mass in the forties and fifties is my experience. I remember clearly that in 1964 everybody was happy that things will change to better.

 

[malphono]

In the Church what I attend since the Ordinary Form is offered toward the Tabernacle, the Holy Communion is received kneeling at the bars of the altar people turn from the TLM to that English Masses. TLM is offered since 1994, the East (tabernacle) facing celebration since 2008

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: the theological principles behind ad orientem celebration have absolutely nothing to do with facing the tabernacle.

Given this fact the bishop should prefer the form which draws more people.

The bishop can do what Bishop Finn did, celebrate TLM, establish a personal parish for those who want the TLM, and outside of that promote the Ordinary form which draws 10+ times as many people to Jesus Christ, who is the same in any valid Mass.

Ah, the “warm body” argument that a former colleague of my had a bad habit of using. It didn’t work when she used it, and it doesn’t work now. It’s the same as saying “product X is better than product Y” simply because the sales figures show that more people buy product X. A number of factors come into play, including awareness, availability, publicity and, of course, price.

The rest of that post has already been remarked upon by others so I shall stop here.

 

[laszlo]

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: the theological principles behind ad orientem celebration have absolutely nothing to do with facing the tabernacle.

The Church what I attend now, was built in 1906 and the priest facing the tabernacle faces to South. So did both church what I attended when I was child in the forties. Simply they are on the South side of an East-West road

In my territorial Church the priest, facing the people also faces to East and also toward the tabernacle which is at the other end of the Church. The people turn their back toward the tabernacle.

The theological principle what I learned either as child and learning theology was that the priest in name of Jesus Christ leads the people to Jesus Christ. Directions were never mentioned, I suppose because the priests and the people facing the tabernacle in the churches around faced to every direction, and in that time such ideas that the South is imaginary liturgical East would sound ridiculous.

As for the warm body rejection only your concurrence may think that diminishing your sales is good.

 

[ProVobis]

I remember clearly that in 1964 everybody was happy that things will change to better.

No one in 1964 knew what was going to happen next and people were already leaving in droves. Today only 25% of nominal Catholics attend any type of Mass. And if it weren’t for the Poles and Hispanics the percentage would be even lower.

 

[malphono]

The theological principle what I learned either as child and learning theology was that the priest in name of Jesus Christ leads the people to Jesus Christ. Directions were never mentioned, I suppose because the priests and the people facing the tabernacle in the churches around faced to every direction, and in that time such ideas that the South is imaginary liturgical East would sound ridiculous.

I suspect that “direction” was mentioned implicitly if not explicitly: all, celebrant and congregants alike, faced the same direction. That the tabernacle is often positioned at “liturgical east” is accidental. And sorry, but the idea of “liturgical East” is anything but new. It’s been around for quite some time, but in any case I’m not going to pursue it further. I’d be wasting my time.

As for the warm body rejection only your concurrence may think that diminishing your sales is good.

Evidently the analogy was lost on you.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Posters were given explicit directions not to derail the thread into a comparison between the OF and the EF.

CLOSED