The American hierarchy & the TLM.

[CradleCath]

After posting on & reading another thread in the Traditional forum yesterday, I said that I was just going to quit posting here for a while. Yet here I am today??

I’m quoting part of a post of my own from that thread, that was pretty much ignored. I hope that is allowed.

From my post:
“What I would like to see is for the hierarchy in this country to take the TLM. to their hearts & allow it to be equal to the Novus Ordo Mass, to promote it in RICA classes & in what’s left of our Catholic schools in the same way they promote the N.O.”

I am curious as to how many of you think that the** majority** of the Bishops are happy about S.P. If so, why do you think that is. If not, again why?

It’s against forum rules to compare the Novus Ordo & the TLM, so let’s don’t do that. I am just asking for your opinion on our hierarchies reception of Summorum Pontificum. Also, please do not name particular members of the hierarchy in a negative way, as once again…CAF. does not want that.

BTW. My poll question must have been too long, as the end of it has been cut off. However, I think you’ll understand that the poll questions pertain to the reception of SP. by our American hierarchy.

 

[Sirach2]

I voted “no” for several reasons. In a previous thread, I commented about the difficulty the bishops have in trying to serve those who wish to have the TLM, and it is not due to obstinence, as you and others might think, but the immense problem of closing parishes and lack of vocations. Here is part of my post.

In my area, many churches have been closed due to lack of priests, and the parishes have become partner parishes with a single pastor having to serve mass at two churches in a weekend. One of the partner parishes has abolished their Saturday evening vigil mass, and has only one mass for the entire church on Sunday morning. The other parish has cut the Sunday liturgy to one only besides the Saturday night vigil.

Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people. So …. which of the ONE Sunday masses would you suggest the bishop allow for the TLM? If the priest were to advertise in the bulletin (required) that the Saturday vigil is going to be TLM, and 25 people loyal to that liturgy attend, where would there be pews enough to support the entire parish the next morning at their ONE mass? As for the partner parish that is without a Saturday vigil and only one mass on Sunday, they will never be in a position to offer the TLM. Period.

Other reasons concerning the direction the Spirit is leading the Church with respect to SC will be addressed in another post.

 

[malphono]

Not to be critical, but it strikes me that the question in the poll is not consistent with the thread title. The question probably should read “Do you think that the majority of the American hierarchy is embracing the spirit of Summorum Pontificum” or something like that.

 

[Onegin]

From what I have seen, no.

Speaking with friends I have come to learn that several dioceses have responded by allowing a TLM but then severely restricting how it can be said, i.e. no High Mass, no sung Mass, only spoken Low Mass, no TLM on Holy Days, etc. I think oftentimes this is intentional because a Low Mass can seem a lot less appealing to a newcomer than a High Mass or even a sung Mass. Also, by restricting Mass on other days a lot of people don’t want to bother and see it as inconsistent so they stick with the “regular” Mass.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

We had a vote in our parish on whether or not the people wanted a Latin Mass at least once a month.

Out of 1,129 votes, there were 5 in favor of a Latin Mass. I was one of the 5 by the way.

Most people in the USA have no desire to return to the past. The majority of Catholics here have no memory of Latin Masses, and even the vast majority of the older people don’t want them to return.

As one 90 year old woman put it, “Why would anyone want to go back to what was not understood, made little sense and is now so archaic that even the Priest wouldn’t know what he was celebrating?”

 

[Brooklyn]

I was recently at a study with a priest for whom I have very deep respect, and who is spiritual director at a seminary high school and contributes heavily to our diocese newspaper and TV station, said he wished that the SP had never been issued not because he is against the TLM, but he feels it has caused great division in the Church. He tends to be very dismissive of TLM devotees because he feels that they for the most part have no use for the OF and are basically just “Latin Mass loonies.”

I, a daily attendee of the TLM (for the most part), completely disagree with him, of course. But I think he mirrors the viewpoint of far too many in the hierarchy. They consider the TLM a distraction and a nuisance, basically, which takes away from the “real” Mass. Each day that I go to the TLM and I see the people kneeling and praying before Mass and complete attention during Mass, the devout servers, the holy priests who celebrate this Mass, I can only wish that this priest would come just once in a while to see what it is that he is talking about.

 

[At_Trent]

Hard to say without asking each bishop. I googled " bishop on summorum pontificum" and found a few comments by Bishops, most all of them positive.
google.com/search?q=bishop+on+Summorum+pontificum&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#q=bishop+on+Summorum+pontificum&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&prmd=ivns&ei=_5RBTfqlKoLqgAfb9K2zAQ&start=0&sa=N&fp=c2946aa513ef4809.

The negative ones are quite appalling though, as is this one

“The Mass in Latin is a distortion of religious fact.”
summorumpontificum.net/2007/09/bishop-to-pope-take-flying-leap.html

That above is not specific to the OP, which focuses on the US, but US Cardinal did make a similar statement regarding the EF itself.

