TLM as sole Worship?

[codefro]

That may be true in reality, but the Vatican website has a choice to view official texts in english or other languages. It is not critical to post the basic text here using latin, since most people will not read it. To be honest, some might think it is vanity, rather than being of help to others.

Now Iesum posted in english despite stating the opinion of why it should be in Latin. So I think that matter should be let go.

 

[otjm]

Yes, there are over 24 vernaculars in Chicago. Your point?

Read what I wrote and you will figure out my point. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[otjm]

Hahahahahahaha!!! LOL!

Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 §1:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 54:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 101:

CIC/83, Canon 928:

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, 112:

Latin is, and always will be, the language of the Latin Church: of her teachings, of her communications, and of her Liturgy.

I always enjoy it when someone points out Sacrosanctum Concilium as if it were binding in all aspects.

Yes, that is what the Council wanted.

It also was not followed anywhere near as closely as it should have been.

And nothing I have said contradicts Redemptionis Sacramentum. Latin will always be the language of the Latin Church; but the vernacular will also be used in Latin Masses for far longer than you or I will be around.

By the way - I read those documents when they came out. It really is not necessary to preach to the choir…

 

[otjm]

It is interesting to note that the Diocesan Priest stated that while he had no love for the Extraordinary Form at the time, and had been given the task solely because he knew how to celebrate the Mass properly, he accepted the job through obedience. He stated in an interview later that he found that celebrating the Extraordinary Form regularly directly impacted the way in which he celebrated the Ordinary Form in a very, very positive way.

stannes-sandiego.org/

and he is not the first priest top say that, and likely not the last. It is a point worth pondering.

 

[ProVobis]

Read what I wrote and you will figure out my point. The facts speak for themselves.

The Reformers used the same arguments, I believe.

Yet, Catholics chose the Latin liturgy over the vulgar/vernacular. That’s a fact too.

 

[Protector]

Mike30;10580096] Hypothetical and provocative question.

Since it is hypothetical and fairly free of anti Extraordinary Form bias, except that little bit where you slipped up and equated wanting the Extraordinary Form Mass as the normative Mass rather than the current Ordinary Form, with undermining the Council:thumbsup: I will answer hypothetically:

Yes, many people do wish it would return and be the typical Sunday Mass. Many of us had to live through the rampant experimentation and abuses that existed from the late sixties up through the Pontificate of John Paul II, when some of the insanity started to subside. although there are still a lot of places where that experimentation is still going full speed ahead.

Hi Mike, please forgive my intrusion into this “in-house” debate - as a non-Roman Catholic it holds only mostly curiosity value for me. However, I was intrigued by the statement in your post,

**…when some of the insanity started to subside. **

Do you have the time to indulge me by briefly explaining that statement?

Protector.

 

[ProVobis]

He stated in an interview later that he found that celebrating the Extraordinary Form regularly directly impacted the way in which he celebrated the Ordinary Form in a very, very positive way.

Mike, this is nice and all, but what happens when the EF, because the OF becomes more reverent and popular, becomes extinct itself?

 

[ProVobis]

And nothing I have said contradicts Redemptionis Sacramentum. Latin will always be the language of the Latin Church; but the vernacular will also be used in Latin Masses for far longer than you or I will be around.

Why are you arguing this point if you say there are so few Latin Masses to begin with? As I’m comparing a lot of vernaculars, it seems as though some translations are based on other translations. These are already far removed from the original Latin.

 

[Sirach2]

Why are you arguing this point if you say there are so few Latin Masses to begin with? As I’m comparing a lot of vernaculars, it seems as though some translations are based on other translations. These are already far removed from the original Latin.

Why are you jabbing at this poster?

 

[ProVobis]

That may be true in reality, but the Vatican website has a choice to view official texts in english or other languages.

Yes, but don’t forget, the same website translates the Latin “colere” as “worship” and Catholics end up “worshipping” Mary. So the Latin helps to clarify. Just saying.

 

[otjm]

The Reformers used the same arguments, I believe.

Yet, Catholics chose the Latin liturgy over the vulgar/vernacular. That’s a fact too.

You are smart enough to know that the issue of the vernacular was not the main focus of the Reformers or anywhere near it. You and I both know it is a disciplinary issue, and the Reformers were not splitting off from the church over mere disciplinary disagreements.

I expect better of you.

 

[Megan7]

There is a Parish in San Diego, Saint Annes, that offers the Extraordinary Form exclusively, five times a day on Sunday and twice a day on all other days. It grew out of the Traditional Mass Society which had an arrangement with the Diocese for many years in which a weekly Extraordinary Form Mass was celebrated. At first a retired Diocesan Priest was the celebrant then several Priests from the Norbertine Abbey in Silver Lake, California assumed the duties. When the Archbishop assigned a Parish for the Extraordinary Form, he entrusted it to the FSSP which is where the situation stands today.

The members of the Society said a weekly Rosary for over twenty years, asking that one day they would be allowed to have their own Parish. The Blesssed Virgin and Bishop Robert Brom made this possible and we are eternally grateful for what we have received.

