Will Pope Benedict reform the liturgy?

[JKirkLVNV]

Andreas Hofer:

Danger! Charity levels perilously low!

I’ve read accounts of how the Christians in Alexandria rioted and battled in the streets over the true nature of Christ, pulling Mariology into the mix by having as riot “slogans” either “Mary, the Mother of God” or “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” This while they were beating each other senseless. I always thought that was appalling. Now I understand it a little better, at least.

When I’m not in a snit, I support the idea of a generous application of the Indult. I can only imagine what it would be like to have the liturgy I loved ripped away from me. That’s how I started out on the topic, very empathetic, etc. However, I increasingly find that I not only have to defend the Mass I love, but the pope I love as well, my personal hero, ironically enough, the very pope who urged a more generous application of the Indult on the bishops, to people who should know better, but who only think they know better. I apologize for the strained charity or complete lack thereof in my writing, but it is a bit wearing. NOW, I find myself honestly wondering why the bishops would allow a broader application of the Indult, if this is the type of internincine brawling it engenders, but I know that’s not the better part of me. I will, however, always defend the Mass promulgated for the Church…and John Paul II as a true hero of the faith. I think the Church is in trouble now in the western world. I don’t think that’s the fault of the Mass, the Council, or the Pope. I think it’s because we’ve gone whoring after false gods. When we realize the spritual poverty we’re in, we’ll turn back (let’s hope it won’t be too late), but it will be to a post-Conciliar Church, a post Conciliar Mass, under a post-Conciliar pope. The Council isn’t going to be declared false, the Mass won’t be abrogated or derogated (not for another 500 years) and the Pope will still be the Vicar of Christ on earth. That doesn’t mean that all that happened before the Council isn’t valuable, it’s of an enormous value. The point is that the Council and the Pauline Mass are now a part of our tradition as well.

 

[Ham1]

Go ahead and flame me, but I would not take Fellay’s statement about what someone else said too seriously. He also had glowing things to say about his meeting with Pope B XVI while the Vatican’s statements were much more reserved.

As far as renewal of the liturgy one only has to check out the vastly improved liturgical training at seminaries to see what direction this will take. I believe the goal is to ensure that the current Mass is devoutly and correctly said.

 

[Ham1]

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve read accounts of how the Christians in Alexandria rioted and battled in the streets over the true nature of Christ, pulling Mariology into the mix by having as riot “slogans” either “Mary, the Mother of God” or “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” This while they were beating each other senseless. I always thought that was appalling. Now I understand it a little better, at least.

When I’m not in a snit, I support the idea of a generous application of the Indult. I can only imagine what it would be like to have the liturgy I loved ripped away from me. That’s how I started out on the topic, very empathetic, etc. However, I increasingly find that I not only have to defend the Mass I love, but the pope I love as well, my personal hero, ironically enough, the very pope who urged a more generous application of the Indult on the bishops, to people who should know better, but who only think they know better. I apologize for the strained charity or complete lack thereof in my writing, but it is a bit wearing. NOW, I find myself honestly wondering why the bishops would allow a broader application of the Indult, if this is the type of internincine brawling it engenders, but I know that’s not the better part of me. I will, however, always defend the Mass promulgated for the Church…and John Paul II as a true hero of the faith. I think the Church is in trouble now in the western world. I don’t think that’s the fault of the Mass, the Council, or the Pope. I think it’s because we’ve gone whoring after false gods. When we realize the spritual poverty we’re in, we’ll turn back (let’s hope it won’t be too late), but it will be to a post-Conciliar Church, a post Conciliar Mass, under a post-Conciliar pope. The Council isn’t going to be declared false, the Mass won’t be abrogated or derogated (not for another 500 years) and the Pope will still be the Vicar of Christ on earth. That doesn’t mean that all that happened before the Council isn’t valuable, it’s of an enormous value. The point is that the Council and the Pauline Mass are now a part of our tradition as well.

Great post…

Your post makes me think that maybe when people think of “the smoke intering the Church” it’s not really the liberals. It’s the stubborn traditionalists who refuse to submit to the Church. What a victory for Satan! He is able to attack most slyly some of the most devout and holy Catholics and place subtle barriers between them and Christ’s Church.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve read accounts of how the Christians in Alexandria rioted and battled in the streets over the true nature of Christ, pulling Mariology into the mix by having as riot “slogans” either “Mary, the Mother of God” or “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” This while they were beating each other senseless. I always thought that was appalling. Now I understand it a little better, at least.