The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council. But there is no participation by the people, and I don’t believe that instills the spirit of Christ among us.
ncregister.com/blog/cardinal_mahony_vs._latin_mass

Here is a USCCB release from 2007
catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=160

I didn’t vote in the poll because I simply don’t know what the majority of US bishops think. It appears the USCCB accepts the SC.

 

[Brooklyn]

We had a vote in our parish on whether or not the people wanted a Latin Mass at least once a month.

Out of 1,129 votes, there were 5 in favor of a Latin Mass. I was one of the 5 by the way.

Most people in the USA have no desire to return to the past. The majority of Catholics here have no memory of Latin Masses, and even the vast majority of the older people don’t want them to return.

As one 90 year old woman put it, “Why would anyone want to go back to what was not understood, made little sense and is now so archaic that even the Priest wouldn’t know what he was celebrating?”

I wish that woman could go to a TLM and see that the people there know exactly what is going on, far better than most of those who attend the OF. How many who attend the OF even know that this is a re-presentation of Calvary, or even what that means? How many attending the OF even believe in the Real Presence? I can guarantee that every single person at the TLM believes in the Real Presence with their whole heart and soul.

I’m not saying that the OF by itself destroyed people’s belief, but rather the abuses associated with it. The way the OF is structured, it is easy for the priest to just sort of “riff”, and I think that has produced many abuses. The TLM was the Mass of the Church for 1500 years. It produced many thousands and thousands, maybe millions of saints. When the TLM was the only Mass, far more believed in the Real Presence and showed greater respect, not believing that they were “entitled” to communion but believing that they had to be worthy of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. . And unfortunately, there have been many, many abuses of the OF.

 

[Sirach2]

The New Mass is precisely what SC authorized and therefore precisely what the Council intended. This fact is very difficult for conservatives to acknowledge. These articles from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy are especially pertinent.

SC 11. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.

SC 14. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

SC 26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops. Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church.

SC 27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

Cradle Cath, you and I were both raised with the TLM of old, and unless folks are in denial or in a mode that cannot accept change, we have to be honest and admit that this liturgy was “individual and quasi-private.” It is my understanding that it still retains that aspect, which is why so many object to the rite of peace and other elements that require openness to one’s brother in worship.

Art. 7 states beautifully, “The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father. In the liturgy, the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”
And in SC-8 that follows, we are reminded that every liturgical celebration in which we take part is a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy toward which we journey as pilgrims. I cannot fathom that we will worship in private fashion in the heavenly banquet, but rather as a united chorus acclaiming God’s praises.

It is most surely a move of the Holy Spirit that the Church has recognized the importance of coming together in corporate worship, united in love and joining our prayers and voices with one another - NOT privately saying our own prayer to God quietly, independently, without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us.

If the bishops resist the pressures of individuals who espouse this type of worship, it is most likely their pastoral care as shepherds who understand the Master’s leading, and recognize that this liturgy is foreign to the mind of the Church as expressed through the Council. Yet in compassion, the Church has not wished to lose those who could not accept the new direction, and has permitted the ongoing celebration of the TLM. The major problem that concerns me is the adamant attitude in some of the more radical Catholics who believe that the TLM should replace the Ordinary Form. That will never happen.

God bless

 

[At_Trent]

We had a vote in our parish on whether or not the people wanted a Latin Mass at least once a month.

Out of 1,129 votes, there were 5 in favor of a Latin Mass. I was one of the 5 by the way.

Most people in the USA have no desire to return to the past. The majority of Catholics here have no memory of Latin Masses, and even the vast majority of the older people don’t want them to return.

As one 90 year old woman put it, “Why would anyone want to go back to what was not understood, made little sense and is now so archaic that even the Priest wouldn’t know what he was celebrating?”

The part in bold is an assumption, and without any way to validate it.
Out of 265 who voted on this poll, from day one, the “yes” votes were at or above the 70% mark. What is significant here, is that the poll was taken on a forum where the Summorum Pontificum is well known and has been discussed numerous times for three years.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454571

Taking a poll in a parish where it could be argued the great majority have little idea what the SP means or it’s significance, really tells us nothing, save for the fact that people do tend to shy away from that they know little of.

The 90 year old, bless her heart, seems to indicate she knows nothing whatsoever of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Saying the Gregorian Rite makes no sense is bordering on blasphemy.

 

[malphono]

I didn’t vote in the poll because I simply don’t know what the majority of US bishops think. It appears the USCCB accepts the SC.

The USCCB “accepts” SP because it doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. (I would presume that other such “national conferences” take the same tack.) It’s a motu proprio and it is simply beyond their competence to reject it. Now, whether the conferences or their member bishops embraces SP (whether in letter or in spirit) is another matter entirely. Far too may diocesan bishops still seem to be operating in “indult mode” (the “do the minimum and you’ll slip under the radar” principle) which suggests that those remain obstructionist at heart.