It is interesting to note that the Diocesan Priest stated that while he had no love for the Extraordinary Form at the time, and had been given the task solely because he knew how to celebrate the Mass properly, he accepted the job through obedience. He stated in an interview later that he found that celebrating the Extraordinary Form regularly directly impacted the way in which he celebrated the Ordinary Form in a very, very positive way.

stannes-sandiego.org/

This is a beautiful post.

I have had the Blessing of visiting this particular Parish.
It is ALWAYS packed wall to wall, the Priests are wonderful, the homilies are
outstanding. If I remember correctly, they even have 1 Mass (or maybe more) where
the homilies are in Spanish. So, you also have Spanish speaking people attending
the TLM & loving it Another interesting point that I noticed, that there are several
other Catholic Churches nearby, yet this one is overflowing with people
At every single Mass!
I really really envied (in a good way ) this particular Parish, they are so Blessed
with these wonderful Priests, Parish, activities throughout the year:thumbsup: etc. etc.
I loved everything about it.
God bless.

 

[otjm]

Why are you arguing this point if you say there are so few Latin Masses to begin with? As I’m comparing a lot of vernaculars, it seems as though some translations are based on other translations. These are already far removed from the original Latin.

I think a careful reading of what I said indicated that there has been and continues to be some growth of the EF. It has been far slower than some would like; for others (who have the EF available) it has been just right, and for some whose comments about the EF are at best restrained, it will never be enough.

It has been my experience with those who want the EF that they seem to know little of what is factually occurring - and that cuts down both sides - those who think it is massively repressed, and those who think it is growing exponentially. Both tend to have a very minimal factual basis.

As to translations, I agree with you. I also know from long experience that Rome moves very slowly, even in the age of the internet. People presume that decisions will be made within months, if not weeks for what may take years to do. Nothing much has changed in that department, but for some reason (largely based on no historical understanding) the perception remains.

 

[Megan7]

Hahahahahahaha!!! LOL!

Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 §1:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 54:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 101:

CIC/83, Canon 928:

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, 112:

Latin is, and always will be, the language of the Latin Church: of her teachings, of her communications, and of her Liturgy.

I love your posts in Latin, thank you!
It helps me practice my Latin.
God bless,
Pax

 

[IesumPerMariam]

You are smart enough to know that the issue of the vernacular was not the main focus of the Reformers or anywhere near it. You and I both know it is a disciplinary issue, and the Reformers were not splitting off from the church over mere disciplinary disagreements.

I disagree about it being strictly a disciplinary matter. I see a strong link between the Tower of Babel (and subsequent confounding of tongues – which was of course a punishment from God for man’s sin) and the use of a single unifying language throughout the Latin Rites, the Church having now found redemption through Christ. That the language fell out of common secular use only serves to make it more unifying as a liturgical language.

 

[otjm]

I disagree about it being strictly a disciplinary matter. I see a strong link between the Tower of Babel (and subsequent confounding of tongues – which was of course a punishment from God for man’s sin) and the use of a single unifying language throughout the Latin Rites, the Church having now found redemption through Christ. That the language fell out of common secular use only serves to make it more unifying as a liturgical language.

Then you either forget or ignore the history of the Church.

To begin with, the Latin rite is simply one of the rites of the Church it is the largest, and it has the privilege of having the Pope. But Latin is not the language of the Church; it is the language of the Latin rite. and God has seen fit for 2000 years to have various languages, Latin being one of them.

Latin was not the official language of the Church at its start; Aramaic was; and shortly thereafter, Greek was; and then the apostles went out, and the Eastern rites had their beginning; the Maronites use Arabic and Aramaic (and in addition, in the US, English); and etc. through the other Eastern rites.

And that has not led to a Tower of Babel.

And while the EF has been the form of the Mass in the Latin rite for centuries, it has not been the form in the Eastern rites, and the Church did not fall apart. It isn’t going to fall apart now.

Latin was the vernacular of the Church for a long time; before that Greek was the vernacular; all those in seeming mortal fear of vernacular ignore history.

The bishops of the world were gathered with the Pope (actually, with two Popes) as they produced the documents of Vatican 2. While it is clear that they did not intend to go to an absolutely total vernacular, it is also crystal clear they intended to go to the vernacular, and that is neither a matter of faith nor morals. It is disciplinary.

 

[ProVobis]

You are smart enough to know that the issue of the vernacular was not the main focus of the Reformers or anywhere near it.

Okay, I’ll concede somewhat on that part. After all, Luther did leave some Latin in the liturgy.

But let’s face it, in order to do self-interpretation or be able to spread a heresy, step 1 is to translate or form something in the vernacular. Not that the heresy is automatic but there is always that risk. And that’s all I will say about the Reformers on this thread; after all I can’t analyze every one of the 20,000 denominations which have been the result of their thinking.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree about it being strictly a disciplinary matter. I see a strong link between the Tower of Babel (and subsequent confounding of tongues – which was of course a punishment from God for man’s sin) and the use of a single unifying language throughout the Latin Rites, the Church having now found redemption through Christ. That the language fell out of common secular use only serves to make it more unifying as a liturgical language.

