The American hierarchy & the TLM.

[JRKH]

I voted no, but only as a “spot check” on the Bishops currently holding office. Most of these have spent mcuh if not all of their priesthood in the post Vat II culture and that is how they are formed. In addition these men are very busy and dealing with many issues. So if this is one they can successfully ignore, the simply do.
I don’t say this to be in any way derisive of our clergy. Far from it. I believe they are, on the whole, dedicated and holy men doing the best job they are able by the grace of God.

All of that said, the newer priests will (hopefully) be better aquainted with the EF and as new bishops are appointed by our Holy Father, there will gradually evolve a greater acceptance of the EF in normal parish life. This of course is predicated on the faithful displaying wha the Holy Father called, a Stable Community" who wishes to worship useing the EF.

Peace
James

 

[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.

 

[ProVobis]

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

I presume this wasn’t at an SSPX, FSSP, or ICRSS parish?

 

[Sirach2]

At Trent:

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.

The missal, with the English translation next to the Latin, allows full/active participation at the EF.

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

I have not attended a TLM in many years, so I have no knowledge that paragraph 2 does allow active participation. Is this silent and private, as noted by the Council, or do you respond to the priest with acclamations?

These are the rubrics stated in the 2002 GIRM.

1. Since the celebration of Mass by its nature has a “communitarian” character,
   both the dialogues between the priest and the faithful gathered together and the acclamations are of great significance; in fact, they are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.
2. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the priest’s greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that the gathered faithful are to contribute in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the entire community may be clearly expressed and fostered.

 

[At_Trent]

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.

:clapping:

Thank you. I so wish I had two photo’s, one each of two elderly parishioners I asked a question of after weekday Mass at my parish.

The question : “What would you think of the old Latin Mass returning here once a week or more ?” One lady’s eyes opened wide and a big smile came across her face. She asked “Oh, are they planning to bring it back ?” She was so excited, and I felt so bad telling her no, I was just asking random folks what they think, since the SP had been released by H.H. She wasn’t aware of the SP, but added " well, I certainly would love to see them bring it back"

Another I asked had a very puzzled look. “You mean the old Mass ? They abolished that long ago” she answered. She wasn’t aware of the S.P either. I explained the EF was never abrogated, but she still seemed confused. I asked if she remembered the EF, and she perked up and said “oh yes, I remember when they changed the Mass, and for a long time I missed the old choir and the prayers after Low Mass. You know, I still miss them”

So even though one responded with enthusiasm immediately at the mention of the EF, she still wasn’t aware of the SP. Nor was she aware of the EF that had been in place under the previous indult for a few years at another parish. I told her about it, and she said she would have to go there. I’ve seen her there several times since, and the first time she saw me there, she thanked me for telling her about it. She always calls me “young man” lol

I haven’t seen the other lady very often since I asked the question. I want to mention the other parish’s EF to her as well, but she is always kneeling in prayer before and after Mass. But I will when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

Thanks for your clear reply Onegin. BTW. I think that I’m an odd Traditional Catholic. I actually prefer the Low Mass for daily & weekly Masses, with a high Mass occasionally. Our parish celebrates both the Novus Ordo & the TLM. The Latin Mass is at a hard time…12:30PM. on Sunday, but we have also begun to hold some on Holy Days. We’ve had 4 young men ordained to the priesthood as diocesan priests from our small parish of 265 families. All 4 held their first Mass here & two of them chose the EF. for their first Mass. Those, of course, were high Masses

 

[At_Trent]

I have not attended a TLM in many years, so I have no knowledge that paragraph 2 does allow active participation. Is this silent and private, as noted by the Council, or do you respond to the priest with acclamations?

These are the rubrics stated in the 2002 GIRM.

1. Since the celebration of Mass by its nature has a “communitarian” character,
   both the dialogues between the priest and the faithful gathered together and the acclamations are of great significance; in fact, they are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.
2. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the priest’s greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that the gathered faithful are to contribute in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the entire community may be clearly expressed and fostered.

There are audible responses by those in the pews at the EF. Just not as many as the EF.

Active participation includes both audible and silent participation. Notice in # 35 the word “level” is used. I think the reasoning is that more audible participation raises the level of participation. One has to pay attention and keep up. That is a very good thing imo, but not necessary in the EF. By it’s nature, the EF requires one to use a Missal. The prayers that are the same from one Mass to another can be memorized, but the day’s propers and so forth require a missal to pray the Mass along with the priest.

I may be wrong, I really need to ask a priest this, but other than the priest’s Confiteor, the blessing, and the words of the Consecration, I pray all of the Mass along with the priest. I don’t feel I should pronounce the words of the Consecration, bless myself and other, or confess the priest’s sins along with him… again. I need to verify this with a priest in light of Pius X’s instruction. And again, I see following that instruction as full and active participation. Less audible, yes, that being the only difference in the two forms.

 

[Brooklyn]

There are audible responses by those in the pews at the EF. Just not as many as the EF.

