To the clerics that are against the TLM

[Caveman]

Notwithstanding the OP’s blog and use of crude profanity…

If you mean me using the phrase “cock-sure”, I strongly suggest that you get out a dictionary and look up that particular word.

Only the ignorant would refer to that word as “crude profanity”.

Hugs and kisses,
The Caveman

 

[ncjohn]

And yet you also said "The majority of people just prefer to pray in a language they understand."
That implies that they don’t understand the prayers in Latin, in spite of the Church’s exhortation over and over in the documents of Vatical II and since that the faithful should know the basic prayers of the Church in Latin.

No, it doesn’t imply any such thing. It means exactly what it says: that people prefer to pray in their own language.

Pretty much every parish I have attended, at the least, does the Kyrie and Agnus Dei during Advent and Lent. At least those basic prayers are not being lost. Could, or should, more be integrated so as not to lose that rich part of our heritage? I think there are strong arguments for that.

But to argue that only Latin is acceptable is to say that the Mass should never have been in Latin to begin with. For to say that people preferring the vernacular now, but should not be allowed to have it, is to say that those who wanted Latin to begin with, precisely because it was the vernacular of the time, should not have been allowed it.

Latin is just a language–a way of expressing thoughts. There is absolutely nothing inherently superior about it, any more than those who proclaim French to be the most beautiful language in the world. Yes, it represents a rich tradition within the Church and needs to be preserved at least for that reason. But beyond that, proclaiming that keeping Latin as the only language of the Liturgy is to make an idol of it, and to make “traditions of man” ahead of Tradition of God.

If you feel more comfortable and closer to God praying in Latin, by all means go for it. But PLEASE stop (generic, not you specifically) telling those who call out to God in their own way that there is something inferior about that. If those who want greater access to the TLM were to do that, I am quite sure they would get the support of those who would never go but would never begrudge someone else’s desire to go.

Peace,

 

[paramedicgirl]

To the clerics that are against the TLM,

Maybe we should ask them what they would be doing now hadn’t it been for the Novus Ordo. Just a thought.

Hmmm… let me think what you are getting at. Surely NOT saying the Mass reverently in Latin?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Pretty much every parish I have attended, at the least, does the Kyrie and Agnus Dei during Advent and Lent. At least those basic prayers are not being lost. Could, or should, more be integrated so as not to lose that rich part of our heritage? I think there are strong arguments for that.
Peace,

I’m just wondering if you mean here that the Agnus Dei and Kyrie are prayed in Latin during Advent & Lent at every parish you have been to. Sorry, but it’s not clear to me. We never pray anything in Latin at my church. I have heard maybe four or five Latin hymns in the eleven years I’ve been at my NO parish. And that’s pretty sad.

When you say,

At least those basic prayers are not being lost.

isn’t that a poor compromise? Accepting less when God deserves more?

 

[ncjohn]

I’m just wondering if you mean here that the Agnus Dei and Kyrie are prayed in Latin during Advent & Lent at every parish you have been to. Sorry, but it’s not clear to me. We never pray anything in Latin at my church. I have heard maybe four or five Latin hymns in the eleven years I’ve been at my NO parish. And that’s pretty sad.

I’m sorry, by using the actual Greek and Latin names I assumed that it would be clear that they are being done in those languages.

When you say, isn’t that a poor compromise? Accepting less when God deserves more?

As I said, I know of good arguments for incorporating more, at least during special seasons. I personally think it’s important for us to understand some Latin if for no other reason than that it is so ingrained in our heritage.

But no, I don’t agree that it’s because “God deserves more” as I don’t think God has the least preference at all which language we pray in. That again starts, at least in my mind, to put “traditions of man” as being the thoughts or desire of God.

God, and Jesus, made it very clear what they desire: “What I desire is mercy, not sacrifice”. It is the intent and devotion in our hearts, and how we manifest that to each other, that God is looking for rather than the external trappings–the burnt offerings–that we would rather give Him because it’s much easier for us than turning over our hearts or expending the effort to see to the wellbeing of the “widows, orphans, and strangers” among us.