When I’m not in a snit, I support the idea of a generous application of the Indult. I can only imagine what it would be like to have the liturgy I loved ripped away from me. That’s how I started out on the topic, very empathetic, etc. However, I increasingly find that I not only have to defend the Mass I love, but the pope I love as well, my personal hero, ironically enough, the very pope who urged a more generous application of the Indult on the bishops, to people who should know better, but who only think they know better. I apologize for the strained charity or complete lack thereof in my writing, but it is a bit wearing. NOW, I find myself honestly wondering why the bishops would allow a broader application of the Indult, if this is the type of internincine brawling it engenders, but I know that’s not the better part of me. I will, however, always defend the Mass promulgated for the Church…and John Paul II as a true hero of the faith. I think the Church is in trouble now in the western world. I don’t think that’s the fault of the Mass, the Council, or the Pope. I think it’s because we’ve gone whoring after false gods. When we realize the spritual poverty we’re in, we’ll turn back (let’s hope it won’t be too late), but it will be to a post-Conciliar Church, a post Conciliar Mass, under a post-Conciliar pope. The Council isn’t going to be declared false, the Mass won’t be abrogated or derogated (not for another 500 years) and the Pope will still be the Vicar of Christ on earth. That doesn’t mean that all that happened before the Council isn’t valuable, it’s of an enormous value. The point is that the Council and the Pauline Mass are now a part of our tradition as well.

Kirk, I don;t agree with a lot of what you post, but lately, I’ve seen that you are sincere in what you write and that you do have a grasp on the problems facing the Church, particularly in he western world these days. I agree with you 100%, we have gone off after false Gods, false ideals, false theolgies the works. I have never thought that Vatican II was the problem. It just provided the vehicle that a few used to reach their own ends and pursue their own agendas.

I think as long as there are those like yourself, that can see the problem, admit the problem but still love the church there will always be hope. I will say this, the Institutional Church is in trouble, not the spiritual church. As long as we have faith like yours and a few others here onthis forum that aspect of the Church is fine.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve read accounts of how the Christians in Alexandria rioted and battled in the streets over the true nature of Christ, pulling Mariology into the mix by having as riot “slogans” either “Mary, the Mother of God” or “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” This while they were beating each other senseless. I always thought that was appalling. Now I understand it a little better, at least.

When I’m not in a snit, I support the idea of a generous application of the Indult. I can only imagine what it would be like to have the liturgy I loved ripped away from me. That’s how I started out on the topic, very empathetic, etc. However, I increasingly find that I not only have to defend the Mass I love, but the pope I love as well, my personal hero, ironically enough, the very pope who urged a more generous application of the Indult on the bishops, to people who should know better, but who only think they know better. I apologize for the strained charity or complete lack thereof in my writing, but it is a bit wearing. NOW, I find myself honestly wondering why the bishops would allow a broader application of the Indult, if this is the type of internincine brawling it engenders, but I know that’s not the better part of me. I will, however, always defend the Mass promulgated for the Church…and John Paul II as a true hero of the faith. I think the Church is in trouble now in the western world. I don’t think that’s the fault of the Mass, the Council, or the Pope. I think it’s because we’ve gone whoring after false gods. When we realize the spritual poverty we’re in, we’ll turn back (let’s hope it won’t be too late), but it will be to a post-Conciliar Church, a post Conciliar Mass, under a post-Conciliar pope. The Council isn’t going to be declared false, the Mass won’t be abrogated or derogated (not for another 500 years) and the Pope will still be the Vicar of Christ on earth. That doesn’t mean that all that happened before the Council isn’t valuable, it’s of an enormous value. The point is that the Council and the Pauline Mass are now a part of our tradition as well.

I very much understand where you’re coming from - I’ve seen you have to go to bat for the Pauline Mass many a time, and I’m glad you do. My comment wasn’t directed specifically at you, but at the exchange in general.

I must say, I appreciate the prophetic allusions of “whoring” after idols. The stark candor of the prophetic canon shows that sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. I actually find that I don’t feel I should elaborate on the prostitute imagery of Hosea, Jeremiah, et al. because it’s in an open (and thus possibly family) forum. I never thought I’d see myself censoring Scripture, but that day has finally arrived.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Kirk, I don;t agree with a lot of what you post, but lately, I’ve seen that you are sincere in what you write and that you do have a grasp on the problems facing the Church, particularly in he western world these days. I agree with you 100%, we have gone off after false Gods, false ideals, false theolgies the works. I have never thought that Vatican II was the problem. It just provided the vehicle that a few used to reach their own ends and pursue their own agendas.

I think as long as there are those like yourself, that can see the problem, admit the problem but still love the church there will always be hope. I will say this, the Institutional Church is in trouble, not the spiritual church. As long as we have faith like yours and a few others here onthis forum that aspect of the Church is fine.

Thank you, Palmas, you are most kind.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Andreas Hofer:

I very much understand where you’re coming from - I’ve seen you have to go to bat for the Pauline Mass many a time, and I’m glad you do. My comment wasn’t directed specifically at you, but at the exchange in general.

