Who would be happy if every parish had to have a TLM Mass

[Mom_of_5]

And there’s the rub. I have never, ever heard anyone in my church or any other Catholic church complain that we should go back to Latin…NEVER, EVER…and the parishes I’ve belonged to are fairly “traditional” by today’s standards.

CAF is the only place I’ve ever encountered people demanding, or rueing the lack of, Mass in Latin.

I have questioned folks in our parish about this. Not one (out of 10) wanted the Latin Mass. All these folks are over 50 years old. The only person I ever knew that wanted the Latin Mass was my childrens father who had all kinds of excuses for not attending the NO. When he had the opportunity to go to Latin Mass he wouldn’t do that either. (More excuses) Our parish had a Latin Mass several times a few years ago, very poor attendance, so no longer is offered. The only place I hear about the need for Latin Mass is on this forum.

Mom of 5

 

[MrS]

But are all of your above observations of “dumbing down” based on the Mass and the Church itself, or are we overlooking other societal influences for the sake of promoting the TLM?

Perhaps “dumbing down” is the opposite of what I should have said. The Pope would not ever prefer less of Him and more of me.

So, it might be better to say “dumbing up”.

Much of what happens to and in the Church - quite evident in the liturgy - can result from the ignorance of those in the pew, and those who only pewsit once a year. We have created our own mess. And the next generation is too often left with only two choices [1] continue living as if the Mass and the Church are rather insignificant or [2] appreciate the need for a relationship with God…and sadly find it from the prostelitizer knocking on the door.

Social influences will always affect us. But the more solid our reverence is for God and obedience to His Church, the more we can turn that around and we can influence society.

If the premise of the TLM includes more of Him,and less of me…that is a good thing.

If the premise of the NO requires more of me (or other social influences), and thus less of Him…that is not a good thing.

A properly celebrated NO is a good thing. But I venture to say that too many would not recognize an umblemished NO if they ever have the chance to see on. Those who proclaim the NO as “valid”, as “licit”, as “ordinary” etc as their reasons to discount the TLM have been “dumbed up”…IMHO.

.

 

[Brian777]

Hey, I’m not AGAINST Mass in Latin…I’m just not FOR going back to it. I see no need to…but for those who want it and can find it, fine. But forcing each parish to have it would create more problems than it would solve.

Actually if you knew the theology behinf the Mass you would be whistling a different tune…check out this list of reasons to stick with EF…immaculata-one.com/section_15.html…it is a bit harsh but it is the best i could do.

 

[laudamus_te]

I say we trust our Bishops to know what is best for their flock rather than trying to do a job that we are not called or ordained to do.

Unfortunately, not all of us have bishops to whom we can or should entrust our souls.

“That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell… The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls. He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence…”
-Sister Lucia, 1957

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”
-Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Piux XII), 1931

 

[Cat]

Perhaps “dumbing down” is the opposite of what I should have said. The Pope would not ever prefer less of Him and more of me.

So, it might be better to say “dumbing up”.

Much of what happens to and in the Church - quite evident in the liturgy - can result from the ignorance of those in the pew, and those who only pewsit once a year. We have created our own mess. And the next generation is too often left with only two choices [1] continue living as if the Mass and the Church are rather insignificant or [2] appreciate the need for a relationship with God…and sadly find it from the prostelitizer knocking on the door.

Social influences will always affect us. But the more solid our reverence is for God and obedience to His Church, the more we can turn that around and we can influence society.

If the premise of the TLM includes more of Him,and less of me…that is a good thing.

If the premise of the NO requires more of me (or other social influences), and thus less of Him…that is not a good thing.

A properly celebrated NO is a good thing. ** But I venture to say that too many would not recognize an umblemished NO if they ever have the chance to see on. Those who proclaim the NO as “valid”, as “licit”, as “ordinary” etc as their reasons to discount the TLM have been “dumbed up”…IMHO.**

.

(Boldface mine)

MrS, I find this somewhat disturbing and condescending and just a little prideful.

I and many thousands of fairly-intelligent (“un-dumb”) and devout Catholics attend NO masses in my city (even though there is a TLM in the middle of city within easy driving distance).