Especially during this wonderful Lenten season of reflection, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all really and truly examined our hearts to see where we’re truly trying to serve God and where we’re really just trying to look like we’re serving God? I know that far too often I find myself thinking far too much about making myself look good in the eyes of others rather than letting them see God working in me by how I am treating those around me.

As John the Baptist put it, “he must increase and I must decrease.” And sometimes (maybe *most *of the time ) that might mean giving up on the way I think things should be so others can also have things the way they think they should be.

Peace,

 

[Ham1]

I’m just wondering if you mean here that the Agnus Dei and Kyrie are prayed in Latin during Advent & Lent at every parish you have been to. Sorry, but it’s not clear to me. We never pray anything in Latin at my church. I have heard maybe four or five Latin hymns in the eleven years I’ve been at my NO parish. And that’s pretty sad.

When you say, isn’t that a poor compromise? Accepting less when God deserves more?

All the parishes around here (Midwest) do the Kyrie in Greek and the Agnus Dei and Sanctus in Latin. At least, during Lent. Granted this is my experience only, but it does seem to be common here.

 

[ncjohn]

All the parishes around here (Midwest) do the Kyrie in Greek and the Agnus Dei and Sanctus in Latin. At least, during Lent. Granted this is my experience only, but it does seem to be common here.

I should also have added the Sanctus to my list. Not sure how I managed to leave that off.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m sorry, by using the actual Greek and Latin names I assumed that it would be clear that they are being done in those languages.

That’s what I thought you meant, too. Until you said it’s done at every parish you have ever been to. I guess you haven’t been to any parishes in Canada, 'cause it’s never done here.

But no, I don’t agree that it’s because “God deserves more” as I don’t think God has the least preference at all which language we pray in. That again starts, at least in my mind, to put “traditions of man” as being the thoughts or desire of God.

I was talking about preserving the beautiful traditions of the Church that we have used to praise God with for centuries, rather than tossing them out and having them vanish. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear…

God, and Jesus, made it very clear what they desire: “What I desire is mercy, not sacrifice”. It is the intent and devotion in our hearts, and how we manifest that to each other, that God is looking for rather than the external trappings–the burnt offerings–that we would rather give Him because it’s much easier for us than turning over our hearts or expending the effort to see to the wellbeing of the “widows, orphans, and strangers” among us…Especially during this wonderful Lenten season of reflection, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all really and truly examined our hearts to see where we’re truly trying to serve God and where we’re really just trying to look like we’re serving God?

Jesus also desires sacrifice, and that is very clear throughout the whole bible. Lent is a time of sacrifice *and *spiritual reflection. I don’t separate the two:
Rom.12

1. [1] I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship

 

[Ham1]

In general, to Caveman and others…

Yes, such abuse is very sad and very wrong. And it is particularly frustrating when the Vatican seems to be ignoring our requests that something be done. But we can’t lose faith and we ought not to think badly of the Pope for not ruling with an iron fist. We need to continue to pray for our bishop’s and to send details of abuses to the appropriate congregation.

The situation that Caveman has endured reminds me of those instances in life when God does not answer one of our prayers for a particular intention in the way that we would most desire. Sometimes the response that we would like to see is not the response that He decides to give. When the prayer seemingly goes unanswered it is really hard to take. But, we have to remain faithful and hopeful that Our Lord knows what is best for us. In the same way, we should remain hopeful that, when the Holy See does not deliver the response that we desire, the will of God is still being accomplished. Let’s have a bit of hope.

And there is reason to be hopeful. We have many wonderful new young bishops. Many seminaries have been “converted” and there are well-formed young priests beginning to make changes one parish at a time. We have (I believe) more indult Masses available than 20 years ago.

We don’t need to throw away the NO and return to the TLM. All we need is a return to orthodoxy and the parishes will turn vibrant once again. My parish, for instance, is growing very quickly and it all has started with an orthodox liturgy. Now, there is still much to be done with many parishioners to convert them from “culturally catholic” to “Roman Catholic.” But, that is starting to happen with a devout liturgy, strong homilies, orthodox catechesis and drastically increased confession times (and the lines are getting longer).