I must say, I appreciate the prophetic allusions of “whoring” after idols. The stark candor of the prophetic canon shows that sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. I actually find that I don’t feel I should elaborate on the prostitute imagery of Hosea, Jeremiah, et al. because it’s in an open (and thus possibly family) forum. I never thought I’d see myself censoring Scripture, but that day has finally arrived.

What can I say, I was reared up Baptist, we’re accustomed to fire and brimestone and the language of KJV, thundered from the pulpit, which is well pounded!

 

[otm]

palmas85:

Well OTM, I can only speak for the three cities where I have attended the Indult Traditional mass, New Orleans, pre Katrina, Phoenox and San Diego. Each of those locations had standing room only, probably between 4 and 500 or more for the Masses and I would say conservatively about 50% of the congregations are under thirty, including large numbers of young families. From what I have seen there are two factors limiting the attendace at these masses, one lack of knowledge. Most people hear about them word of mouth and two lack of availability. Here in San Diego for instance the Diocese has been lobbied for years to grant an increase in the number of masses offered. Refused. Requested another larger location, Refused. What can you do? You cannot fight the Bishops, they say no, it’s no.

All the Traditional Mass haters can say what they want. from everything I’ve seen the Indult masses are doing fine, held back only by the Bishops. Now the SSPXrs generally are in small congregations, I will grant you that, but not the indult. At least not to my experience

I

I do not question the entusiasm for the Tridentine rite among those who attend. Statistically, it is well less than 1% of all Masses said on a weekend that are in the Tridentine rite; it would appear that it would be less than 1/100th of 1%.

I don’t question either the fact that people have petitioned to have the Tridentine rite Mass said more frequently. It is, however, an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the bishops, and I have heard nothing nor seen anything that shows there to be any interest in significantly widening the indult among the vast majority of bishops.

Much was made by some who felt that there would be some sort of universal indult (in other words, this would be an issue that was removed from the jurisdiction of the bishops and made an issue of the individual priests wishing to use the Tridentine rite). What surprised me was that they would feel that Benedict 16 would do this, as he has said publically that he intends to persue the implementation of Vatican 2 documents, and among those documents is the one dealing with the collegiality of bishops; granting such an indult would rund directly counter to that.

I suspect that some of that is a misperception of who Bendict 16 is. As a point, theologically, he is a long, long way from where, say, Hans Kung is; yet both have maintained a friendship since they worked together at Vatican 2; and in fact, they had lunch together recently (which was in the news).

I say this because of comments, not long after he was elected, by at least one poster in these forums, awaiting his “slapdown” of dissenting theologians and priests.

 

[otm]

JSmitty2005:

Exactly. That post was half a joke anyways. I obviously didn’t actually ask J23 since I’m only 19. And I wasn’t the one that said that the council shouldn’t have been held, the guy posing as him did. Relax. All I have to say about V2 is that IMHO I think that more bad came out of it than good. I think B16 is going to straighten things out though, especially the liturgical discontinuity between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses. By the way, whether I was 19 or 190, I wouldn’t think I was any “better” than anyone. Now, if you’re suggesting that I have an inferior knowledge on these matters simply because of my age, I don’t think you can make that judgement.

Perhaps if you would do some research on what has actually transpired since the council, you would realize that a tremendous amount of good has come out of it. Reading through these forums generally isn’t going to get you that information, in large part because most of the discussion herein focuses on the Mass, tridentine vs pauline rites, and ignores almost all of the documents.

Further, I would say that Vatican 2 was not the source of, nor the vehicle for, the dissent and difficulties we now have within the church, as the first couple of years did not see the radical changes. they started in full fource with the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, and the dissent over the use of the Pill; disesent was almost instantaneous and tremendously widespread, and while it was spearheaded by Charles Currin, he was only the most prominent dissenter. The reaction was so fast it resembled the reverse of direction of a whip; almost all could hear the “crack”. and once dissent was so widespread, so vocal, and taken up by so many - theologians, bishops, priests, and a hugh portion of the laity, other dissent followed shortly.

 

[palmas85]

i want to throw in my two cents worth on this issue, since the whole thread has kind of degenerated into assaults and defense of the various rites. Now I’m in a rather unique and tenuous position here in the fact that i regularly attend BOTH types of mass, Traditional Latin Mass(indul) on Sundays and other days when it is offered, and Novus Ordo during the week or when my work requirements make attendance impossible at the TLM.

