Why the lack of Tridentine Mass?

[itsjustdave1988]

katolik,

Sometimes "pussy/6 year old child"style “Catholicism” …

Wow … I’m simply astonished at the level of vulgarity. Does your mother know you express yourself this way in public? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You certainly are a poor representative of traditional Catholicism.

 

[bear06]

Munda cor meum:

Sorry, I have to disagree.

The entire contents of the above quote can be found here:

oltyn.com/tridmass.htm

I understand that a Bishop could not be compelled to support the Tridentine Mass - He cannot be forced to use Dioscean resources, but this is different that fobidding the Mass.

Perhaps we are not too far off after all. If we can both agree that a Bishop cannot forbid celebration of the Tridentine Mass, but that he cannnot be forced to support it, we will be saying apparently the same thing.

Whoaa!!! This article is goofy. First it makes some statements and yet never gives any quotes to back it up. The only thing proved by the Cardinal’s statemenst is that no priest in good standing can be forbid to say the TLM. It says nothing about public masses as the beginning of the article states.

I find this a common tactic in rad-Trad publications. First we make some statements. The we find someone to back up one of these statements (the funny thing is we all know the answer to the one that was actually answered) and then we allege that it supports the whole article.

 

[bear06]

itsjustdave1988:

katolik,
Wow … I’m simply astonished at the level of vulgarity. Does your mother know you express yourself this way in public? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You certainly are a poor representative of traditional Catholicism.

As a women, I especially thank you.

 

[katolik]

itsjustdave1988:

katolik,
Wow … I’m simply astonished at the level of vulgarity. Does your mother know you express yourself this way in public? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You certainly are a poor representative of traditional Catholicism.

I mean “p****” as in weak not female genitalia. To tell you the truth in my neck of the woods we almost never use “p****”[well perhaps that’s just me] to mean that what you infered. I mean weak Catholicism or Catholic Lite as some say. Taking into fact that English is my 2nd language,which I speak less than English, and I have never been out of Michigan, I sometimes make mistakes in English, so bear with me.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

bear06:

Whoaa!!! This article is goofy. First it makes some statements and yet never gives any quotes to back it up. The only thing proved by the Cardinal’s statemenst is that no priest in good standing can be forbid to say the TLM. It says nothing about public masses as the beginning of the article states.

I find this a common tactic in rad-Trad publications. First we make some statements. The we find someone to back up one of these statements (the funny thing is we all know the answer to the one that was actually answered) and then we allege that it supports the whole article.

We must not be reading the same article. If you choose to disregard it, that is your call. Seems like further discussion is pointless, if you want to dismiss it out of hand. But I do have a request.

Please lay off the labels. I will make a deal with you. You stop calling me a “rad-trad”, and I won’t call you a “nervous-weirdo”. Deal?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

katolik:

I mean “p****” as in weak not female genitalia. To tell you the truth in my neck of the woods we almost never use “p****”[well perhaps that’s just me] to mean that what you infered. I mean weak Catholicism or Catholic Lite as some say. Taking into fact that English is my 2nd language,which I speak less than English, and I have never been out of Michigan, I sometimes make mistakes in English, so bear with me.

Sorry I pounced on you.

Where I am from, unless the word means “cat” then it is a derogatory and vulgar slang word. I didn’t presume you to mean “vulva” as the Old German etymology derived from *puse *means, but instead believed you meant “one regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly” which in my parish, is still considered a vulgar and disparaging usage.

Do you suppose St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians would have been charitable or vulgar in saying: “I fed you [bunch of p******] with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still [are a bunch of p****** and] not ready” (1 Cor 3:2).

 

[jimmy]

itsjustdave1988:

Sorry I pounced on you.

Where I am from, unless the word means “cat” then it is a derogatory and vulgar slang word. I didn’t presume you to mean “vulva” as the Old German etymology derived from *puse *means, but instead believed you meant “one regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly” which in my parish, is still considered a vulgar and disparaging usage.

Do you suppose St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians would have been charitable or vulgar in saying: “I fed you [bunch of p******] with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still [are a bunch of p****** and] not ready” (1 Cor 3:2).

I admit that Paul did not use those exact words, but it does get the point across. I think your interpretation is pretty funny, but the change of wording does make it sound a little harsh. It does not sound anything like something an apostle would say.

I think it is derrogatory because generally it is a term used with reference to women genetallia. It is not derogatory because it calls someone weak.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Back to the subject at hand. . . . . . . .

Remember your charity and your language.

 

[Rara_Avis]

bear06:

The group is sparse because nobody really knows about them. Believe me, they are not sending anyone running. They don’t even make a lot of noise in their little corner of the world.

Well I can only testify that in our neck of the woods it was a little different … I actually found it quite humourous how a small group of 40 people could send everyone into such a frizzy! And voila immediately - The Indult Mass.