I’m not saying we should all be content. Let’s just be optimistic, continue to pray, continue to work to eliminate abuse, and continue to be faithful and confident that the Holy Spirit is guiding our Pope on his schedule and not on our’s. Don’t circle the wagons. We are not at the beginning of the end. We are at the beginning of the return of orthodoxy.

God bless.

 

[ncjohn]

I was talking about preserving the beautiful traditions of the Church that we have used to praise God with for centuries, rather than tossing them out and having them vanish. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear…

I think we’re saying the same thing. I don’t think there are many people who would advocate just tossing them all out, although many (maybe most) would not prefer to have it be the only way we would be allowed to praise God. There is a big difference between “preserving” and “mandating” and I think that it is when people cross that line and think there to be only “one right way” that the trouble begins.

Jesus also desires sacrifice, and that is very clear throughout the whole bible.

There is no question that He “deserves” sacrifice, just as there is no question that we “deserve” eteranal damnation for any offense against God. But even the very quote you gave talks about presenting ourselves as the sacrifice, which mirrors what I said about God looking for our giving Him our hearts. I can’t personally recall any place where Jesus asks for “sacrifice” in that sense, though I will agree that he asks us in many different ways to take up our cross and follow him, which to me is just another way of saying “present your whole self to me.”

Over and over in the Bible God says He doesn’t want any more burnt offerings or seeing people in sackcloth and ashes, but that instead He wants softened hearts. Does that mean we shouldn’t make sacrifices? Of course not. But it does mean that if we aren’t making them with softened hearts in trying to care for all of His beloved children, that we are likely missing the whole point and wasting our time. Piety alone won’t save us, but only piety that is the very manifestation of our love of God; just as works are only salvific to the extent that they reflect our intentions to do them for Him.

When the disciples came to complain to Jesus about the exorcists that were using his name but weren’t part of their group, Jesus made very clear that nobody can do works in his name and be against him. “Whoever isn’t against us is for us.” Somehow I think praising him in Latin or the vernacular just might fall into that category, and that he would be happy to hear that both were praising him and attempting to serve him.

Peace,

 

[Caveman]

In general, to Caveman and others…

Yes, such abuse is very sad and very wrong. And it is particularly frustrating when the Vatican seems to be ignoring our requests that something be done. But we can’t lose faith and we ought not to think badly of the Pope for not ruling with an iron fist. We need to continue to pray for our bishop’s and to send details of abuses to the appropriate congregation.

The situation that Caveman has endured reminds me of those instances in life when God does not answer one of our prayers for a particular intention in the way that we would most desire. Sometimes the response that we would like to see is not the response that He decides to give. When the prayer seemingly goes unanswered it is really hard to take. But, we have to remain faithful and hopeful that Our Lord knows what is best for us. In the same way, we should remain hopeful that, when the Holy See does not deliver the response that we desire, the will of God is still being accomplished. Let’s have a bit of hope.

And there is reason to be hopeful. We have many wonderful new young bishops. Many seminaries have been “converted” and there are well-formed young priests beginning to make changes one parish at a time. We have (I believe) more indult Masses available than 20 years ago.

We don’t need to throw away the NO and return to the TLM. All we need is a return to orthodoxy and the parishes will turn vibrant once again. My parish, for instance, is growing very quickly and it all has started with an orthodox liturgy. Now, there is still much to be done with many parishioners to convert them from “culturally catholic” to “Roman Catholic.” But, that is starting to happen with a devout liturgy, strong homilies, orthodox catechesis and drastically increased confession times (and the lines are getting longer).

I’m not saying we should all be content. Let’s just be optimistic, continue to pray, continue to work to eliminate abuse, and continue to be faithful and confident that the Holy Spirit is guiding our Pope on his schedule and not on our’s. Don’t circle the wagons. We are not at the beginning of the end. We are at the beginning of the return of orthodoxy.

God bless.

A couple of things I don’t agree with (and you can probably guess which ones!! grin!), but overall, excellent posting, Ham

Pax Tecum, frate

 

[Caveman]

OK, sports fans… there’s been some SERIOUS deviation on this thread. And I’m probably the biggest offender.

What say we get back on track, shall we?

Folks, we ALL KNOW that there are a certain number of bishops world-wide that have made it abundantly clear that ***they are dead set against ***the status of the TLM as Pope Benedict XVI has been rumored to advocate in the much ballyhooed Motu Proprio.