Active participation includes both audible and silent participation. Notice in # 35 the word “level” is used. I think the reasoning is that more audible participation raises the level of participation. One has to pay attention and keep up. That is a very good thing imo, but not necessary in the EF. By it’s nature, the EF requires one to use a Missal. The prayers that are the same from one Mass to another can be memorized, but the day’s propers and so forth require a missal to pray the Mass along with the priest.

I may be wrong, I really need to ask a priest this, but other than the priest’s Confiteor, the blessing, and the words of the Consecration, I pray all of the Mass along with the priest. I don’t feel I should pronounce the words of the Consecration, bless myself and other, or confess the priest’s sins along with him… again. I need to verify this with a priest in light of Pius X’s instruction. And again, I see following that instruction as full and active participation. Less audible, yes, that being the only difference in the two forms.

This is exactly what I do at the TLM, as does almost everyone around me at the Mass. Those who say there is only “individual participation” at the TLM have obviously never been to such a Mass. Just because you can’t hear someone, that doesn’t mean he isn’t involved with what is going on. It is true that the focus of the TLM is on the altar and not on individuals, not even the priest. The better the priest is at saying the Mass, the more he becomes almost “invisible”. The entire focus is on the sacrifice of the Mass. Just as at the actual foot of Calvary, the focus was on Jesus Christ on the Cross, the focus of the TLM is on the Sacrifice of Jesus. And it tends to carry over both before and after Mass, because there is very little if any socializing in the pews.

 

[ProVobis]

I may be wrong, I really need to ask a priest this, but other than the priest’s Confiteor, the blessing, and the words of the Consecration, I pray all of the Mass along with the priest. I don’t feel I should pronounce the words of the Consecration, bless myself and other, or confess the priest’s sins along with him… again. I need to verify this with a priest in light of Pius X’s instruction. And again, I see following that instruction as full and active participation.

Pope St. Pius X had urged: “Do not pray at the Mass, but pray the Mass.”

One has go beyond the understanding of every word, every phrase, of every sentence of the text, in other words. These are nice but one has to look at the bigger picture. In addition to the text, there are rubrics, of course, which are prayers in themselves. Outward signs such as ad orientem, epistle side, gospel side, low tones, bowing, genuflecting, signs of cross, kissing of altar, etc are also all parts of the Mass, which all form into the prayer of the Mass, of which we are all participants from beginning to end.

 

[At_Trent]

Pope St. Pius X had urged: “Do not pray at the Mass, but pray the Mass.”

One has go beyond the understanding of every word, every phrase, of every sentence of the text, in other words. These are nice but one has to look at the bigger picture. In addition to the text, there are rubrics, of course, which are prayers in themselves. Outward signs such as ad orientem, epistle side, gospel side, low tones, bowing, genuflecting, signs of cross, kissing of altar, etc are also all parts of the Mass, which all form into the prayer of the Mass, of which we are all participants from beginning to end.

Well stated, and yes, I should have put that line in there. It did precede his words I posted.

 

[At_Trent]

This is exactly what I do at the TLM, as does almost everyone around me at the Mass. Those who say there is only “individual participation” at the TLM have obviously never been to such a Mass. Just because you can’t hear someone, that doesn’t mean he isn’t involved with what is going on. It is true that the focus of the TLM is on the altar and not on individuals, not even the priest. The better the priest is at saying the Mass, the more he becomes almost “invisible”. The entire focus is on the sacrifice of the Mass. Just as at the actual foot of Calvary, the focus was on Jesus Christ on the Cross, the focus of the TLM is on the Sacrifice of Jesus. And it tends to carry over both before and after Mass, because there is very little if any socializing in the pews.

Good observation and well stated.

 

[At_Trent]

Pope St. Pius X had urged: “Do not pray at the Mass, but pray the Mass.”

In addition to the text, there are rubrics, of course, which are prayers in themselves. Outward signs such as ad orientem, epistle side, gospel side, low tones, bowing, genuflecting, signs of cross, kissing of altar, etc are also all parts of the Mass, which all form into the prayer of the Mass, of which we are all participants from beginning to end.

One has go beyond the understanding of every word, every phrase, of every sentence of the text, in other words. These are nice but one has to look at the bigger picture. sanctamissa.org/en/spirituality/restoring-beauty-in-the-liturgy.pdf

 

[At_Trent]

This is exactly what I do at the TLM, as does almost everyone around me at the Mass. Those who say there is only “individual participation” at the TLM have obviously never been to such a Mass. Just because you can’t hear someone, that doesn’t mean he isn’t involved with what is going on. It is true that the focus of the TLM is on the altar and not on individuals, not even the priest. The better the priest is at saying the Mass, the more he becomes almost “invisible”. The entire focus is on the sacrifice of the Mass. Just as at the actual foot of Calvary, the focus was on Jesus Christ on the Cross, the focus of the TLM is on the Sacrifice of Jesus. And it tends to carry over both before and after Mass, because there is very little if any socializing in the pews.

Good observation, and well stated

 

[archangel04]

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

hhmm one you assume that only conservatives attend the TLM and that no conservative attend the OF. Be careful when you assume, it does not make you look good. Second you are attacking the TLM something that is against forum rules.