You said it better than I could. It’s more important now than ever before.

 

[robwar]

It has been several years since I tried to put any numbers together, and now I don’t have the time to try to do so. Since the numbers were from several years ago, they may be a minimum; or they may not be much different; without research, it is pointless to speculate.

However, when I counted, the Archdioceses of Chicago seemed to have good information as to where the EF was being said; at the time there was well over three hundred parishes and missions, and something like 3.6% had the EF.

But that did not take into account how many masses were said in all of the parishes and out of all the Masses on a weekend, how many were in the EF. It was not clear that the 12 parishes were strictly EF; there simply was no information. So that is not to say that 3.6% of Masses were in the EF; only that many parishes had at least one EF weekly/

From what I have been able to gather, there are some EF parishes within the US; however, it appears that the much greater tendency is that a parish will offer one EF, and the rest of the Masses (1, 2, 3 or more depending on the size of the parish and the number of priests available) are of the OF. This would seem to indicate that significantly less than 1% of all Masses offered on a weekend are the EF. And the EF may have 450 people attending (a number I saw recently in reference to one EF Mass); and the parish itself may have twice that attending the OF; or another parish may have 2000 attending. There are also the parishes that may have 150 attending the OF on any given weekend.
So it is nigh impossible to say, of those attending Mass weekly, how many attend an EF weekly.

The bottom line is that while there is tremendous enthusiasm among those who attend the EF, they appear to be in a significantly minor part of those attending regularly.

As to the statistics in other countries, I don’t know if anyone has any adequate statistics. The short of it is that the Ordinary Form is just that - the Ordinary form.

“The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” This quote is directly from the letter by Benedict 16 accompanying SP.

A further quote: “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

As to the future, at least as Benedict saw it: “For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.”

If anyone in any position of authority on the matter has had anything to say, Pope Benedict did, and it seems that is not something that at least some who favor the EF want to hear. However, it is likely that there will be some changes to both the EF and the OF (as the most recent changes to the OF should be a good indication).

What seems to be missed is that Vatican 2 did not start this whole process; it was well under way during the reign of Pope Pius 12th if not before. People look at the documents of V 2 and the Mass promulgated after, and see none of what went before. The move to modify the EF started long before Vatican 2. Had it been a gradual change over time rather than such an abrupt change, some of these divisions might not exist. But the likelihood of going back to the EF alone would appear to be non-existent. The greater likelihood is that there will be minor changes to the OF and the EF over a longer period of time, and some of those changes may only be matters that are within it currently. But whether the form is EF or OF, it is clear the mind of the Church was to move to vernacular; to what extent Latin may be required only in the OF (as opposed to being an option) is subject to speculation. But the far greater majority of laity, priests, bishops and cardinals support the vernacular, including the past 4 Popes and the current one.

Thank-you for the post and the stats and that is not what those who want all EF Masses all the time and for everyone want to hear. Despite what some on this thread want everyone to believe, there is no big stampede to EF Masses when they are offered and Catholics are not demanding them. It is total fantasy, that everything in the Catholic Church was fine and hunky dory before Vatican II its changes. The problems existed well before that. Catholics were not more orthodox just because the Mass was conducted in Latin. Thanks again for your post which had some facts and not fantasies and wishful thinking.

 

[Sirach2]

Thank-you for the post and the stats and that is not what those who want all EF Masses all the time and for everyone want to hear. Despite what some on this thread want everyone to believe, there is no big stampede to EF Masses when they are offered and Catholics are not demanding them. It is total fantasy, that everything in the Catholic Church was fine and hunky dory before Vatican II its changes. The problems existed well before that. Catholics were not more orthodox just because the Mass was conducted in Latin. Thanks again for your post which had some facts and not fantasies and wishful thinking.

The most important document in all of the sixteen was the Constitution on the Liturgy, and after 50 years, I’m hopeful that Catholics have read it entirely. I weary of those who cherry-pick this document in order to promote certain aspects that were not the objectives of the Councillors. You are so right, Robwar, that tings were not “hunky dory” prior to V-II’s changes. The Council mentioned this explicity. It bears repeating for those who simply wish to deny this.

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.** The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy. **
2. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, **the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times. **
3. 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.
   There are multiple threads that claim “active participation” is interior, and set aside the council statements as if interiority was their intended meaning. Notably, these are posted by traditionalists who enjoy a silent liturgy without external participation. I’m not nitpicking the TLM, and fully support the bolded position of paragraph 4 above concerning the equality of all rites. I eagerly welcome the refinements that even this liturgy has undergone to make its worship more sublime.

But I take offense along with others here who do not understand why there must be a constant effort by some of them to reduce the OF to a lesser rite by these overt efforts to find fault with it and insist on preferential changes, including latin, when the Church has seen fit universally to allow the vernacular. She isn’t going to revert back to latin, no matter how many posts and threads appear insisting that it be done. This is sadly a disunifying controversy that must tear at the heart of Christ Jesus, who prayed that “they all be one!” May God speak to the heart of those who cause this rupture of unity.