I will not hesitate to say that on a personal level, I definitely prefer the Traditional Mass.I prefer it because on a general level it is celebrated much more reverently than your typical Novus Ordo Mass. The reasons for that probably vary,but it is a true statement. That being said, most Novus ordo Masses that I currently attend are orthodox, reverent and highly respectful.Of course the congregations that you get for 7:00am weekday masses tend to be more reverent in the way they approach the Mass. No, most of the abuses? if you can call them that, that I have seen in the Novus Ordo seem to come about in the Sunday Masses, which amazingly enough, or maybe not so, was the same plave when I was a kid you would see them with the Traditional Mass.

Now let me explain a little. Everybody goes to a Sunday Mass, many from a sense of duty and/or obligation. So in many cases, they are not as serious as they should be and are just going through the motions, and because they are not the Priest takes liberties. Not always, but sometimes.Same thing forty years ago when the Traditional Mass was the norm. During the Novus Ordo weekday masses, the only people showing up are usually either , committed or deeply devout. So they are serious, and so is the Priest. In Traditional Masses these daysyou don’t find a lot of people attending solely through a sense of duty and/or obligation. Thre are there because they are either committed or deeply devout. The Priest, also, is there because he truly wants to be and not from a sense of obligation.

I cannot speak to the SSPX masses, only the indult.

Now over the years that was not always the case. Iremember full well the horrors inflicted on the congregations back in the 70’s and 80’s the era of experimentation and freedom :bigyikes: My good friends the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood managed to almost turn me completely away from Catholicism, due to their interpretation? of the way the mass should be done.

In short, I firmly believe that the Priests will often follow the lead of the congregation in how the Mass is celebrated. I believe that is one of the things that Vatican II meant when it stressed more participation in the mass. Not so much in actually physically doing things, but setting the tone, setting the direction that the Mass should go, keeping the Priests on their toes so to speak.

Both Masses are valid, and if offered reverently to God, in the manner that He wants, very beautiful. But it is up to us, the faithful, to make sure that the religious do things the right way. Hold their feet to the fire and make them responsible to their vows and to the Church.

.PAX DOMINUS VOBISCUM

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

When I’m not in a snit, I support the idea of a generous application of the Indult. I can only imagine what it would be like to have the liturgy I loved ripped away from me. That’s how I started out on the topic, very empathetic, etc. However, I increasingly find that I not only have to defend the Mass I love, but the pope I love as well, my personal hero, ironically enough, the very pope who urged a more generous application of the Indult on the bishops, to people who should know better, but who only think they know better. I apologize for the strained charity or complete lack thereof in my writing, but it is a bit wearing. NOW, I find myself honestly wondering why the bishops would allow a broader application of the Indult, if this is the type of internincine brawling it engenders, but I know that’s not the better part of me. I will, however, always defend the Mass promulgated for the Church…and John Paul II as a true hero of the faith. I think the Church is in trouble now in the western world. I don’t think that’s the fault of the Mass, the Council, or the Pope. I think it’s because we’ve gone whoring after false gods. When we realize the spritual poverty we’re in, we’ll turn back (let’s hope it won’t be too late), but it will be to a post-Conciliar Church, a post Conciliar Mass, under a post-Conciliar pope. The Council isn’t going to be declared false, the Mass won’t be abrogated or derogated (not for another 500 years) and the Pope will still be the Vicar of Christ on earth. That doesn’t mean that all that happened before the Council isn’t valuable, it’s of an enormous value. The point is that the Council and the Pauline Mass are now a part of our tradition as well.

Try walking a mile in my shoes, hombre. Personally, I’m sick of people in the Church, especially on this board, continually attempting to marginalize people like me who are attached to the old Roman Rite. They cite their precious statistics: Less than 1% (or is it .01% or .1% or .001? Who knows.) of Catholics attend the old Roman Rite. As if “popularity” has anything to do with Mass, like it’s a bestselling book or a baseball team. They refer to the Pauline Mass as the “normative” Mass of the Church. Which means the old Roman Rite and all of the Eastern Rites are somehow “abnormal.” Nice. Very triumphalist. Those who were around prior to the Council love to regale us with stories of drunk priests who came to the altar and muttered a low Mass in 7 minutes (or was it 5? Do I hear 3?). Many go so far as to ridicule the attire of Traditionalists who they’ve seen at Mass, with their ill-fitting, off the rack polyester suits and bad hair. Some have even attended SSPX chapels and heard hateful rants and somehow made a correlation between that and Traditionalists in full communion with the Church.