I can’t think of one rational individual that will disagree with my above statement. The recent statements by both the French and the German Bishops Council are prime examples.

I stated that I’m of the belief that said “progressive” bishops are either afraid of and/or hate the TLM.

With that said…does anyone else have an opinion as to why these bishops are so dead-set against the TLM?

Thanks,
The Caveman

 

[Ham1]

While I can’t speak to the exact motivation of more “progressive” French and German Bishop’s, I think there is room for other motivation among Bishop’s in general.

It may not be hatred or fear. It may simply be their belief that it is unimportant and is only desired by a few vocal individuals. They may also believe (perhaps correctly) that such a move would be confusing for their largely un-catechized faithful.

I live in an orthodox parish with an orthodox liturgy. Our fairly young pastor intends on starting a NO in Latin perhaps once a week or once a month. I asked him if he had ever thought of starting a TLM. He indicated that no one had ever asked him about it and he did not see much of a demand within his parish. He is not against it. He could maybe see doing something like that down the road. He doesn’t fear it or hate it. He just doesn’t see a need for it in the parish right now. In light of everything else he is doing in the parish, I am inclined to trust his judgement.

Similarly, I believe there are Bishop’s who perhaps feel the same way. This is not to say that there are not Bishop’s who dislike the TLM or view it as a “political” hot-button. There certainly are. But, there are other Bishop’s who may have the same opinion as my pastor and I think we ought to respect that. I think it is good to note that the reputation of groups like the SSPX have in some ways hurt the spread of the TLM. There are probably some fairly good Bishop’s who automatically associate the TLM with dissent and disobedience which is definitely unfortunate. In this sense, they may “fear” the TLM because they may fear that the TLM may prove to be a breeding ground for schismatic attitudes.

Overall, I believe there are Bishop’s who fear or hate the TLM but I believe there are also some who (whether mistakenly or not) simply see it as unimportant within their jurisdiction.

 

[Rykell]

Why are the bishops against it? They probably read the T.C. forum at Catholic Answers and noted that many of the TLM-ers are waaaay too divisive to unity. As I echoed Ncjohn’s feelings previously, though you many not wish to hear it, some traditionists have become their own worst enemy.

The Introduction of SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS states:

The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.

 

[bear06]

It sounds as if you are also aware of the mass abuses (no pun intended) at the Archdiocese of LA. I think this is where we differ…

You essentially state that there are only 4 more years of Cdl Mahony, let’s gut it out. (correct me if I’m wrong)

I say, there are 4 more years that souls will be led to perdition. Cdl Mahony’s got to go, or at a minimum, STRONGLY corrected by Rome. But I’m a realist enough to know that neither will happen.

Not quite what I’m saying. I’m saying that I’d love to see him leave tomorrow but in all likelihood he’ll be around until retirement. Either way, people should be lobbying the Vatican in the most effecient manner possible for an orthodox replacement. As I always say, you never know when your bishop will kill someone while he’s drunk driving and the lobbying should be taking place now.

 

[ncjohn]

I think it is good to note that the reputation of groups like the SSPX have in some ways hurt the spread of the TLM. There are probably some fairly good Bishop’s who automatically associate the TLM with dissent and disobedience which is definitely unfortunate. In this sense, they may “fear” the TLM because they may fear that the TLM may prove to be a breeding ground for schismatic attitudes.

I would tend to agree with this analysis.

I think if the Church was seen giving universal approval to the TLM–and I’m not against that–that there may be confusion in the pews. Right now they might at most hear “bad SSPX” and associate that with the TLM without knowing much of the background. It is quite likely then that seeing the TLM generally available would lead them to believe that differences have been resolved and SSPX is ok.

I also tend to think that most of the Bishops are probably ambivalent and responding to the lack of demand seen in those places that do or have allowed it.

 

[bear06]

Bear, honestly, are you even reading my posts? Let me say this again, I’ve sent copies of the letters themselves that were **written and signed **by the abusive priests and the bishop who supported them!

That certainly doesn’t qualify as “hearsay”.