I’m sure that some of us have studied the rubrics and canons and documents, but many of us just trust the bishop and our priest to give us a good Mass.

What you are saying is that we are all failing to recognize that our masses are “blemished.”

**What is your point? **

I don’t at all appreciate your hints that I and most of the other Catholics in my city are being hoodwinked into accepting “blemished” masses. This isn’t the kind of thing that builds up other Christians. Instead, it creates doubts and suspicions and undermines the authority of our clergy and gives us reason to distrust our Church and the Masses that are offered in our parishes.

You are appointing yourself as an authority. We are supposed to listen to you instead of our bishop and priests?

So are you suggesting that we stop reading the Bible, Catechism, and other good and wholesome Catholic books and devotionals and instead, spend our precious bits of devotional and leisure time studying rubrics and tracking down all the abuses and “blemishes” in our Masses that all these years, we’ve assumed were “valid” and “licit” and reverent?

**And then what shall we do once we are all "educated? **

Come to this forum and share all our discoveries? Tell everyone how discouraged we are that the Masses we assumed were good are actually tainted? Start a letter-writing campaign to our bishop asking him to please correct all the abuses on our list? (Our bishop, BTW, has his doctorate in Canon Law.)

MrS, I really don’t want to be like that. I don’t want to attend every Mass and keep track of all the “abuses” and “irreverences” and “mistakes,” and then sigh afterwards for a “perfect” NO Mass. I would rather trust my bishop and priests, who were called to their vocation by Jesus Christ and are ordained by my Church. I will certainly never trust myself to fully comprehend the “correct” Mass. I would rather attend the Mass in joy and humility and revel in the opportunity to receive Jesus Christ in the Word and the Eucharist.

 

[ProVobis]

(Boldface mine)

I and many thousands of fairly-intelligent (“un-dumb”) and devout Catholics attend NO masses in my city (even though there is a TLM in the middle of city within easy driving distance).

I’m sure that some of us have studied the rubrics and canons and documents, but many of us just trust the bishop and our priest to give us a good Mass.

I don’t think it’s the Mass per se that makes it reverent or irreverent. Sunday I attended one of these “reverent” NO Masses that was decently attended. Before Mass people talked about food and their families in the pews, loud enough for those around them to hear the conversations. During the opening hymn, great organist but I saw very few singing, the rest of the time sat respectfully but you could tell they were bored. Many left right after Communion, and by the time the Mass ended, very few were left. But, heck, it fulfilled the Sunday obligation and everyone was happy.

I really doubt you could sell these people to the EF, but then I doubt if you could sell these same people to liturgical dancing or other abuses either. Would the bishops and priest change the current setup? IMO, they’d be fools to do that.

By the way, they’ll be losing their great organist in a couple of months. I wonder how many will still be going there.

 

[pnewton]

(Boldface mine)

MrS, I find this somewhat disturbing and condescending and just a little prideful.

I and many thousands of fairly-intelligent (“un-dumb”) and devout Catholics attend NO masses in my city (even though there is a TLM in the middle of city within easy driving distance).

I’m sure that some of us have studied the rubrics and canons and documents, but many of us just trust the bishop and our priest to give us a good Mass.

What you are saying is that we are all failing to recognize that our masses are “blemished.”

Most of the Masses I attend are unblemished. That is why when I do see an error it stands out. I am with you though. It is interesting how tradititionalist assume everyone that is not one of the is some how more stupid.

 

[Auntie_M]

And it is just that poor attitude toward any effort for reverence that promotes more socializing, more happy-clappy, more casual/immodest dressing, … IMHO you are dumbing down the liturgy of the Mass to a level of banal nothingness…and then claiming Jesus doesn’t worry about those things.

What you get is the fruits of your tree…a diminishing reverence for the Real Presence… a falling away to protestant denominations… and an encouragement for the clergy to do nothing because people like you (not Jesus)don’t care anyway.

Oh my, aren’t you the Judge.I am sorry that you judge people you have never met. I was led to the Catholic Faith BEYOND a shadow of a doubt. I know my life, sorry you don’t.

 

[Auntie_M]

The “creativity” that is usually used in the NO is another word for heresy.