The Mass that brought you into the Church is the Mass. It’s the same Mass that my mother and my brothers and sisters and their families attend. I attend it myself quite often. But the old Roman Rite is the Mass too. It isn’t a matter of how many people attend this Mass every week. That is a moot point. The Church has made accommodation for people who are attached to it. Period. Those who attempt to marginalize Traditionalists are putting themselves above John Paul the Great who, in his wisdom, decided to grant permission for it to be celebrated. It has nothing to do with statistical insignificance. Like we are constantly told about Communion in the hand or girl altar boys: Rome has ruled. Get over it! :tsktsk:

So, Kirk, relax. Your Mass is on the ascendency. As Cardinal Arinze said, it’s not going anywhere. (Of course, if I wanted to be cruel, I could point out that if you asked the average Cardinal in 1940 if Latin would completely disappear from Mass within 30 years, he would’ve laughed you to scorn. But I don’t want to be cruel.) Most bishops believe that the liturgical “renewal” engendered by the Council has been a fantastic success. Most priests probably believe it to. And when you walk into the average American Catholic Church today and hear the reverent silence before every Mass, witness the profound and deep genuflections everytime someone passes in front of the Blessed Sacrament, hear the strong homilies attacking the contraceptive culture of death, and see the personal, prayerful recollection everyone enters into just before receiving the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity…how can you not think it’s a new springtime?

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

So, Kirk, relax. Your Mass is on the ascendency. As Cardinal Arinze said, it’s not going anywhere. (Of course, if I wanted to be cruel, I could point out that if you asked the average Cardinal in 1940 if Latin would completely disappear from Mass within 30 years, he would’ve laughed you to scorn. But I don’t want to be cruel.) Most bishops believe that the liturgical “renewal” engendered by the Council has been a fantastic success. Most priests probably believe it to. And when you walk into the average American Catholic Church today and hear the reverent silence before every Mass, witness the profound and deep genuflections everytime someone passes in front of the Blessed Sacrament, hear the strong homilies attacking the contraceptive culture of death, and see the personal, prayerful recollection everyone enters into just before receiving the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity…how can you not think it’s a new springtime?

Wouldn’t a seperate rite solve so much?? Why can’t we do that?
I like the stats on the TLM too. They stick the TLM in the Hood in places like MI where the weather can keep you from traveling to the corner store, then scream that only 1% want it. I love when people read the minds of others.

You have to admit, my Dear Friend, that some of the TLM people that come here are not as informed as you are. They bring up the conspiracy theories as fact and then get slammed.
The problem I see is that when the Traditionalists are berated or the traditionalists (note the small "t’), that is perfectly alright. We are beat over the head with calls of being unChristian and assigned a niche of avoiding “Social Christianity” for prayer life. It is accepted here as fact. My parish has eight Advent projects including one for the kids, Visitation Ministry, Berevement Ministry, Welcoming Committee, the list goes on. We are far from lacking in “Social Christianity”. While my parish is not allowed the TLM, my Pastor is one of the Priests in rotation to celebrate at our ONE Indult. If we could get one we would have it.
And while we come onto these boards with those who are into the More Happy Catholic Communities calling us everything from UnChristian because “How could we deny holding hands with another Christian?” or accusing us of labeling every innovation that we hate as an Abuse, we fight here and are dismissed then fight in our parishes then dismissed.

One day it will even out. One day every type of Catholic will be accepted, right now, in some ways people like us are belittled, laughed at and looked down on. Nothing we can do about it, but pray.

 

[Ham1]

Dr. Bombay:

Try walking a mile in my shoes, hombre. Personally, I’m sick of people in the Church, especially on this board, continually attempting to marginalize people like me who are attached to the old Roman Rite. They cite their precious statistics: Less than 1% (or is it .01% or .1% or .001? Who knows.) of Catholics attend the old Roman Rite. As if “popularity” has anything to do with Mass, like it’s a bestselling book or a baseball team. They refer to the Pauline Mass as the “normative” Mass of the Church. Which means the old Roman Rite and all of the Eastern Rites are somehow “abnormal.” Nice. Very triumphalist. Those who were around prior to the Council love to regale us with stories of drunk priests who came to the altar and muttered a low Mass in 7 minutes (or was it 5? Do I hear 3?). Many go so far as to ridicule the attire of Traditionalists who they’ve seen at Mass, with their ill-fitting, off the rack polyester suits and bad hair. Some have even attended SSPX chapels and heard hateful rants and somehow made a correlation between that and Traditionalists in full communion with the Church.

The Mass that brought you into the Church is the Mass. It’s the same Mass that my mother and my brothers and sisters and their families attend. I attend it myself quite often. But the old Roman Rite is the Mass too. It isn’t a matter of how many people attend this Mass every week. That is a moot point. The Church has made accommodation for people who are attached to it. Period. Those who attempt to marginalize Traditionalists are putting themselves above John Paul the Great who, in his wisdom, decided to grant permission for it to be celebrated. It has nothing to do with statistical insignificance. Like we are constantly told about Communion in the hand or girl altar boys: Rome has ruled. Get over it! :tsktsk:

The part above is much to the point and quite well written. It IS totally out of line for people to criticize the old Roman Rite Mass that you love to attend. Rome has indeed spoken and wishes the tradition of this Mass to continue forward.