When you say “pound sand”, what exactly was the response in the letter? If it said, “Thank you for your concern”, “we’ll handle it”, “you’ve misunderstood”, etc., they’ve brought doubt to your claims. If you videotape the lay homilist, the berating of Pope John, etc. then there is no wiggle room. BTW, when we sent copies of letters from priests they were letters not to us. They were letters from the priests to dissident organizations/people saying things like the dissidents were just fine in there dissent, etc. It wasn’t us quibbling with them over what they said. It was dissent in a letter. Not only that, it was a hefty compilation of irrefutable evidence. Not just a single instance. If your letters were like this then I’d suggest taking you video camera to the local dissenting hotspot and collecting more evidence and putting that and these original letters on a CD. In fact, if you put the word out and you live in a diocese such as LA then you’d probably have enough to fill more than one CD.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is a quote from Karl Keating’s e-letter of September 20, 2005:

“NO ‘DEMAND’ FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS”

In about 120 American dioceses (out of 176 total) the Tridentine Mass is available on an indult basis. What that means in practice varies.

In a few places the old Mass is celebrated each Sunday at a normal time in a regular parish church. By “normal time” I mean that the Mass is not relegated to some weird hour, such as 4:00 p.m., but has a slot among the other Sunday morning Masses.

In most dioceses that operate under the indult, the Latin Mass is celebrated in a non-standard location (in my own diocese it is in the mausoleum chapel at the Catholic cemetery) or infrequently (some dioceses offer the old Mass just once or twice a month) or in rotating venues (one parish this week, a different next week)…

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050920.asp

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Good points.

And who is to say the societal conditions and the convening of Vatican II weren’t related? Or the assassinations of the Kennedies and MLK weren’t related to societal conditions? Cause and effects may have remote connections (and may even seem over-stretching at times) but have connections nonetheless.

In any case, simply blaming the unwanted effects of Vatican II or the New Mass to societal connections seems to be a political tool designed to distract Catholics from accepting the real Truth behind Vatican II or the New Mass. But I don’t know what that Truth is either. The only thing I ask is WHY did we have Vatican II or the New Mass at all? And, PLEEZE, let’s not bring the Holy Spirit into this.

By the way, my argument isn’t with you, Brennan. Actually, I agree with you.

I only mentioned the Holy Spirit because that seems to be the only argument left by some New Mass proponents and I would never blame the Holy Spirit for the bad effects of the New Mass.

---

Yes, definitely agree with your assessment BobP. I tend to think of remote and proximate causes with the liturgy being a more proximate cause since that more directly affects every Catholic who was attending Mass back then. Yet of course we can’t discount what was going on in society at the time either.

Perhaps it was a “perfect storm” the way everything came together at once in the 60’s.

I would also note that with all the change happening in the 60’s, that might have been a really good time to not radically alter the liturgy.

 

[ncjohn]

This is a quote from Karl Keating’s e-letter of September 20, 2005:

“NO ‘DEMAND’ FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS”

In about 120 American dioceses (out of 176 total) the Tridentine Mass is available on an indult basis. What that means in practice varies.

In a few places the old Mass is celebrated each Sunday at a normal time in a regular parish church. By “normal time” I mean that the Mass is not relegated to some weird hour, such as 4:00 p.m., but has a slot among the other Sunday morning Masses.

In most dioceses that operate under the indult, the Latin Mass is celebrated in a non-standard location (in my own diocese it is in the mausoleum chapel at the Catholic cemetery) or infrequently (some dioceses offer the old Mass just once or twice a month) or in rotating venues (one parish this week, a different next week)…

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050920.asp

[Edited by Moderator]

I can only go by the experience in our diocese, which I’ve mentioned previously.

Central location, regular time. Large initial attendance. Less than 25 within 6 months. I’m not sure if it’s still being offered or not. I doubt that we are all that atypical, though I’m sure there are areas where it might be in much greater demand.

We do however have at least a small group of younger priest ready and eager to celebrate it if the indult does come through, so maybe we’ll see how much demand there really is.

One potential problem though is in small rural parishes like many in our diocese where a priest deciding to do only the TLM will create great division due to parishes being too far apart to make it at all convenient for someone to “vote with their feet.”