Here we go again. It’s the usual ‘I’m older and therefore wiser than you’.
I keep reading the original post, and it still keeps coming off the same to me. Depending on how correct the rumor is on point #6, this might be mostly unrestricted. It sounds almost like what you’re advocating already.
Age really has nothing to do with it. The Jews criticized Christ because He was young. Age does not mean wisdom. Many of the young saints were had hardly two decades under their belt, like St. Therese. St. Catherine of Siena did not have a whole lot more at her death.
Any priest could always say a private TLM. The issue is about numbers.
That’s good. But why would you stop a reverent Mass that has large numbers?
If it just that a Novus Ordo would need to be provided as well, I’d be happy. But it sounds like that is reasonably unlikely, if this source is correct.
Why should we need permission from liberal bishops who are very much against the TLM?
Well, there is one number that concerns me. If I understand correctly, a private Mass is currently counted in the total number of Masses that a priest can say in a day, right? My own priest already says three on Sundays since he is alone in our parish. So under the current rule, the only way he could say a “private” TLM would be on a weekday. Is it possible that there would be an adjustment so that a private Mass is not included in “the count”.
But this was always going to be a problem anyway. The best that this “universal indult” was going to do was to allow the unrestricted ability to say the TLM. It was never going to replace the NO, and it’s clear that the pope is trying to emphasize that the NO is the primary form of the Mass for the Latin west, and that’s not going to change, period.
What is the limit on the number of masses a priest can say in one day? I’ve never heard of this before. One particularly busy day in my parish the priest had five masses (2 regular Sunday morning, one special afternoon as a celebration for his becoming Msgr., Spanish early evening, and Newman late evening) and he’s the only one here so I know he had to say them all.
Not remotely, NOT REMOTELY, what I said.
Not what you said, and I’m sure you’ll deny it, but your implication is reasonably obvious. However, you seem to like bringing age into the conversation.
I only mention that I’m astounded at the arrogance with which some youths seem to sit in judgement on men whose burdens they have never had to carry (and more than likely, thank God, will never be asked or invited to carry, if we’re lucky!), such as the burden of the papacy. I can only think of one burden heavier than that, the one Christ Himself carried up Calvary. We would do well to keep that metaphor in mind when tempted to sit in judgement of the pope or the council fathers or our bishops (admittedly, some of our bishops seem to be CRIMINALLY negligent, but that’s a different story).
Indeed.
I would agree with you. It is always wrong to judge. Let’s just leave age out of it.
You’re making the argument about something that it isn’t about. That is, however, typical of some on these threads.Indeed.
What’s sad however is that I havent seen many youths defend the Novus Ordo lately?
But I suppose the Traditional Mass of the Ages is just one of those new “fads” kids these days are into.
Sooner or later, theyll drop the Tradition and become more traditional.
Sorry, I can’t. You see, I remember when I was a teenager and what I was like in my opinions. Experience (and thus age, which affords experience) DOES matter to a degree. I’ve read SO many arrogant posts denigrating Pope John Paul II (and now some doing the same to Pope Benedict) by people who a few short years ago where not entirely clear on what was involved in going to the bathroom by themselves. Yet they seem to feel no compunction about sitting in judgement on the decisions of two men who, for example, suffered through World War II (lots of people who want to know why ecumenism seems to be kind of skewed would do well to ponder why the most recent popes seemed to bend over backwards to find a way or a connection or something we have in common with others that can be built into a foundation of “dialogue” (I put that into quotations because I, too, am frankly sick of the word). Could it be because they have memories of the horrors of the war-torn Europe in which they were young? Age brings experience and we should reverence age. The notion does have a biblical premise, if I’m not mistaken. I’m not saying the aged cannot be questioned, but I am saying that the young ought not to arrogantly assume that they know better or would do better under the same circumstances.
While this is correct in the upper limits, it is incorrect in that priests are not obligated to celebrate the Mass every day, though they are strongly urged to do so. (And I’ve never met one who did not, unless very infirm)
Oh yes, that’s right.