The Latin Mass "Not many parishes – ALL parishes" - England and Wales

[Caveman]

From The Telegraph (of London). Here’s the first few paragraphs; (Emphasis mine)

Latin Mass to return to England and Wales

…all seminaries will be required to teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so that they can celebrate it in all parishes. Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite.

Yesterday’s announcement by the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of Latin liturgy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, will horrify Catholic liberals, including many bishops of England and Wales.

Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said:*** “Not many parishes – all parishes.*** The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”

 

[cyberwolf001]

Oh boy this is gonna be interesting…

 

[graceandglory]

From The Telegraph (of London). Here’s the first few paragraphs; (Emphasis mine)

Latin Mass to return to England and Wales

…all seminaries will be required to teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so that they can celebrate it in all parishes. Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite.

Yesterday’s announcement by the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of Latin liturgy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, will horrify Catholic liberals, including many bishops of England and Wales.

Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said:*** “Not many parishes – all parishes.*** The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”

This sounds like a process. Beginning soon, all seminaries will begin to teach the Latin Mass. First off, seminaries will need to have a teacher to teach the seminarians. That will take time. Then seminarians need to begin to study Latin again. (My parish priest doesn’t know Latin, it wasn’t taught in Seminary here).

Then, the current priests who don’t know Latin, have to die, move on, or be replaced by a priest who does know how to say the Latin Mass.

Did the article say how long it would be before parishioners will notice the change?

 

[wanner47]

The article lost me before the first sentence was over.

The traditional Latin Mass – effectively banned by Rome for 40 years –

I don’t bother to read rubbish that starts the article with a blatant lie, so I don’t put much stock whatsoever into the rest of it.

 

[Holly3278]

This is awesome! I wish that the Latin Mass was celebrated within driving distance of where I live. Unfortunately, it isn’t too my knowledge. I’d love to attend a Latin Mass some day.

 

[Caveman]

The article lost me before the first sentence was over.

I don’t bother to read rubbish that starts the article with a blatant lie, so I don’t put much stock whatsoever into the rest of it.

Since when is the truth a “blatant lie”?

Since the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI until the Ecclesia Dei Indult, the Traditional Latin Mass was effectivly banned for the laity.

I will admit that The Telegraph has their time span wrong, but the assertion that such was “banned” for the laity is absolutely correct and truthful.

 

[LilyM]

Since when is the truth a “blatant lie”?

Since the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI until the Ecclesia Dei Indult, the Traditional Latin Mass was effectivly banned for the laity.

I will admit that The Telegraph has their time span wrong, but the assertion that such was “banned” for the laity is absolutely correct and truthful.

For starters that was roughly an 18-year period, nothing like 40. So NOT absolutely correct and truthful.

Secondly ‘banned by Rome’? Not a bit of it. Sure, bishops didn’t have it in their diocese, which has the same effect as a ban for the laity without doubt, but there was never any order from Rome that I’m aware of banning or suppressing it or anything like. If you can produce any document from Rome from the 1970-88 period that has the effect of doing so I’d be most interested to see it.

 

[Nohome]

It has been nearly a year since Summorum Pontificum was issued and we are yet to even hear mention of it in our Parish. Gradual process? More like when pigs fly.

Nohome

 

[Caveman]

For starters that was roughly an 18-year period, nothing like 40. So NOT absolutely correct and truthful.

Secondly ‘banned by Rome’? Not a bit of it. Sure, bishops didn’t have it in their diocese, which has the same effect as a ban for the laity without doubt, but there was never any order from Rome that I’m aware of banning or suppressing it or anything like. If you can produce any document from Rome from the 1970-88 period that has the effect of doing so I’d be most interested to see it.

Lily,
As I’ve already stated, the time frame is incorrect, but the essence is the truth. From the Mass of Paul VI until the Eccelsia Dei Indult, the Traditional altin Mass was effectivly banned for the laity. To say otherwise is quite simply, a lie.

By the way, no one ever said that there was “an order from Rome”. What was posted was that it was “essentially banned”, which is the truth, up until the implimentation of the Ecclesia Dei Indult. After all, if the laity is “banned” from even being present at the TLM… then that’s what it is. A banning. But we’re not going to play word games, are we?

But if you so desire to see a document stating that the TLM was essentially “banned” from 1970-1988, please read the liturgical documets that initiated the Mass of Paul VI. You will clearly see that the TLM was only authorized for “private Masses” sans laity. In fact, that’s common knowledge.

 

[mdgspencer]

From this article, it seems possible that this will cover the whole world, including the United States.
Still-a newspaper report isn’t an entirely certain source. I will wait to hear more.

