What is the only feasible way out of the current crisis?

[Lormar]

According to Fr. Kramer, the Latin Mass is both a received and approved rite. Although approved and valid, the Novus Order is not a received (i.e., handed down) rite and thus is prone to cancellation or replacement at anytime. And to do so would not violate any council decrees.

I wouldn’t be too surprised if I were to hear there are already major plans to overhaul the new Mass or the OF; the new translation(s) may only be the first step to this overhaul. Anyone remember the Missal of 65? or 67?

I remember those Masses, and they drove us crazy. It got to the point where everyone dreaded going to Mass on Sunday for fear of what more newfangled things would be shoved down our throats. Not only that, I used to spend my weekends visiting various convents and/or monasteries, and all of the nuns would tell me how tired the priests were of people coming to them and complaining about the changes.

And that’s the way it was in my neck of the woods.

 

[ProVobis]

I remember those Masses, and they drove us crazy. It got to the point where everyone dreaded going to Mass on Sunday for fear of what more newfangled things would be shoved down our throats. Not only that, I used to spend my weekends visiting various convents and/or monasteries, and all of the nuns would tell me how tired the priests were of people coming to them and complaining about the changes.

And that’s the way it was in my neck of the woods.

We had this one priest who started singling out people in the crowd during the sermon. That put a lot of people in even more uncomfortable positions. I haven’t seen anything like this anymore though.

 

[At_Trent]

I, myself, voted that I would attend, as in "once in a while, " etc., not exclusivlely. I believe others who voted yes said the same, did they not.

No, you really don’t have a mandate (and I think you know that).

Why is it hard to understand? It’s in Latin. That’s not negative, that’s simply a fact, for pity’s sake, as in “I don’t understand Latin, I do understand my own langauge.” There is no way that that is a negative slur against the EF.

I didn’t say slur or bash. I said negative, and it is. Saying the EF is hard to understand is hardly a positive opinion.

Couldn’t you attend OF Mass in Senegal and understand what is happening and at what point in the Mass you are by watching the priest ? Sure you could, because you have been to the OF enough times to understand, even though you may not speak their language.

No different with the EF.

 

[otjm]

Exactly why all of our newly ordained priests should pray the EF exclusively, to speed the process of returning to the Practice of Roman Catholicism. Let those priests who don’t want, or can’t pray the EF carry on until they retire. That way, the OF flock will not have their Mass jerked out from under them as they did with the EF.

Given that 99.6% of the Masses said around the world are the OF, they would fail massively to provide for the needs of the faithful. Please, go read the letter accompanying SP that Benedict 16 wrote.

 

[otjm]

I’d say the poll over on L&S proves otherwise. You can’t refute that. It is what it is. To say there is no demand where it is not even available is asinine.

He didn’t say there was “no demand”. He said there was “weak demand”. Why do you change what he said? There are others who have complained that it is difficult to say anything to those who want the EF; this is an example of the difficulties in having a conversation about the matter.

And I am not saying that the demand is weak; nor that there is no demand. What I am saying is that to have an intelligent conversation, it does not help your premise if you change someone else’s statement and then try to refute it.

And rather than look at polls in these fora, it might be better to looks at, say, the poll CARA did; some surprising results. Doing so does not require you to change someone else’s statement.

 

[otjm]

This is true. And they were even more confused when the Mass started changing and they were getting hit with all kinds of novelties and birth control ideas; I’m afraid even the vernacular didn’t help them much. At least they were going to Mass before VII.

Actually, there was not all that much confusion within a relatively short time. What you choose to ignore is that the vernacular was so overwhelmingly accepted.

And as to “going to Mass before V2” the statistics are that the peak of attendance was around 1957 -1958, and it gradually dropped off starting there. Nowhere was there a sharp drop off after that point until you come to the Jubilee year and that was not a dorp off, but rather an increase, from about 45 to 46% up to 52 %, and then a drop back to about 45%. The statitisics from 2000 to 2004 show it from 33% ( Sept. 2000) up to 39% (Feb, 2001, shortly after Geohagan was defrocked) then back to 34% and eventually Sept. 04 at 31%.

All of the comments about vast numjbers leaving trhe Church are true; but none left in a significantly large group anywhere along the line - just a continual trickle away that started before Vatican 2.

But then, why should we let facts get in the way of opinions?

 

[otjm]

alteringliturgy.com/

The Church has definitively and thoroughly rebutted that bit of whimsy.

 

[otjm]

With a translation down the right hand side of your missal, all you have to do is to be able to read.

Then why did so many not do so? MIssals were hardly universal.

 

[otjm]

Arguably, there is less cause now to remove the Latin because laypeople as a whole are significantly more literate than they were back in the day that Missals weren’t widely available.

Except for the fact that Latin was losing popularity in educational circles in the 1960’s and continued to do so as time went on; fewer and fewer people were learing Latin.

I find it silly that so many people complain about “understanding” the language at Mass but they think that going to a Spanish Mass or a Polish Mass (and I would guess most do without a Missal containing a translation) is a great cultural experience.