 

[Brooklyn]

Cradle Cath, you and I were both raised with the TLM of old, and unless folks are in denial or in a mode that cannot accept change, we have to be honest and admit that this liturgy was “individual and quasi-private.” It is my understanding that it still retains that aspect, which is why so many object to the rite of peace and other elements that require openness to one’s brother in worship.

Art. 7 states beautifully, “The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father. In the liturgy, the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”
And in SC-8 that follows, we are reminded that every liturgical celebration in which we take part is a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy toward which we journey as pilgrims. I cannot fathom that we will worship in private fashion in the heavenly banquet, but rather as a united chorus acclaiming God’s praises.

It is most surely a move of the Holy Spirit that the Church has recognized the importance of coming together in corporate worship, united in love and joining our prayers and voices with one another - NOT privately saying our own prayer to God quietly, independently, without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us.

If the bishops resist the pressures of individuals who espouse this type of worship, it is most likely their pastoral care as shepherds who understand the Master’s leading, and recognize that this liturgy is foreign to the mind of the Church as expressed through the Council. Yet in compassion, the Church has not wished to lose those who could not accept the new direction, and has permitted the ongoing celebration of the TLM. The major problem that concerns me is the adamant attitude in some of the more radical Catholics who believe that the TLM should replace the Ordinary Form. That will never happen.

God bless

Why is it okay to attack the TLM?

 

[CradleCath]

I voted “no” for several reasons. In a previous thread, I commented about the difficulty the bishops have in trying to serve those who wish to have the TLM, and it is not due to obstinence, as you and others might think, but the immense problem of closing parishes and lack of vocations. Here is part of my post.

In my area, many churches have been closed due to lack of priests, and the parishes have become partner parishes with a single pastor having to serve mass at two churches in a weekend. One of the partner parishes has abolished their Saturday evening vigil mass, and has only one mass for the entire church on Sunday morning. The other parish has cut the Sunday liturgy to one only besides the Saturday night vigil.

Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people. So …. which of the ONE Sunday masses would you suggest the bishop allow for the TLM? If the priest were to advertise in the bulletin (required) that the Saturday vigil is going to be TLM, and 25 people loyal to that liturgy attend, where would there be pews enough to support the entire parish the next morning at their ONE mass? As for the partner parish that is without a Saturday vigil and only one mass on Sunday, they will never be in a position to offer the TLM. Period.

Other reasons concerning the direction the Spirit is leading the Church with respect to SC will be addressed in another post.

Thank you for starting us off, Sirach, & the reason for your opinion has merit. It’s hard for me to remember that some locations have such a GREAT priest shortage. In my area, it’s not a big problem & our Seminaries…especially those that are orthodox in their teachings…are filling up again.

Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis, "Because of the gradually increasing number of seminarians, and the age of the current building, planned expansion of the seminary was initiated by Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke several years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenrick%E2%80%93Glennon_Seminary

Most of the Seminarians in my area are sent to Conception Abbey & right now, it has the highest enrollment since the 60’s.

campusexplorer.com/colleges/1AED79FF/Missouri/Conception/Conception-Seminary-College/#

 

[Brooklyn]

The USCCB “accepts” SP because it doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. (I would presume that other such “national conferences” take the same tack.) It’s a motu proprio and it is simply beyond their competence to reject it. Now, whether the conferences or their member bishops embraces SP (whether in letter or in spirit) is another matter entirely. Far too may diocesan bishops still seem to be operating in “indult mode” (the “do the minimum and you’ll slip under the radar” principle) which suggests that those remain obstructionist at heart.

Very well said. Interesting post from Fr. Z’s blog, wdtprs.com/blog:

He is discussing a priest who said “Corpus Christi” at the TLM which of course is incorrect. He goes on to state this:

"A simpler explanation is that those who tinkered with the Mass and pasted together the Novus Ordo were themselves tired of saying lots of prayers. They jettisoned the prayers at the foot of the altar not so much because people were clamoring for them to be abolished, or that the “good of the faithful” required their suppression, but in large part because they themselves were tired of saying them and were bored by them. They shortened Mass because they wanted a shorter Mass. The same could apply to shorter offertory prayers and getting rid of the Last Gospel, repetition of readings, additional collects, etc.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-prayer-for-distribution-of-communion-at-tlm-and-what-to-respond/#ViewPollResults

 

[Seamus_L]

I voted no. Obviously some are much more supportive than others, but sadly I don’t know if I could name a single one who a very staunchly supports and encourages the growth of the TLM. Just imagine what a bishop who believed in the TLM the way some priests do could accomplish.