 

[Caveman]

It has been nearly a year since Summorum Pontificum was issued and we are yet to even hear mention of it in our Parish. Gradual process? More like when pigs fly.

Nohome

Nohome,
Oh yes, it’s going to take years. But it IS taking place. Thanks be to God!!!

 

[LilyM]

Lily,
As I’ve already stated, the time frame is incorrect, but the essence is the truth. From the Mass of Paul VI until the Eccelsia Dei Indult, the Traditional altin Mass was effectivly banned for the laity. To say otherwise is quite simply, a lie.

By the way, no one ever said that there was “an order from Rome”. What was posted was that it was “essentially banned”, which is the truth, up until the implimentation of the Ecclesia Dei Indult. After all, if the laity is “banned” from even being present at the TLM… then that’s what it is. A banning. But we’re not going to play word games, are we?

But if you so desire to see a document stating that the TLM was essentially “banned” from 1970-1988, please read the liturgical documets that initiated the Mass of Paul VI. You will clearly see that the TLM was only authorized for “private Masses” sans laity. In fact, that’s common knowledge.

The time frame is incorrect - not truth. A lie.

The first sentence of the article says it was effectively banned BY ROME. Also not truth, also a blatant lie. It never was. Produce your document which says so, because the Encyclial accompanying the promulgation of the NO certainly says no such thing - papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6missal.htm and I don’t have time to do an indepth search for other documents.

As for those ‘private Masses’, my understanding is that the restriction simply meant they couldn’t be publicly advertised in bulletins or newspapers and such like NO Masses were.

Doesn’t mean lay people who were told or otherwise found out where they were happening, on a private basis, couldn’t attend them, nor that those lay people couldn’t tell others about 'em too. I’ve heard numerous stories of lay people who did just that.

Not to mention that numerous religious institutions (monasteries and convents) held them, held them regularly, and permitted lay people to come along too, they didn’t shut the doors on 'em. St Padre Pio, for one concrete example - he was allowed to continue to say the TLM, said it at the same time every day and in the same place as he always had, EVERYONE knew and could attend if they so desired.

Their restriction for ‘private’ use, as far as I am aware, doesn’t mean, as you seem to be implying, that laity couldn’t attend them, they most certainly could. I’d like to see you demonstrate the contrary.

 

[Caveman]

From this article, it seems possible that this will cover the whole world, including the United States.
Still-a newspaper report isn’t an entirely certain source. I will wait to hear more.

From the original article –

The traditional Latin Mass – effectively banned by Rome for 40 years – is to be reintroduced into every Roman Catholic parish in England and Wales, the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of Latin liturgy said at a press conference in London today.

I get the impression that England an Wales are the liturgical test ground.

And you’re right, a single article from The Telegraph isn’t the end-all. But I also have no reason to think this is a fabrication on their part, even if they did get the time frames incorrect.

Nonetheless, I’ll keep my eyes open for further news along these lines, and post on this forum as applicable.

Thanks.

 

[Caveman]

The time frame is incorrect - not truth. A lie.

The first sentence of the article says it was effectively banned BY ROME. Also not truth, also a blatant lie. It never was. Produce your document which says so, because the Encyclial accompanying the promulgation of the NO certainly says no such thing - papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6missal.htm

As for those ‘private Masses’, my understanding is that the restriction simply meant they couldn’t be publicly advertised in bulletins or newspapers and such like NO Masses were.

Doesn’t mean lay people who were told or otherwise found out where they were happening, on a private basis, couldn’t attend them, nor that those lay people couldn’t tell others about 'em too. I’ve heard numerous stories of lay people who did just that. Not to mention that numerous religious institutions (monestaries and convents) held them, held them regularly, and permitted lay people to come along too, they didn’t shut the doors on 'em.

Their restriction for ‘private’ use, as far as I am aware, doesn’t mean, as you seem to be implying, that laity couldn’t attend them, they most certainly could. I’d like to see you demonstrate the contrary.

Lily,
However you desire to look upon this is entirely up to you. Your understanding of private Masses, however, is wrong. Pre-Indult, the laity was banned from even attending a private Mass. This is no great revalation or ground-breaking news. In fact, it’s common knowledge.

Your example of monastaries and convents where the TLM was celebrated further proves my point… the laity was banned. I’ve been told by more than one priest (pre-Motu proprio) that I was “banned” (their word, not mine) from attending their private Masses. But in all fairness, that was only in diocese where the local Ordinary chose not (banned?) the TLM before the current MP.