However, they go on a rare occasion to a Mass in another language; and most don’t ever go to one in another language.

PROTIP: The Latin Mass is a great cultural experience. That culture is Catholicism the way it was meant to be.

Given the reports from those attending Mass in the EF, not many relate an experience of the Mass being overflowing and SRO; the only exceptions I have seen to that were where the EF was said in a small church or chapel. And while the EF’s available draw from surrounding parishes, the numbers seem to indicate that the level of interest is less than half of any parish.

None of that is to suggest that the EF should not be more widely available. It does, however, suggest that it is a smaller group of people who will make the time and effort to go to it as opposed to the OF’s available.

 

[At_Trent]

Given that 99.6% of the Masses said around the world are the OF, they would fail massively to provide for the needs of the faithful. Please, go read the letter accompanying SP that Benedict 16 wrote.

I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that there are not enough new priests each year to pull it off ? Don’t know where that % comes from either because every week there is news of a new EF somewhere.

Now, let’s talk about the letter. If we embrace it, should we not embrace all of it ? And the added guidance offered since the SP ? If so, what of the stable groups that are being denied the EF ? What of the statements of some Bishops ?

There are legitimate reasons for denying the EF to some who ask for it. But sadly, one reason is because they don’t want to give it to them. These priests simply don’t want the hassle. Are they embracing the SP ?

Cardinal Hoyos said the Pope wants to see the EF in every parish. How can this be accomplished unless we start training soon to be ordained priests to pray it ?

I attend both forms. Am I embracing the SP ?

btw, I can’t find a poll on the EF by the organization you mentioned. if you have a link, I’ll take a look.

 

[At_Trent]

Except for the fact that Latin was losing popularity in educational circles in the 1960’s and continued to do so as time went on; fewer and fewer people were learing Latin.

However, they go on a rare occasion to a Mass in another language; and most don’t ever go to one in another language.

Given the reports from those attending Mass in the EF, not many relate an experience of the Mass being overflowing and SRO; the only exceptions I have seen to that were where the EF was said in a small church or chapel. And while the EF’s available draw from surrounding parishes, the numbers seem to indicate that the level of interest is less than half of any parish.

None of that is to suggest that the EF should not be more widely available. It does, however, suggest that it is a smaller group of people who will make the time and effort to go to it as opposed to the OF’s available.

On the surface your observations appear accurate, but you don’t take into account the EF has been freed of indult. It doesn’t take into account the decisions of Bishops not to grant permission via the indult when it was in effect. The EF was suppressed even during the indult period, via Bishops’ decisions.

There is an old priest here in town who was sent away from his diocese for being “too traditional”. He reported to his superior who asked him what he wanted to do ? He wanted to pray the EF, so his superior sent him to an indult parish. How blessed he was to have this as a reward for his banishment from a diocese.

The SP will take more time than 3 years to judge how well the EF is received.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

At Trent:

This is what I’m talking about when I speak to the attitudes of some “traditionalists” and how they are doing more harm to their own beloved Mass than good:

Cardinal Castrillon: Some traditionalists not satisfied

by Cindy Wooden,
Catholic News Service
September 16, 2008

ROME (CNS) – Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum,” the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are ***“insatiable, incredible.” (emphasis mine)

---

**“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints. (emphasis mine)
**
The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship.

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward.

**“The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation,” Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. “What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?”

The cardinal said the Mass – in whatever language it is celebrated – must be a service motivated by love and “never a sword” used against other Christians. (empahsis mine)
**
By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, “the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying” the people of God.

“When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity – the Eucharist – how can we fight?” Cardinal Castrillon asked.

 

[Layman]

Then why did so many not do so? MIssals were hardly universal.

Well, you can lead a horse to water …

I wonder why, in Ireland, some people come to Church and have a chat at the back.

 

[At_Trent]

At Trent:

This is what I’m talking about when I speak to the attitudes of some “traditionalists” and how they are doing more harm to their own beloved Mass than good:

Cardinal Castrillon: Some traditionalists not satisfied

by Cindy Wooden,
Catholic News Service
September 16, 2008

ROME (CNS) – Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of “Summorum Pontificum,” the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are ***“insatiable, incredible.” (emphasis mine)

---

**“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints. (emphasis mine)
**
The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship.

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward.

**“The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation,” Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. “What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?”

The cardinal said the Mass – in whatever language it is celebrated – must be a service motivated by love and “never a sword” used against other Christians. (empahsis mine)
**
By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, “the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying” the people of God.

“When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity – the Eucharist – how can we fight?” Cardinal Castrillon asked.

I post a suggestion for a slow but steady way to promote the EF and you post comments by Cardinal Hoyos concerning those who want immediate gratification.

You just don’t like trads and you don’t like Latin. Admit it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I post a suggestion for a slow but steady way to promote the EF and you post comments by Cardinal Hoyos concerning those who want immediate gratification.

