The American hierarchy & the TLM.

[CradleCath]

QUOTE]

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.

The exact quote you just posted…from Pope S. Pius X, is on the page
right before the “Mass of the Catechumens” in my 1962 Missal. When we were receiving instructions on how to pray the Mass during my Catholic school years in the 40’s & 50’s…His words above were used as one of our primary learning tools.

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.

It’s also against forum rules & something that I asked no one to do. So thanks for rebutting the post that did so.

 

[Sirach2]

Brooklyn:

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

The question asked by the OP is whether we think the bishops are happy about the SP. Many may be happy about it, but that is not the sole reason for denial of the TLM. I simply presented a few of the problems they face as they are forced to issue denials of the TLM. Please read post #2 for a better understanding.

And how many people have actually attended a TLM? How can you ask for something you don’t know anything about?

It is usually the older parishioners who were raised on the latin mass until the 60’s when the changes came about, and I am one of them who came up with it from the crade. You’re right that younger people are not familiar with it.

I also don’t understand your comment about “stable groups.” It seems to slam those who are more traditional, but maybe I’m misreading it.

Not a slam whatsoever. I put it in quotes because that was the wording used in Art. 5 of S.P.

 

[Sirach2]

CradleCath:

At Trent:

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

at best.

It’s also against forum rules & something that I asked no one to do. So thanks for rebutting the post that did so.

Deception?
Don’t you folks read posts? I used Ctrl F on my post which you say is allegedly against the rules, and the word “more” is nowhere to be found in my words. And I, personally, did not insist the OF offers more participation. I simply posted the articles from SC which calls for active participation in the new liturgy. Why all the fuss? Because SC did not use the word “audible?”

Isn’t this exactly what the moderator meant in posting the stickie? WHO, now, is going against the rules by distorting my posts?

 

[CradleCath]

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?

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?

 

[JHow]

After reading the posts, it looks like many people are worried how receptive people would be if TLM came to their parish. I think people might be more receptive than some people think.

If I showed up at my customary mass time to find that it was now in in latin, here is what I would do: 1) stay, see how things went, watch what everybody else was doing, in short, FAKE IT like I meant to be there all along. 2) next week, I would go online, see if I could get a translation and follow along.

I’m pretty sure I could pull off option #1, because once I missed daylight savings time and showed up for Spanish mass (one hour later). I didn’t really cotton to it until the usher handed me the song book (and the funny look he gave me). I stayed anyway - hey, I know the refrain to “Pan de vida, cuerpo del Senor…”! (I can fake it anyway).

Option #2 is pretty much what I did when living in Poland: attend mass, follow along in the missal, strain to understand the Polish homily until I learned the language. I’m pretty sure I could figure out Latin if I had to.

I live in a particular Parish, and I choose from the times that mass is offered at that parish, which, as you can see, includes Spanish (a language I don’t know). I am used to showing up at a particular time (unless I miss daylight savings!) and I think I would be more apt to stick with my schedule than get bent out of shape that mass was in latin. I’m certainly not going to drive all over town, when the church is a half-mile down the road.

 

[At_Trent]

Don’t you folks read posts?

Yes, post # 8 … a promotion of the OF, off topic, and the bolded part is a swipe at the EF

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

And,
** “this type of worship”… “without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us”**

Great job of separating the two forms despite the SP which is the specific topic of this thread :clapping:

I don’t think H.H. would agree friend

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

I’m sorry if my blunt reaction to your presentation offends you, but seeing as though the SP has freed the EF of indult, and then reading this sort of thing over and over…
"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."

… I see nothing but hypocrisy there , considering the text that preceded it.

"without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us" ?

Where in the OF is the Mystical Body referenced in a way it is not in the EF ? Have you ever examined the Creed ?

 

[At_Trent]

QUOTE]

Well, I might have been a bit blunt, but it needs to be said. There is every bit as much participation offered in the EF if one takes the effort.

I truly love praying the EF with my missal and don’t find it a chore at all. It keeps me focused, and my mind doesn’t wander, nor do my eyes.

btw, I have the same missal, and it’s the one I use at Mass. I have a couple of others, but that one is my go to missal.

[/QUOTE]

 

[laszlo]

Some American bishops embrace the TLM, some try, some rejects. Those over 50 years old (the majority) must have some personal knowledge of the TLM.

My opinion is that forcing the uniform rite in 1970 was mistake. This force was removed partially with the Ecclesia Dei, and fully with the Summorum Pontificium
To force the TLM would be mistake too, and would prove only that the unauthorized hymns and instruments, the adlibiting, and other questionable practices are characteristics of the liberals, and no rite has internal power to prevent them.

I myself strictly believe that the reverent Mass does not depends on the rite, and what we need it is the reverent Mass, the worship of Jesus Christ and not the human success or the power of the community.