 

[Lonevoice]

Personally, I think that the Latin Mass should be available in ALL parishes. I don’t think that it would be too hard to make sure that it didn’t drift off into dissent in the homilies, etc…

++++OPINION FOLLOWS!!!++++

As a convert, it seems to me that many Catholics these days have no sense of history, or of their religious roots. I think TLM should always be available as a touchstone to the past, so that appreciation of our history can be fully experienced. I am staggered by the memory of the Midnight Christmas Mass in Latin.

I should mention thatpart of what drew me to the Church was Sacred Tradition and a palpable sense of History.

(lonevoice dons his flameproof longjohns and waits patiently…)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lonevoice:

Personally, I think that the Latin Mass should be available in ALL parishes. I don’t think that it would be too hard to make sure that it didn’t drift off into dissent in the homilies, etc…

I can understand a call for this but it is impractical.

One, I believe that you do need more than just a priest for the Trad Latin Mass and with the shortage and some parishes sharing a priest it will be hard to do.

Two, there is not all that much demand for the Trad Latin Mass regardless of what some people will say here. We have a Trad Latin Mass in Rochester, NY. The Church is not even half full for it and it is not even one of the bigger churches.

Now is you are talking about the Mass done in Latin, I am all for that but I think it would be better if done the way EWTN does it, some Latin and some English. I am for the vernacular in the liturgy, but not exclusly.

 

[EddieArent]

Latest news in Orlando is that they can’t find a priest to celebrate the Mass. :banghead:

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

I can understand a call for this but it is impractical.

One, I believe that you do need more than just a priest for the Trad Latin Mass and with the shortage and some parishes sharing a priest it will be hard to do.

Two, there is not all that much demand for the Trad Latin Mass regardless of what some people will say here. We have a Trad Latin Mass in Rochester, NY. The Church is not even half full for it and it is not even one of the bigger churches.

Now is you are talking about the Mass done in Latin, I am all for that but I think it would be better if done the way EWTN does it, some Latin and some English. I am for the vernacular in the liturgy, but not exclusly.

The Traditional Latin is put away in one secluded parish… What would happen if for every TLM Mass there would be a NO Mass for it? If there were 150 Masses in a diocese on sunday, and it was divided in one 1/2 TLM and 1/2 NO, who would win out? People don’t know about the TLM and many priests still call the TLM schismatic.

Byzcath, you can live in a dream world and say that FSSP and ICRSP will all say the NO at the bishop’s will, but they won’t… If that would happen about 150 priests would join the SSPX or become independent.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree with Byzcath …

Before the indult is expanded to every parish, perhaps they should fill the seats in the one little church in which they already have an indult. For example, there was less than 50 people at the 1200 Sunday TLM that I attended. Comparatively, this morning’s Daily Pauline Mass in my parish had over 100 people in attendance, with over 3000 attending on Sunday.

At today’s traditional Novus Ordo Mass, we gathered before Mass to pray the Rosary together, as well as many other traditional prayers from my Daily Roman Missal (eg. Prayer to St. Michael, Prayer to St. Joseph, Prayer for the souls in purgatory), and sang (chanted) hymns in Latin (eg. Agnus Dei), and after Mass we had the Rite of Eucharistic Exposition and Benediction, again singing (chanting) the hymns in Latin (eg. O Salutaris Hostia, Tantum Ergo). Such piety is found throughout the diocese, so I don’t suppose the pews will begin to overflow at the TLM Mass in this diocese in the near future.

I believe the TLM will certainly have varying attendance, depending upon the orthodoxy of the diocese. The Diocese of Colorado Springs is very orthodox, expanding, and sponsoring a number of seminarians. This is probably why there’s a very small number of people “clamoring” for the TLM in this diocese. In your more wacky liberal dioceses, I would imagine the seats for the TLM are rather packed.

 

[INRI]

Gotta go with ByzCatholic on this one,

I love the TLM and would like to see it promulgated wider. However, demand needs to be built up slowly. Most people aren’t ready for it. I attended the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest in Wausau for a while and the liturgy was heavenly. My wife, who is a charismatic type put it, “If they’re not in line with the church, I’m going to have a BIG problem.” But their church was small and I don’t think they were bringing in enough in their collections to cover their expenses. If you check the Institute’s main website, you’ll see that they realize this and are planning to expand slowly and carefully. I’ve met plenty of good, faithful Catholics, who “don’t get anything out of the TLM”. Their experience mirrors mine when I’ve gone to a poorly done TLM. The priest whips through the prayers at record pace, mostly what one hears is mumbling, the organist plays some rambling music, the homily is uninspiring. Couple that with the fact that the 1962 missal is hard to follow for someone not familiar with the mass, and you get an unsatisfactory experience.

Imagine, for the moment if the Vatican all of a sudden revoked the Pauline missal and went back to the 1962 missal.  Imagine the culture shock.  I think this is why the Vatican seems to move slowly on liturgical abuses, why they don't unequivocally put their foot down on altar girls, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, and the like.  The church has already been through 1 liturgical shock in the past 40 years, it probably doesn't need another one.  I think I can remember vaguely that Ratzinger had mentioned something similar to this recently.