 

[Sirach2]

hhmm one you assume that only conservatives attend the TLM and that no conservative attend the OF. Be careful when you assume, it does not make you look good. Second you are attacking the TLM something that is against forum rules.

Not really, and I said nothing about assuming they only attend the TLM. If they happen to attend the OF, there still remains a difficulty on the part of many in accepting the direction of SC and the Council. You know I speak the truth about the difficulty, as evidenced by the countless threads on this forum alone.

As for attacking the TLM, I did no such thing. I merely present possibilities of why the bishops are not accepting of the TLM, but maybe you overlooked the paragraphs where I shared this opinion. It is completely in line with the OP’s post asking the question…
“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?”

FYI, the rules ask us not to pit one form against the other that denigrates into verbal fist fights. Sharing the solemn teachings of SC was in no way attacking the TLM. I think you have been a member long enough to know what the moderator had in mind. Please read his stickie.

 

[archangel04]

Not really, and I said nothing about assuming they only attend the TLM. If they happen to attend the OF, there still remains a difficulty on the part of many in accepting the direction of SC and the Council. You know I speak the truth about the difficulty, as evidenced by the countless threads on this forum alone.

As for attacking the TLM, I did no such thing. I merely present possibilities of why the bishops are not accepting of the TLM, but maybe you overlooked the paragraphs where I shared this opinion. It is completely in line with the OP’s post asking the question…
“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?”

FYI, the rules ask us not to pit one form against the other that denigrates into verbal fist fights. Sharing the solemn teachings of SC was in no way attacking the TLM. I think you have been a member long enough to know what the moderator had in mind. Please read his stickie.

You are right you did not attack the TLM and I apologise for that, but regardless to your responce on conservatives, I still stand with my responce. To use the forum as an example is not that good of defence for the face that not even 1% of all Catholics know about this forum. Again I apoligise for my other statement I missread.

 

[Brooklyn]

Not really, and I said nothing about assuming they only attend the TLM. If they happen to attend the OF, there still remains a difficulty on the part of many in accepting the direction of SC and the Council. You know I speak the truth about the difficulty, as evidenced by the countless threads on this forum alone.

As for attacking the TLM, I did no such thing. I merely present possibilities of why the bishops are not accepting of the TLM, but maybe you overlooked the paragraphs where I shared this opinion. It is completely in line with the OP’s post asking the question…
“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?”

FYI, the rules ask us not to pit one form against the other that denigrates into verbal fist fights. Sharing the solemn teachings of SC was in no way attacking the TLM. I think you have been a member long enough to know what the moderator had in mind. Please read his stickie.

But if you don’t attend the TLM, how do you know what you are talking about? As those of us who do attend will tell you, there is very active participation in the Mass. But as I stated previously, it is not a “communal” event as such, just as Christ’s death on Calvary was not a “communal” event. The TLM is all about the Sacrifice of Christ, and was for all the 1500 years it was celebrated in the Church. No bishops during those 1500 years had a problem with that aspect of it. Why do you assume that Bishops would have a problem with this now?

 

[Sirach2]

Brooklyn:

But if you don’t attend the TLM, how do you know what you are talking about?
Why do you assume that Bishops would have a problem with this now?

Personal experience in my diocese, as I wrote in post #2. The closing of churchs and lack of vocations is a well-known fact of our times. Have you never participated in the multitude of prayers for vocations? Have you never read the alarm of our bishops as they face the anger of parishioners when their beloved parish closes?

In our locality, many of the priests who serve are well over 60, with more dying each year than we have seminarians being ordained. A workshop was held to address the crisis coming in a few years when the rest of these priests die or face mandatory retirement. Very SCARY!!! I thank God for each mass that I am privileged to attend. In a few years, maybe there won’t be a daily mass in many locations.

Have you noted the scant few who petition the bishop for a TLM, which does not even meet the requirements of a “stable group” mentioned in S.P.? In my parish, our pastor agreed a few years ago to have a latin mass if she could get enough people. Sadly, she was the only one who wanted it.

Would it help if I shared the statistics available publicly about the scarcity of the TLM mass in several states who have none at all? I’m fully aware of the legistics of this problem, even though I don’t attend the TLM. Does that disqualify me in your eyes?

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you, Archangel04. I am edified by your apology. You’re aces!

 

[Brooklyn]

Personal experience in my diocese, as I wrote in post #2. The closing of churchs and lack of vocations is a well-known fact of our times. Have you never participated in the multitude of prayers for vocations? Have you never read the alarm of our bishops as they face the anger of parishioners when their beloved parish closes?

I think I’m missing something here. What does that have to do with the question in this thread?

Have you noted the scant few who petition the bishop for a TLM, which does not even meet the requirements of a “stable group” mentioned in S.P.? In my parish, our pastor agreed a few years ago to have a latin mass if she could get enough people. Sadly, she was the only one who wanted it.

Would it help if I shared the statistics available publicly about the scarcity of the TLM mass in several states who have none at all? I’m fully aware of the legistics of this problem, even though I don’t attend the TLM. Does that disqualify me in your eyes?