You just don’t like trads and you don’t like Latin. Admit it.

I was trying to convey what I’m saying about attitudes that may make people leery of the EF, including the idea expressed by some in the first few posts of this thread, ie, get rid of the OF and have the EF exclusively.

I don’t like the attitude (the arrogance, the pride, etc.) of many “traditionalists” (we aren’t permitted by forum rules to use terms like “trads” or "traddies). I don’t like how ***some ***belittle and denigrate the OF. I don’t like how ***some ***browbeat the consciences of the faithful in areas where the Church has left a liberty of choice (mode of reception of Holy Communion, the question of veiling or covering for women). That’s all I can tell you. I’m thought of as being fairly traditional myself, by my friends.

And as for Latin…I don’t know how you can in LOGIC make that assumption. You might have said “Admit you don’t like Latin in the Mass” and you would have still been wrong. I sing in a schola and the ordinaries at every Mass where we sing are in Latin. I wrote an article for my parish newsletter defending the use of Latin when we started doing it. I think Latin is great, but along the lines that I think biblical Hebrew or Greek is great, wishing that I was fluent in them as well. Even if I were a classical scholar, I would still want to worship in my own langauge, because it’s the language in which I think and reason. It’s the language in which I think about God and reason through the Church’s teaching. Language and words are essentially SYMBOLS that convey meaning, they are not meaning in and of themselves, ie, they mean whatever meaning we give them. One language is not, of itself, not ontologically, any more sacred than another. And Latin IS our Church’s langauge because it was originally a vernacular. There is no evidence that the Church set out to have a sacral language (she started out with Koine Greek) and there is no evidence that Latin is part of the Sacred Tradition handed down by the Apostles. So it isn’t a heresy for those of us who favor the vernacular to want to retain it.

 

[At_Trent]

^ then why do you repeatedly promote the suggestion the EF use vernacular

 

[otjm]

On the surface your observations appear accurate, but you don’t take into account the EF has been freed of indult. It doesn’t take into account the decisions of Bishops not to grant permission via the indult when it was in effect. The EF was suppressed even during the indult period, via Bishops’ decisions.

The SP will take more time than 3 years to judge how well the EF is received.

Let’s try this again. I am well aware of the fact that the EF was only by indult prior to SP, and also aware that it is possible to seriously stall any attempts to have the EF said if a bishop should so choose.

In no way do I suggest that those who wish to have the EF should not be accomodated or that the EF should not spread, or that recalcitrance on the part of bishops is in any way shepharding those of his flock who would prefer the EF.

I am simply pointing out a fact that where the EF is available, it is not spreading rapidly to those who could reasonably get to it. If a parish has the EF, one would think, if the enthusiasm for the EF is there, that there would be so many in the parish choosing it over the OF that people from other parishes would not be able to get into the Mass because of overcrowding. But that is not being reported anywhere I can find. Where it is available, it seems to reflect back on what Benedict 16 aid in his accompanying letter; that the OF is the Ordinary Form - implying if not meaning that is the form most people will go to - and the he himself did not expect to see it (the EF) wide spread.

In making that comment, I am not speaking to those areas that have not been able to avail themselves of the EF. However, if one looks at the evidence available, there is nothing in the evidence to indcate that the EF will appeal to even a large minority of Mass goers.

And that evidence has nothing to do with any discussions pro or con about the comparison of the rubrics, or the comparison of the various prayers, or anything else (including music) having to do with whether or not the EF is better than, superior to, more profound than, better able to catechize than, or any of the other categories which get discussed herein. It is simply a factual look at attendance rates and what they may reflect.

The post is about what may or may not be the feasible way out of the crisis the Church faces. Given the fact that attendance is not overwhelming where the EF exists, proposing that the EFis the answer would not appear to be substantiated.

Note also - I do not have the EF available in my area. However, I do belong to a parish which has a reverent OF, and we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years.

 

[otjm]

^ then why do you repeatedly promote the suggestion the EF use vernacular

The documents of Vatican 2, which were written before the OF was promulgated, indicated that the majority of the bishops of the world, in conjunction with Rome, wanted to see the vernacular used in the Mass. Granted they did not specify exactly what and where, and from reading the document it should be obvious they did not intend all of the Mass be in the vernacular at all times; it is still unquestionable they intended the Mass as we had it then should have vernacular in it.

Let’s turn the question around: do you propose that the EF have no vernacular other than what existed prior to VAtican 2 - in other words, that the coument not be followed? And note - that is not to suggest that no Masses proceed without any vernacular added; but it would seem that those who support the EF do not support the use of any vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

^ then why do you repeatedly promote the suggestion the EF use vernacular

Because it would be magnificent IN the vernacular and for the reasons I gave in the post regarding language, thought, and reasoning.

 

[At_Trent]

Because it would be magnificent IN the vernacular and for the reasons I gave in the post regarding language, thought, and reasoning.

Pray it in English from the pew and leave the clergy to pray it right.

It’s already magnificent and in no need of novelty.