 

[At_Trent]

The New Mass is precisely what SC authorized and therefore precisely what the Council intended. This fact is very difficult for conservatives to acknowledge. These articles from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy are especially pertinent.

Cradle Cath, you and I were both raised with the TLM of old, and unless folks are in denial or in a mode that cannot accept change, we have to be honest and admit that this liturgy was “individual and quasi-private.” It is my understanding that it still retains that aspect, which is why so many object to the rite of peace and other elements that require openness to one’s brother in worship.

Art. 7 states beautifully, “The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father. In the liturgy, the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”
And in SC-8 that follows, we are reminded that every liturgical celebration in which we take part is a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy toward which we journey as pilgrims. I cannot fathom that we will worship in private fashion in the heavenly banquet, but rather as a united chorus acclaiming God’s praises.

It is most surely a move of the Holy Spirit that the Church has recognized the importance of coming together in corporate worship, united in love and joining our prayers and voices with one another - NOT privately saying our own prayer to God quietly, independently, without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us.

If the bishops resist the pressures of individuals who espouse this type of worship, it is most likely their pastoral care as shepherds who understand the Master’s leading, and recognize that this liturgy is foreign to the mind of the Church as expressed through the Council. Yet in compassion, the Church has not wished to lose those who could not accept the new direction, and has permitted the ongoing celebration of the TLM. The major problem that concerns me is the adamant attitude in some of the more radical Catholics who believe that the TLM should replace the Ordinary Form. That will never happen.

God bless

The ongoing assertion that there is more participation by the faithful in the OF vs the EF is false. The only difference is the FORM or participation. The OF has more AUDIBLE participation. Other than a few rubrics, that is the only difference.

To suggest as many do, that in the EF, pre-VII, that people “just sat there” during the Mass is mis-leading. I’m sure some do/used to, but the same can be said of some at the OF as well.

Just because an individual chooses to pray the Rosary during a EF mass or otherwise does not follow along, does not indicate the EF lacks in any way, shape, or form. Same with the OF.

"The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass."
Pope St Pius X

The missal, with the English translation next to the Latin, allows full/active participation at the EF. If a person chooses not to participate, it does not diminish the fact that the EF is accessible and very easy to understand. Every single part of it. Lack of effort on the part of an individual is Sloth and in no way a result of the rubrics and Latin of the EF.

To insist the OF offers more participation, without using the word “audible” before the word “more” is a deception at best.

 

[malphono]

Taking a poll in a parish where it could be argued the great majority have little idea what the SP means or it’s significance, really tells us nothing, save for the fact that people do tend to shy away from that they know little of.

Interesting point. Taking such a poll in any parish without at least some preliminary catechesis on the subject is meaningless. Most people are either (a) totally ignorant that there is even such a thing as the EF or (b) products of the “spirit of Vatican II” school of thought (or its progeny and/or students) which says anything that may have existed prior to 1965 is fossilized and belongs in a museum.

For example, I know personally of several cases where pastors decided (on their own initiative) to experiment with ad orientem celebration in the Novus Ordo, and gave some instruction on the “why” of it. When a poll was taken after the fact, the vast majority (see (a) above) supported the pastor and actually preferred ad orientem, despite the fact that they didn’t even know of its existence beforehand. The others (those in (b) above) of course objected. They always will.

If the rationale for ad orientem (which is, it seems to me, in and of itself the single most important hurdle) can be successfully taught, there’s no reason that the same cannot be done for the EF.

 

[At_Trent]

The USCCB “accepts” SP because it doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. (I would presume that other such “national conferences” take the same tack.) It’s a motu proprio and it is simply beyond their competence to reject it. Now, whether the conferences or their member bishops embraces SP (whether in letter or in spirit) is another matter entirely. Far too may diocesan bishops still seem to be operating in “indult mode” (the “do the minimum and you’ll slip under the radar” principle) which suggests that those remain obstructionist at heart.

Good point.

I wonder how many Bishops complied to the request by H.H. that they report the fruits of the SP to him after three years had passed ?

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

 

[At_Trent]

Why is it okay to attack the TLM?

I actually deleted part of my reply to that post. I started to mention it does indeed violate forum rules comparing the two, and the post is in fact an argument of why the OF is better.

 

[ProVobis]

but he feels it has caused great division in the Church.

Apparently he hasn’t dealt with bi-lingual or tri-lingual parishes.

The real indicator of TLM progress is not within the established parishes (they live under existing paradigms and I’ve given up on them) but what’s going on in the seminaries. And to a big extent the universities around the world which now offer the classics programs.

users.ipa.net/~tanker/universa.htm
users.ipa.net/~tanker/universb.htm
users.ipa.net/~tanker/universc.htm

Also
users.ipa.net/~tanker/primary.htm

Scholarships:
users.ipa.net/~tanker/scholars.htm

And miscellaneous
users.ipa.net/~tanker/educatio.htm