Heresy? defined…the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. Please show me where/how you call the NO heresy?

 

[agr4028]

I have questioned folks in our parish about this. Not one (out of 10) wanted the Latin Mass. All these folks are over 50 years old. The only person I ever knew that wanted the Latin Mass was my childrens father who had all kinds of excuses for not attending the NO. When he had the opportunity to go to Latin Mass he wouldn’t do that either. (More excuses) Our parish had a Latin Mass several times a few years ago, very poor attendance, so no longer is offered. The only place I hear about the need for Latin Mass is on this forum.

Mom of 5

I don’t hear anyone carping for it in the parishes I’m involved in either.

 

[Sure]

I don’t hear anyone carping for it in the parishes I’m involved in either.

We had 1 family of 1900 request it. One. Why? Because we have a very reverent and correct ordinary form Mass accompanied by traditional music. Very few people seek the extraordinary form. They seek reverence. When they find it in the ordinary form, they are fulfilled.

 

[Claudius]

I would object to EVERY parish having a Mass of the Extra ordinary form. This just wouldn’t be appropriate and isn’t called for. I will say that I think that every Diocese should have at least priest and one Church that has the Extra Ordinary form as the normal and regular order of the Mass but to say that every parish should offer the extra ordinary form goes way to far.

Should we be asking for a requirement that the extra ordinary form be forced onto all priest at this point in time, many priest will rebel and it takes away from order and obediance in the Church. I say that we allow the priest who love the Extra Ordinary form say that Mass and do the Mass right and not force that Mass onto priest who won’t even make the effort to do the Ordinary form correctly.

Having just a little competition between orders is not all together that bad either as long as all are in obediance to the local bishop and to the pope. We should all hope that once the Exta Ordinary form takes root within a Diocese that people will take notice and that its presence there will help priest who normally do the Ordinary form do it with more reverance, not to mention correctly to begin with.

I know that some Diocese can be very big terratoraly and most people don’t want to travel an hour or more to get to Mass. Yet, I live in a country where even just finding A MASS, ANY MASS, is difficult. The language in this country has a completely different sound system from European languages and the priest can’t even pronounce even simple Latin words without years of pronunciation training. If we push for every priest in every parish to be able to say and eventually offer the Exta Ordinary form, I am afraid that it would be a terrible time management problem here and would lead to what we have now, zero priest saying the Latin Mass. If we say that at least every Diocese should offer the Latin Mass, this gives us some thing that we can mangage and can be accepted and indeed may even come to the cheers of the people. With this kind of system in place, priest who can say the Latin Mass will increase in demand and have greater travel opportunities. They would become very important and valuable within the Church as every Bishop seeks to have one to fulfill the requirment. In areas where Catholics struggle, perhaps one priest could serve the needs for two or more diocese but that would not be an ideal situation.

For me, an every Diocese rule is much more practical then an every parish rule that just is unworkable on the worldwide scale.

 

[Claudius]

My intellect needs to be involved in my participation of the mass. Unfortunately, even with a master’s degree in my pocket and a doctorate on the way, I don’t speak or understand Latin.

This kind of objection to the Latin Mass, Ordinary or ExtraOrdinary Form, will likely come up a lot. We do not want to go back to the days of poeple sleeping at Mass, playing board games at Mass or even to going to Mass and saying the rosary until the priest finishes and offers them communion. These kinds of wide spead problems was what lead the Church to come up with the Mass of Paul VI to begin with.

The ExtraOrdinary form is for those who want it. It is for those who are willing to take the time and effort to know what is going on at a Latin language Mass and make Latin part of their life.

We need to remember why certain languages were choosen by the early Church be the languages of Mass. The normal idiom of Greek was not choosen but a kind of idiom that would sound funny in the Greece of the time but was understood by large numbers of people outside of Greece. When we look at the fact that Hebrew was never a traditional langauge of the Mass but instead Aramaic in the middle east this tells us something. Similar things can be learned from looking at Coptic, a language that different levels of Egyptian society could understand and participate in. We look at the kind of Slavonic that was used for the Mass among the Slavic peoples, it was not the local language of any of them but was instead a kind of international version that could be understood by most Slavic speakers even if they didn’t talk that way at home.