Most bishops believe that the liturgical “renewal” engendered by the Council has been a fantastic success. Most priests probably believe it to. And when you walk into the average American Catholic Church today and hear the reverent silence before every Mass, witness the profound and deep genuflections everytime someone passes in front of the Blessed Sacrament, hear the strong homilies attacking the contraceptive culture of death, and see the personal, prayerful recollection everyone enters into just before receiving the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity…how can you not think it’s a new springtime?

This is the part I don’t get. You just got through railing on people who don’t respect your preference for the old Roman Rite and now you make a snide backhanded slap at the current liturgy??? If you want some respect, try to give a little, hombre.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

Try walking a mile in my shoes, hombre. Personally, I’m sick of people in the Church, especially on this board, continually attempting to marginalize people like me who are attached to the old Roman Rite. They cite their precious statistics: Less than 1% (or is it .01% or .1% or .001? Who knows.) of Catholics attend the old Roman Rite. As if “popularity” has anything to do with Mass, like it’s a bestselling book or a baseball team. They refer to the Pauline Mass as the “normative” Mass of the Church. Which means the old Roman Rite and all of the Eastern Rites are somehow “abnormal.” Nice. Very triumphalist. Those who were around prior to the Council love to regale us with stories of drunk priests who came to the altar and muttered a low Mass in 7 minutes (or was it 5? Do I hear 3?). Many go so far as to ridicule the attire of Traditionalists who they’ve seen at Mass, with their ill-fitting, off the rack polyester suits and bad hair. Some have even attended SSPX chapels and heard hateful rants and somehow made a correlation between that and Traditionalists in full communion with the Church.
QUOTE]

That’s the point. My support for the Indult stems from the fact that I attempt to “walk a mile in your shoes,” ie., demonstrate and feel empathy. I DON’T attempt to marginalize people like you. As for the math, I’m a liberal arts product and I only know that math I teach…we don’t get to decimal percentages in fourth grade, I’m afraid. The only point I could see in a demographic study is this: we’ve got a priest shortage and a bishop just might wonder about how best to expend his resources (men and money). We had a small Anglican use parish in our diocese that gradually got smaller and smaller. People died, moved, etc., and it had long been serviced by a regular Latin rite priest anyway. The “popularity” issue is one I hear bruited from “traditionalists,” Doc, more than “Paulists,” shall we say, ie., “give us half a chance, just a wedge in the door, the TLM will bury the Pauline Mass!” This should engender charity in those of us who love the Pauline Mass? As for the Eastern Rites, I don’t think anyone thinks I or anyone defending the Pauline Mass is denigrating the Divine Liturgy. We’re talking about the Latin Rite. Also, I don’t think the TLM is abnormal. With regard to those who lived before the Council, are ALL of them liars? Do ALL of them have an axe to grind? Do you think maybe it’s a reaction to the charge that the Pauline Mass is, by it’s nature flawed and so patently subject to abuse that it’s impossible to to attend an abuse free Mass? Do you think those assertions are made to demonstrate that the TLM is as subject to abuse as most things that human beings touch (Cardinal Arinze laughed at the assertion that the TLM was “abuse-proof”). It’s bad manners and ill-bred to make fun of someone’s dress and I can only assume that the person who did this is either ignorant or very young. On the other hand, there are young neo-“traditionalists” who cannot wait for “that flower child generation to die off, we’ll get the TLM back,” etc., as though the orthodoxy of any of us who are over 40 is suspect (I’ve no more patience for the Voice of the Faithful, pantheistic, feminist, goddess worshipping nuns in cullottes and earrings, or Father Richard McBrien than Bishop Fellay would). Finally, on the above paragraph, I make no correlation between the SSPX and the faithful “traditional” catholic (I don’t see the need for the adjective, we’re just Catholics). I attended one TLM Mass at the local SSPX chapel. The priest said, twice, that the Novus Ordo was an “abomination.” If I’m not mistaken, that’s a heresy, but at any rate, I am able to distinguish between the priest and Mass he offered! I don’t care for the TLM, I admit, but I don’t think that it’s weird that YOU love it. Can you not, however, hear the tone of the posts of those who denigrate the Pauline Mass? They think I’m weird for prefering it!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

The Mass that brought you into the Church is the Mass. It’s the same Mass that my mother and my brothers and sisters and their families attend. I attend it myself quite often. But the old Roman Rite is the Mass too. It isn’t a matter of how many people attend this Mass every week. That is a moot point. The Church has made accommodation for people who are attached to it. Period. Those who attempt to marginalize Traditionalists are putting themselves above John Paul the Great who, in his wisdom, decided to grant permission for it to be celebrated. It has nothing to do with statistical insignificance. Like we are constantly told about Communion in the hand or girl altar boys: Rome has ruled. Get over it! :tsktsk:

I don’t make any attempt to marginalize "traditionalists. I attempt to defend the legitimately promulgated Mass of the Church. I realize the TLM is also the Mass. I’m sorry, however, it does matter how many attend it, in terms of man power to offer it and resources to house it. If there are too few people who have it, then the bishop has to make a decision. Too few? Then for the few, one spot in a deanery or whatever we call them, once a week, or once every other week, or once a month, depending on the number of the “few.” I personally think our bishop, from what I’ve seen, a good man, should “re-evangelize” the SSPX folks that meet in LV. We *could *actually make an effort for those 75-125 souls (an estimate). Our parish could offer ONE Mass per week for them, at the least (we offer a Polish Mass every week, but that was actively solicited by the Polish community. But should he do the same thing up in Tonapah, a podunk town at the northern edge of the diocese, for the five who want it in a parish of 300? I’m afraid that I think it does matter how many attend, just like the little Anglican-use parish that had to finally be shut down. And John Paul the Great gave permission for the TLM and urged a more generous application (and so I would support that generous application, even if I didn’t respect people like you and Netmil(name removed by moderator), which I incidentally do, because I loved him very much), BUT he left the implementation of it up to the prudential judgement of the bishops. I’m convinced that for some of them it’s snotty mean-spiritedness, but I’m equally convinced that for others, it’s a question of resources.

 

[oat_soda]

the one thing i can’t understand is why was there an outright prohibition on the tridentine mass. even now they are afraid to change anything least they upset the faithful. so why was it ok then?

if the tridentine mass is objectively inferior for today’s modern man, then why can’t they just let the two exist side by side and let God sort it out. it will die out on its own by its own inferority. or, it may make the normative mass more tridentine so we get the best of both worlds. this would be true organic development and not a forced fabrication.

if they did this, maybe sspx wouldn’t have separated from the church.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t make any attempt to marginalize "traditionalists. I attempt to defend the legitimately promulgated Mass of the Church. I realize the TLM is also the Mass. I’m sorry, however, it does matter how many attend it, in terms of man power to offer it and resources to house it. If there are too few people who have it, then the bishop has to make a decision. Too few? Then for the few, one spot in a deanery or whatever we call them, once a week, or once every other week, or once a month, depending on the number of the “few.” I personally think our bishop, from what I’ve seen, a good man, should “re-evangelize” the SSPX folks that meet in LV. We *could *actually make an effort for those 75-125 souls (an estimate). Our parish could offer ONE Mass per week for them, at the least (we offer a Polish Mass every week, but that was actively solicited by the Polish community. But should he do the same thing up in Tonapah, a podunk town at the northern edge of the diocese, for the five who want it in a parish of 300? I’m afraid that I think it does matter how many attend, just like the little Anglican-use parish that had to finally be shut down. And John Paul the Great gave permission for the TLM and urged a more generous application (and so I would support that generous application, even if I didn’t respect people like you and Netmil(name removed by moderator), which I incidentally do, because I loved him very much), BUT he left the implementation of it up to the prudential judgement of the bishops. I’m convinced that for some of them it’s snotty mean-spiritedness, but I’m equally convinced that for others, it’s a question of resources.

Hi Kirk, one of the problems that I have seen when you have an SSPX presence is that thier congregations tend to be small, very small in some cases. I can think of one compelling reason for that. Most true traditional minded Catholics are faithful to the Church and will not attend them. I won’t, never have,and as you well know I’m one of the staunchest Traditional Mass defenders here. I stayed with the Church through the years when there was no Traditional Mass offered. So to base your opinion about the rite on what you saw at a Chapel most of us wouldn’t go to anyway is kind of I don’t know uninformed maybe.?

Tell you what Kirk Vegas is about a six hour drive or a forty five minute flight to San Diego. Come down here, I will put you up for the night and take you to the Indult Traditional Mass at Holy Cross Chapel in the Cemetary. Thats where it is, really. Actually due to the crowds, it spills out into the mauseleum itself, which is a rather unique experience, kneeling amidst the tombs. Thats really going back to the primitive church I guess. Then you can make an objective and informed decision. Who knows you might like it The Norbertine Priests are very very good, no mumbling at all. The Bishop recently appointed a new local Priest to help out so things are pretty good here.

What have you got to lose, if nothing else, the weather here is better than Vegas

 

[netmilsmom]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t make any attempt to marginalize "traditionalists.

I can vouch for this.