I feel myself equally home either on the reverent new rite and the TLM. In the Church where I attend masses both rites are available I know the ordo for the TLM by heart, so I feel no difference attending any form. My family members like to understand the Mass without artificial help (like the hand missal) they prefer the English Mass, because it is read loudly and in vernacular. As a matter of fact any other differences are minuscule. The chant is Gregorian, the Canon is the Roman Canon, the distribution of the communion is by the priest to the tongues while the laity is kneeling at the bars of the altar.

 

[Sirach2]

At Trent:

Sirach2:

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.

… a promotion of the OF, off topic, and the bolded part is a swipe at the EF.
And, … I see nothing but hypocrisy there , considering the text that preceded it.

"this type of worship"… "without reference to the entire Mystical Body joined with us"

Great job of separating the two forms despite the SP which is the specific topic of this thread

You just proved the moderator’s point for the stickie. Verbal bombastic remarks that are judgmental and have no foundation other than your own wrong interpretation.

FYI, my friend, “this type of worship” embraced all of “us.” Note that I used *inclusive *language. It merely pointed to the fact that the change desired by the Council could be resisted even by those of “us” [even in the O.F] who preferred to remain in silent prayer of our own, rather than join in active participation … which is the focus of the entire liturgical change. Many in the O.F. resisted this as well, and pastors had their hands full guiding “us” to what the Council envisioned.

Why are you so negative? Why do you find specks in my posts and distort them with a meaning I never intended? If your goal is to close this thread, I suggest you keep it up.

 

[archangel04]

At the TLM mass I go to we had a Bishop from Venezuela talk to us about donations during the homily. During his talk he gave thanks to the priest for giving his time to celebrate the TLM, he said it brought back much memories of when he served the mass as a child, and said he would have it, but because of the lack of priest and non of them knowing Latin he could not have it. BTW the donations where because of the shortage of priest. I know he was not an American Bishop, but there are who are trying, but unfortunatly wanting it is not enough, Sirach has pointed this out as well.

 

[CradleCath]

Why are you so negative? Why do you find specks in my posts and distort them with a meaning I never intended? If your goal is to close this thread, I suggest you keep it up.

That HAS happened before…argumentative & confrontational messages sent for just that reason. I hope that doesn’t happen & I’m not sure why the NO. Mass has entered this discussion at all. I do not want to compare them, I simply would like to see everyone…those who attend the OF., the priests that say their Masses & the Bishops in the U.S. respect & love the TLM.** just as they do the Novus Ordo**.

Instead they feel, IMO. threatened by it.

 

[At_Trent]

…i’m not sure why the no. Mass has entered this discussion at all…

Instead they feel, imo. Threatened by it.

b-i-n-g-o

 

[At_Trent]

You just proved the moderator’s point for the stickie. Verbal bombastic remarks that are judgmental and have no foundation other than your own wrong interpretation.

FYI, my friend, “this type of worship” embraced all of “us.” Note that I used *inclusive *language. It merely pointed to the fact that the change desired by the Council could be resisted even by those of “us” [even in the O.F] who preferred to remain in silent prayer of our own, rather than join in active participation … which is the focus of the entire liturgical change. Many in the O.F. resisted this as well, and pastors had their hands full guiding “us” to what the Council envisioned.

Why are you so negative? Why do you find specks in my posts and distort them with a meaning I never intended? If your goal is to close this thread, I suggest you keep it up.

You are the one keeping up the “council this/council that” OF this/OF that"

Totally off topic.

 

[laszlo]

Instead they feel, IMO. threatened by it.

It seems to me, that you overestimate the power of the rite.
The TLM attract less than 1% of the priests and the laity. I do not believe that anyone feels threatened by it. The only thing what the bishop shpuld do: to think if the service of the 1 % is preferable in the expense of the over 90% or not

Statistic:

400,000 priest for the new rite, less than 2000 for the TLM

In the US 40,000 vs less than 400

According to the latest statistics in England 1% of the total attend TLM and 10% of the total (40% of the quarter who attends Masses regularly) is ready to try it.

 

[At_Trent]

It seems to me, that you overestimate the power of the rite.
The TLM attract less than 1% of the priests and the laity. I do not believe that anyone feels threatened by it. The only thing what the bishop shpuld do: to think if the service of the 1 % is preferable in the expense of the over 90% or not

Statistic:

400,000 priest for the new rite, less than 2000 for the TLM

In the US 40,000 vs less than 400

According to the latest statistics in England 1% of the total attend TLM and 10% of the total (40% of the quarter who attends Masses regularly) is ready to try it.

You assume those not asking for the EF don’t desire it.

It’s been less than four years since the EF has been freed of indult. H.H. didn’t flip a magical switch which empowered every priest with the competence to pray the TLM.

The Mass was suppressed for quite some time before the indult H.H. JPII granted. It was left to the local Bishop at that point, and many continued to suppress the EF.