With this in mind, Latin is a kind of language that is far easier for Romance speakers to learn or even just passively understand than for English or German speakers. English is after all a kind of pigion of German. There is a great vocabulary gap as well as a a grammatical gap that Latin never is able to live down.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Latin. I love the language and the people. I took the time to learn the language and I have a very high respect for it. Latin has a larger vocabulary then English as well as greater range of meanings and more ways to say things. The options are endless in Latin and to me it makes a lot more sense then English does as a langauge for really important things. I wish every Catholic would not be judgemental about Latin and take the time to learn it so that we could all go to a Latin language Mass together but that just isn’t going to happen.

The first thing that needs to be done is to simple have some Latin there as part of normal everyday church life. Have the order of the Mass in Latin in the pews for people to look at so that it isn’t completely foriegn to them. Have at least one small part of the Mass of even the Ordinary form in Latin so people can hear just a small bit. That takes away from the strangeness of it and lets people get comfortable with it. If people are shocked by something, even a nice and wonderful thing, they will try to get away from it.

We need to remember that people don’t need to be fluent in Latin to participate in and feel the love of God at a Latin Mass. They just need to know a small amount and they are in the good.

Latin is probably more appropriate and important in Romance speaking countries then English or German speaking ones. English and German are just on too many points removed from being or sounding anything like Latin. A Romance speaker can hear some Latin and make a guess as to what it means. An English speaker has to study Latin or a Romance language for at least two years before they even begin to understand even the Pater Noster. I don’t know what the solution for English or German speakers is right now besides making them all bilingual, for that is the only way that I can see them being able to appreciat the Latin Mass. As Catholics, we should want to be bilingual anyway but that is not within the reach of many. Another option is to have a very carefully translated version of the ExtraOrdinary form, as was in use before Vatican II, avaliable for English speakers who just don’t understand Latin. For such a form, the Eucharistic prayer must be retained in Latin unaltered.

Other then that, let English speakers go to the Ordinary form that is already translated into English anyway and let us who love our Latin and more traditional forms of worship go to the ExtraOrdinary form.

 

[Claudius]

Palmas, let me give you a taste of reality. Four hundred people petitioned a bishop to have the TLM. They had 5 priest;s who offered to say the Mass. The bishop refused. A young priest started the TLM for some students and a group of adults. The bishop stepped in and the Sunday Mass was stopped. The TLM is being resisted by bishops because the TLM will expose the lie’s of VII and those who put those lie’s into effect. What harm? The harm will be done to them because it will expose the lie?

“There is an evil more murderous than persecution, and that is the deceitful poisoning of the mentality of the people”. St. Cyprian

Clearly this situation is not a good one and is something to write to Rome about. This Bishop is clearly acting outside of the directives of the Popes letter and he would need to have a very good reason for doing so. Still, would you be able to provide the name of the Bishop in question. I would be willing to write and call Rome myself over a Bishop who acted in such a way.

 

[DallasTexas]

To the best of my knowledge, the Diocese of Dallas only has one TLM Mass on a daily basis, and it is at 6:30 AM. Attendance is generally pretty light.

6:30 AM is good for those of us who work, but I would also love to have one for the noon lunch hour.

Thank you for the posting.

Zorro,
Dallas, Texas

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

As it stands there are 3 parishes that offer Tridentine Mass in my diocese and they are a 2 or more hour drive from me. Now there is a parish in another diocese that offers it and it is only a 15 min drive so I can make that. The thing that bothers me about this whole debate is why does it have to be one or the other when done correctly the NO is just as Holy as the TLM. When done incorrectly the TLM is just as bad as the NO. I have not heard of a large out cry for the Mass of the 1962 Missal in my parish but I have heard people talking about it from all age groups. I guess I see it the same as Pope Benedict as the are 2 proper forms of the mass it the Latin rite for the Church both are correct and should be celebrated with the proper respect and worship and awe to God and the presence of Christ.

I read one post on hear that made the comment that the TLM was like a staged production. heres a news flash both forms are that is what comes from a ritualistic form of worship. the Mass under either form is only as good as those who are there to worship if they are ill reverent then so will be the Mass if they are reverent the so will BE the Mass. What must we look like to those of the Eastern rite church or the Orthodox or protestants fighting amongst ourself over with form is best and who is most pious. then we turn to them( orthodox and protestant) and say you you really need to come home to the unity of Holy Mother Church.