I’d like to also point out to you that the Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM does state the following;

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, (popularly known as “private Masses”) each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – **also be attended by faithful **who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Lily, what I have emphasised in both Art 2 and Art 4 clearly lifts the ban from the laity. If there was no ban on lay particiaption (as you claim)… then why would The Holy Father even place those words in the Motu Proprio?

In fact, if one looks upon the time of the Indult to the implimentation of SP (1988-2007), then yes, there was a 37 year ban in the vast majority of diocese world-wide, in light that most bishops had the “right” from Rome to ban lay attendence.

But all this a is a distraction from the essential truth— the TLM was kept from the laity in the vast majority of the Catholic world, until The Holy Father lifted the majority of said restrictions last year.

And that’s the essential truth. All else is an inconsiquential smoke screen… if not sour grapes by certain individuals who have a particular hatred of traditional, orthodox Catholicism, and specifically: the Traditional Latin Mass.

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[LilyM]

Lily,
However you desire to look upon this is entirely up to you. Your understanding of private Masses is wrong. Pre-Indult, the laity was banned from even attending a private Mass. This is no great revalation or ground-breaking news. In fact, it’s common knowledge.

Your example of monastaries and convents where the TLM was celebrated further proves my point… the laity was banned. I’ve been told by more than one priest (pre-Motu proprio) that I was “banned” (their word, not mine) from attending their private Masses. But in all fairness, that was only in diocese where the local Ordinary chose not (banned?) the TLM before the current MP.

I’d like to alos point out to your that the Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM does state the following;

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, (popularly known as “private Masses”) each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – **also be attended by faithful **who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Lily, what I have emphasised in both Art 2 and Art 4 clearly lifts the ban from the laity. If there was no ban on lay particiaption… then why would The Holy Father even place those words in the Motu Proprio?

In fact, if one looks upon the time of the Indult to the implimentation of SP (1988-2007), then yes, there was a 37 year ban in the vast majority of diocese world-wide, in light that most bishops had the “right” from Rome to ban lay participation.

But all this a is a distraction from the essential truth— the TLM was kept from the laity in the majority of the Catholic world, until The Holy Father lifted the vast majority of said restrictions last year.

And that’s the essential truth. All else is smoke and mirrors… if not sour grapes by certain individuals who have a particular hatred of traditional, orthodox Catholicism, and specifically: the Traditional Latin Mass.

Wouldn’t you agree?

No I wouldn’t. SP refers to not needing permission - it seems permission would’ve been needed to use the 1962 Missal in any circumstance (possibly unless one was a member of FSSP or ICKSP or the like), since the TLM itself was available only by indult at that stage. It’s not a comment on the presence of laity v their non-presence.

What you’ve asserted isn’t enough for me to accept your conclusions. I clearly don’t know what to you is ‘common knowledge’, and I’m sure I’m not the only one, so I have no way of determining whether what you think you know, what you think is common knowledge, is in fact true.

Question is, where did Rome give permission for Bishops to ban lay attendance? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just haven’t found any document (with my limited searching capabilities) that has said so. If you can’t produce such, then don’t say it as if it’s a given, your assertion isn’t good enough evidence.

Bishops and priests have certainly been known to go against Rome’s explicit instructions on a range of issues - perhaps those Bishops and priests who told you you were banned or who purported to ban the TLM were exceeding their authority. This is especially possible in light of JPII’s and Benedict XVI’s statement that the TLM never was abrogated.

 

[Caveman]

I note you still haven’t quoted any documents though. I clearly don’t know what is ‘common knowledge’, so I have no way of determining whether what you think you know, what you think is common knowledge, is in fact true.

Where did Rome give permission for Bishops to ban lay attendance? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just haven’t found any document (with my limited searching capabilities) that has said so. If you can’t produce such, then don’t say it as if it’s a given, your assertion isn’t good enough evidence.

Bishops and priests have certainly been known to go against Rome’s explicit instructions on a range of issues - perhaps those Bishops and priests who told you you were banned or who purported to ban the TLM were exceeding their authority. This is especially possible in light of JPII’s and Benedict XVI’s statement that the TLM never was abrogated.

Didn’t I just quote and cite Summorum Pontificum lifting any impeding of lay attendence? Yep… I just did. If you choose to ignore or side-step that, that’s up to you. As I said, if there was no ban, then why did the Holy Father use the words he did?

But I think you’re focusing on the wrong emphasis in this article. Isn’t it more important that the Traditional Latin Mass is going to be more readily available (at least for the time being) in England and Wales, than it is for us to dissect a chronological error by a reporter for The Telegraph, and for us to quibble over the definition of “private Mass”?