Now, it will take time for priests to learn the Latin and the rubrics. It will also take time until it can be said the majority of Catholics know they now have a choice. Look at the lopsided results of the poll I posted here on CA. That poll was presented to a segment of Catholics who are aware of the SP and the EF.

Let every diocese have a couple of weekly EF’s in place for 5 years and then compare the numbers … pre-SP…today…and then. If the numbers at that point show low attendance and no increase in demand when compared to today’s numbers, then you have a case.

But considering the implication of the SC is still in it’s infancy, with the majority of Catholics not informed of it’s purpose, you simply can’t make your case as you present it.

Am I wrong about this ?

 

[At_Trent]

I went ahead and voted no after some thought.

If the majority of bishops truly embraced it, then surely we would have a TLM in the majority of diocese, or at least talk of it.

just my opinion…that and 3 bucks will get you a gallon of gas

 

[ProVobis]

400,000 priest for the new rite, less than 2000 for the TLM

Is this a surprise, considering it takes 3 weeks tops to learn the new rite, while it takes 9-12 months to learn the TLM AFTER having studied Latin for a few years? However, the more you have, the more you have to teach others and the quicker the spread. Brick by brick first. We only had several TLM priests in 1988.

 

[laszlo]

Is this a surprise, considering it takes 3 weeks tops to learn the new rite, while it takes 9-12 months to learn the TLM AFTER having studied Latin for a few years? However, the more you have, the more you have to teach others and the quicker the spread. Brick by brick first. We only had several TLM priests in 1988.

Unfortunately over 20% of the US priest (over 8000) was ordained before 1970, so celebrated his first Mass in TLM. Such things are hard to forget.

In my time (late fifties) the TLM (how to say mass0 was not taught in the seminaries, everyone was supposed to know that. The St John Cantius fathers keep seminars, 4 days each to teach the TLM.

We live in different world. In my world the reason is that the majority of the priests and laity prefers the vernacular, and the betters ones value the presence of Jesus Christ over the rite. I estimate, mote than half is better one.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You assume those not asking for the EF don’t desire it.

It’s been less than four years since the EF has been freed of indult. H.H. didn’t flip a magical switch which empowered every priest with the competence to pray the TLM.

The Mass was suppressed for quite some time before the indult H.H. JPII granted. It was left to the local Bishop at that point, and many continued to suppress the EF.

Now, it will take time for priests to learn the Latin and the rubrics. It will also take time until it can be said the majority of Catholics know they now have a choice. Look at the lopsided results of the poll I posted here on CA. That poll was presented to a segment of Catholics who are aware of the SP and the EF.

Let every diocese have a couple of weekly EF’s in place for 5 years and then compare the numbers … pre-SP…today…and then. If the numbers at that point show low attendance and no increase in demand when compared to today’s numbers, then you have a case.

But considering the implication of the SC is still in it’s infancy, with the majority of Catholics not informed of it’s purpose, you simply can’t make your case as you present it.

Am I wrong about this ?

My Diocese has had a weekly TLM, at one of our most beautiful Churches, for a long time. Long before SP, and I live in one of the more “liberal” dioceses. There are also Holy Day Masses and occaisional other Masses celebrated in other churches. And our newest priest. has been trained in the 1962 rubrics. I also know that at least 2 of the 7 men in formation right now have also expressed interest, which is good for the community, as the priests they have right now are pretty close to retirement age.

The Latin Mass Community (as they call themselves in my diocese), on average, for the 4 weeks before Gaudette Sunday had an attendence of about 120 people. I have been told that this is a prettty accurate average.
We have about 300K Cathoics in my diocese.

With all of this, at least in my Diocese, I really see no reason to think that the TLM is being “suppressed”.

 

[At_Trent]

My Diocese has had a weekly TLM, at one of our most beautiful Churches, for a long time. Long before SP, and I live in one of the more “liberal” dioceses. There are also Holy Day Masses and occaisional other Masses celebrated in other churches. And our newest priest. has been trained in the 1962 rubrics. I also know that at least 2 of the 7 men in formation right now have also expressed interest, which is good for the community, as the priests they have right now are pretty close to retirement age.

The Latin Mass Community (as they call themselves in my diocese), on average, for the 4 weeks before Gaudette Sunday had an attendence of about 120 people. I have been told that this is a prettty accurate average.
We have about 300K Cathoics in my diocese.

With all of this, at least in my Diocese, I really see no reason to think that the TLM is being “suppressed”.

Of course it isn’t suppressed there. But how many of those 300K know of the TLM there. ?

We’ve had it here for near 10 yeas I think, and people in a parish two miles away don’t know of it. I’ve probably asked close to 60 people if they have ever been to that Mass, and only 5-6 have indicated any knowledge of it. A few I’ve told about it, I’ve seen there at a later date. I don’t assume any have left their home parish, but still, a few have gone, at least out of curiosity.