I am thankful that I have the opportunity to go th Mass under both forms with in a 15 min drive and I pray that all will have this Opportunity soon. I just know that right now if every one on both sides of this issue stopped and looked back over the last 2000 years they would see that the mass has made changes all along some time adding some times removing and it will continue to change right up to the time Christ returns.

 

[agr4028]

To the best of my knowledge, the Diocese of Dallas only has one TLM Mass on a daily basis, and it is at 6:30 AM. Attendance is generally pretty light.

6:30 AM is good for those of us who work, but I would also love to have one for the noon lunch hour.

Thank you for the posting.

Zorro,
Dallas, Texas

Would that be St. Thomas ?

 

[Brian777]

As it stands there are 3 parishes that offer Tridentine Mass in my diocese and they are a 2 or more hour drive from me. Now there is a parish in another diocese that offers it and it is only a 15 min drive so I can make that. The thing that bothers me about this whole debate is why does it have to be one or the other when done correctly the NO is just as Holy as the TLM. When done incorrectly the TLM is just as bad as the NO. I have not heard of a large out cry for the Mass of the 1962 Missal in my parish but I have heard people talking about it from all age groups. I guess I see it the same as Pope Benedict as the are 2 proper forms of the mass it the Latin rite for the Church both are correct and should be celebrated with the proper respect and worship and awe to God and the presence of Christ.

I read one post on hear that made the comment that the TLM was like a staged production. heres a news flash both forms are that is what comes from a ritualistic form of worship. the Mass under either form is only as good as those who are there to worship if they are ill reverent then so will be the Mass if they are reverent the so will BE the Mass. What must we look like to those of the Eastern rite church or the Orthodox or protestants fighting amongst ourself over with form is best and who is most pious. then we turn to them( orthodox and protestant) and say you you really need to come home to the unity of Holy Mother Church.

I am thankful that I have the opportunity to go th Mass under both forms with in a 15 min drive and I pray that all will have this Opportunity soon. I just know that right now if every one on both sides of this issue stopped and looked back over the last 2000 years they would see that the mass has made changes all along some time adding some times removing and it will continue to change right up to the time Christ returns.

Yes it did change…but it changed only through organic evolution of itself. At Trent, the bishops did not really change the Mass, they made a hybrid of all the different forms of the Mass in the Western Church. This remained almost unchanged for about 4-500 years, then came Vat 2. This change was not organic, nor was it Catholic in any way. Six Lutherans were commissioned to write the new mass under the watchful eyes of a Free Mason cardinal (Bugnini sound right to anybody?). So what does this mean? well in the words of Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Here are some 60 reasons compiled by the Diocese of Campos, Brazil giving testimony to the Thruth of this quote.

I will say though that i do not necessarily agree that the NO is completely heretical or invalid, but i do understand that if a Catholic wants the fulness of Grace that Christ intended for us to recieve from the Mass, then the TLM is the way to go!

God Bless!

 

[Brian777]

Yes it did change…but it changed only through organic evolution of itself. At Trent, the bishops did not really change the Mass, they made a hybrid of all the different forms of the Mass in the Western Church. This remained almost unchanged for about 4-500 years, then came Vat 2. This change was not organic, nor was it Catholic in any way. Six Lutherans were commissioned to write the new mass under the watchful eyes of a Free Mason cardinal (Bugnini sound right to anybody?). So what does this mean? well in the words of Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Here are some 60 reasons compiled by the Diocese of Campos, Brazil giving testimony to the Thruth of this quote.

I will say though that i do not necessarily agree that the NO is completely heretical or invalid, but i do understand that if a Catholic wants the fulness of Grace that Christ intended for us to recieve from the Mass, then the TLM is the way to go!

God Bless!

forgot to give you the actual link :doh2:

here: immaculata-one.com/section_15.html

God Bless

 

[agr4028]

“Destroyed” is an opinion, not a Church teaching.

For millions of Catholics, it has been “improved”…again, opinion.