For the love of God… The TLM is truly and finally being freed! Let us rejoice in that! THANKS BE TO GOD!!

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Al_Masetti]

What year was it that the Latin Mass disappeared from Catholic parishes in the United States? [more or less approximately what year?]

I remember one priest getting fired for removing the altar rail. He said he was following his orders, but some influential parishioners got him reassigned. That would have been around 1967. We were almost definitely doing the Mass in English at that time.

That must have been very near the time that the Mass switched from Latin to English. Because I got “volunteered” to help out and the prayer book I had to use was in Latin and I had to translate as I went. [What a mess!]

 

[Caveman]

What year was it that the Latin Mass disappeared from Catholic parishes in the United States? [more or less approximately what year?]

I remember one priest getting fired for removing the altar rail. He said he was following his orders, but some influential parishioners got him reassigned. That would have been around 1967. We were almost definitely doing the Mass in English at that time.

That must have been very near the time that the Mass switched from Latin to English. Because I got “volunteered” to help out and the prayer book I had to use was in Latin and I had to translate as I went. [What a mess!]

Al,
Even though I was a kid at the time, I seem to recall some sort of “transitional/hybrid” Masses as far back as 1968 (even '67?), and that the Mass of Paul VI was totally implimented by 1970.

Hope this helps!

 

[LilyM]

Didn’t I just quote and cite Summorum Pontificum lifting any impeding of lay attendence? Yep… I just did. If you choose to ignore or side-step that, that’s up to you. As I said, if there was no ban, then why did the Holy Father use the words he did?

But I think you’re focusing on the wrong emphasis in this article. Isn’t it more important that the Traditional Latin Mass is going to be more readily available (at least for the time being) in England and Wales, than it is for us to dissect a chronological error by a reporter for The Telegraph, and for us to quibble over the definition of “private Mass”?

For the love of God… The TLM is truly and finally being freed! Let us rejoice in that! THANKS BE TO GOD!!

Wouldn’t you agree?

No I didn’t ignore it. That statement simply means that some clergy, whether rightly or wrongly, THOUGHT lay people should be impeded. They needed to be instructed otherwise.

I’ve told you that it is likely that the clergy who thought this, even the ones who told you this, were wrong.

What you haven’t given, and what is needed for the statement in the article to be anything like true, is a document showing that Rome actually did either ban lay attendance or grant clear permission for Bishops to do so.

Now I am all for freeing up of and making more available of the TLM, and only wish the Church here in Australia would do the same as the UK.

What I don’t appreciate, and will fight against wherever I see it, is unsubstantiated slander and smearing of previous Popes and Church officials for an alleged ban that they likely didn’t actually make.

 

[Caveman]

No I didn’t ignore it. That statement simply means that some clergy, whether rightly or wrongly, THOUGHT lay people should be impeded. They needed to be instructed otherwise.

I’ve told you that it is likely that the clergy who thought this, even the ones who told you this, were wrong.

What you haven’t given, and what is needed for the statement in the article to be anything like true, is a document showing that Rome actually did either ban lay attendance or grant clear permission for Bishops to do so.

Now I am all for freeing up of and making more available of the TLM, and only wish the Church here in Australia would do the same as the UK.

What I don’t appreciate, and will fight against wherever I see it, is unsubstantiated slander and smearing of previous Popes and Church officials for an alleged ban that they likely didn’t actually make.

Lily,
I can understand and respect your want for a clear source stating that a formal ban was placed upon lay participation. Like you, I have limited time and resources to find such. And at this present moment in time, I haven’t found such a clear-cut reference. But rest assured… I will.

But what I have found are references and cited, were articles 2 & 4 of Summorum Pontificum that clearly lift any impediment to lay participation. Like I asked more than once; if there never was a ban, then why, for the love of God, did Pope Benedict use the words he did? Was he just making it up as he went along? Was it just his imagenation running away with him? Or was there REALLY a ban on lay participation, de facto or otherwise?

Unless His Holiness is liturgically hallucanating, there was a ban and he fixed if postehaste in his Motu Proprio. And there simply is no getting around that, Lily.

As I’ve already stated, I think you’re focusing on the wrong emphasis in this article. Isn’t it more important that the Traditional Latin Mass is going to be more readily available (at least for the time being) in England and Wales for starters, than it is for us to dissect a chronological error by a reporter for The Telegraph, and for us to quibble over the definition of “private Mass”? Let’s not loose sight of what is really important here.

For the love of God… The TLM is truly and finally being freed! Let us rejoice in that! THANKS BE TO GOD!!

Wouldn’t you agree?