I have sometimes been disturbed by the “Catholic Ghetto” mentality, admized with a little Jansenism, that I sometimes detect in TLM parishes. It isn’t healthy. Again, I speak as one who prefers the TLM.

Just my :twocents: . Go ahead an flame away.

 

[TNT]

INRI:

Gotta go with ByzCatholic on this one,

…Imagine, for the moment if the Vatican all of a sudden revoked the Pauline missal and went back to the 1962 missal. Imagine the culture shock.

INDEED IT WOULD BE “DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN” CIRCA 1970

I think this is why the Vatican seems to move slowly on liturgical abuses, why they don’t unequivocally put their foot down on altar girls, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, and the like.

Actually, neglect or prolonged hesitation is tantamount to tacit approval. If you detect having level 3 melanoma, don’t tell the Vat. unless you want treatment to move slowly so you wont be “shocked”.

The church has already been through 1 liturgical shock in the past 40 years, it probably doesn’t need another one.

Was the 1st one ok? P Paul VI thought it was. Do you disagree with that pope?

I have sometimes been disturbed by the “Catholic Ghetto” mentality, admized with a little Jansenism, that I sometimes detect in TLM parishes. It isn’t healthy. Again, I speak as one who prefers the TLM.

Of course it isn’t! Liturgical dance, gay masses, panreligious ceremomies are the healthy way to go, right?

Finally, I agree that the TLM CANNOT successfully be made the norm. Our current churches are no longer set up for it (no relics in a table, no C. rails) , and current churchmen are not embued with the TLM spirituality, let alone the precise rubrics and Latin, etc.
Besides, “familiarity breeds contempt”.
Let those who want it pay the price. I’m more than willing.
ps. If you had a “poor” TLM experience, it is a severe exception to the rule, especially since your experience seems to wholly surround the priest and not the reverence of the members.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If you had a “poor” TLM experience, it is a severe exception to the rule

Ya know … I’ve never had a “poor” Pauline Mass experience … ever. I’m in the military and move around quite a bit, so I’ve belonged to many different parishes in the US and overseas, and I’ve never seen the abuses that traditionalists want us to think are in just about 90+% of all the parishes in the world.

Just blessed, I guess. Or perhaps, there’s been a bit of exaggeration in traditionalist attempts to “market” the TLM … hmmmmm?

 

[mgy100]

As far as small attendance, the place I go to has 600 people a sunday or more attending. One thing they should do, after all it is the Latin Rite of the church… is use more latin in the current mass. There is no reason they can’t, no one stopping them except the laziness and lack of commitment from the people to demand it and teach it. Latin isn’t hard, and really the responses aren’t hard either. We all know the current prayers so if they were said in latin, we’d almost all know exactly what they were saying anyway. And uh-oh, we’d actually have to teach the young kids something… i’d be the first to teach the kids in my parish or adults for that matter, I can play piano and organ and I would instruct the choir… yes, it can be done, but I’d have a lot of convincing to do in my parish… it is commitment that I think that would scare people the most, commitment to learning something different. Probably could start off slow with just basic responses and move from there If the priest couldn’t pronounce the Latin, I’d even teach him.

 

[INRI]

TNT:

INDEED IT WOULD BE “DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN” CIRCA 1970
Actually, neglect or prolonged hesitation is tantamount to tacit approval. If you detect having level 3 melanoma, don’t tell the Vat. unless you want treatment to move slowly so you wont be “shocked”.

Was the 1st one ok? P Paul VI thought it was. Do you disagree with that pope?

Of course it isn’t! Liturgical dance, gay masses, panreligious ceremomies are the healthy way to go, right?

QUOTE]

To all forum readers: The quotes above are an example of what is known as the “straw man” tactic. Namely, give a characture of the others argument and demolish THAT, as opposed to the opponent’s original argument. The funny thing is, I think that would probably agree with most of this person’s sentiments, but…
My reply to the above assertions would be:

1. Hesitation doesn’t always mean tacit approval. Just as the liturgical abuses were gradual enough to prevent a lot of people from stomping out at the first sight of mass changes, so the change back to more reverential masses should not be done so as to cause alarm to those souls who are enamoured of '70’s style liturgy. By making too sudden of a change, you risk losing some souls forever, just as what happened in 1970 caused some people to become irretrievably schismatic. Imagine the plight of orthodox, faithful bishops put in charge of problematic dioceses (think Archbishop Dolan in Milwaukee). If he were to suddenly do everything we on this forum would probably want, he would get a huge problem on his hands.
2. I don’t think Paul VI intended to shock the church with his liturgical reforms, it just turned out that way from people who were acting “in the spirit of Vatican II”.
3. I don’t think I was arguing in favor of any liturgical abuses.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mgy100:

laziness and lack of commitment from the people to demand it and teach it. Latin isn’t hard, and really the responses aren’t hard either.

Or the simple preference that it be in the vernacular. You’re painting with a broad and rather insulting brush.