I attempt to defend the legitimately promulgated Mass of the Church. I realize the TLM is also the Mass. I’m sorry, however, it does matter how many attend it, in terms of man power to offer it and resources to house it. If there are too few people who have it, then the bishop has to make a decision. Too few? Then for the few, one spot in a deanery or whatever we call them, once a week, or once every other week, or once a month, depending on the number of the “few.” I personally think our bishop, from what I’ve seen, a good man, should “re-evangelize” the SSPX folks that meet in LV. We *could *actually make an effort for those 75-125 souls (an estimate). Our parish could offer ONE Mass per week for them, at the least (we offer a Polish Mass every week, but that was actively solicited by the Polish community. But should he do the same thing up in Tonapah, a podunk town at the northern edge of the diocese, for the five who want it in a parish of 300? I’m afraid that I think it does matter how many attend, just like the little Anglican-use parish that had to finally be shut down. And John Paul the Great gave permission for the TLM and urged a more generous application (and so I would support that generous application, even if I didn’t respect people like you and Netmil(name removed by moderator), which I incidentally do, because I loved him very much), BUT he left the implementation of it up to the prudential judgement of the bishops. I’m convinced that for some of them it’s snotty mean-spiritedness, but I’m equally convinced that for others, it’s a question of resources.

The problem I see is that, while you support as I do, pleasing Catholics who want to worship in different ways, some of our Bishops do not, just as you said.
In Detroit, it took thousands (I’m not kidding) of letters to the Vatican and Our Cardinal doing his “review” trip with the Pope to get one TLM. It’s in a beautiful church downtown, BUT we are not known to go to downtown Detroit for anything. (read Murder capitol of the US/Carjacking capitol of the US)I’ve been there once when my daughters danced at Comerica Park. Never again. Most people feel the same way. The Cardinal knows this and put it there for a reason. Some of it was a central location but some of it also was the Hood it’s in.
Now, if you read the thread on the Detroit TLM there are maybe 200 people who show up at different times. I can tell you, because of the War Zone that the Church is in, that is a lot. But what about the numbers of people who wrote the letters? Just because they don’t want to go to St. J’s, they are dismissed as not wanting the TLM. The stats are who attends and should be who wants it. Really.
In my parish, my pastor would be willing to add a TLM. One of our NO masses would be replaced but even if it is one in a Vicariate, it would work.
I would fight for a TLM, an EWTN mass, an innovative mass or a Charismatic mass (who’da thunk it), if anyone was denied this. It’s not fair. But what I find really odd is that our Bishops are leaving a TLM as forbidden fruit and wondering why it won’t die.
Geez, it’s like Chocolate on a Diet!
Maybe the problem is that too many people WOULD want it back. Hmmmmmm.

(and btw !)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I can vouch for this.

The problem I see is that, while you support as I do, pleasing Catholics who want to worship in different ways, some of our Bishops do not, just as you said.
In Detroit, it took thousands (I’m not kidding) of letters to the Vatican and Our Cardinal doing his “review” trip with the Pope to get one TLM. It’s in a beautiful church downtown, BUT we are not known to go to downtown Detroit for anything. (read Murder capitol of the US/Carjacking capitol of the US)I’ve been there once when my daughters danced at Comerica Park. Never again. Most people feel the same way. The Cardinal knows this and put it there for a reason. Some of it was a central location but some of it also was the Hood it’s in.
Now, if you read the thread on the Detroit TLM there are maybe 200 people who show up at different times. I can tell you, because of the War Zone that the Church is in, that is a lot. But what about the numbers of people who wrote the letters? Just because they don’t want to go to St. J’s, they are dismissed as not wanting the TLM. The stats are who attends and should be who wants it. Really.
In my parish, my pastor would be willing to add a TLM. One of our NO masses would be replaced but even if it is one in a Vicariate, it would work.
I would fight for a TLM, an EWTN mass, an innovative mass or a Charismatic mass (who’da thunk it), if anyone was denied this. It’s not fair. But what I find really odd is that our Bishops are leaving a TLM as forbidden fruit and wondering why it won’t die.
Geez, it’s like Chocolate on a Diet!
Maybe the problem is that too many people WOULD want it back. Hmmmmmm.

(and btw !)

I agree that counting only those who attend as opposed to those who want to attend is, while perhaps the only feasible option, a somewhat disingenuous one. I, for instance, very much prefer the TLM, but it is financially imprudent (if not impossible) for me to regularly attend the nearest indult, 2.5 hours away.

[oddly enough, the only indult in my diocese, located near St. Louis but very much in a far corner of the diocese, is only 10-15 minutes away from an oratory staffed by the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest. So people in that area have two options while I still have 0]

I think, though, that the numbers game catches many people in a catch-22 of sorts. Let’s say there are “not enough people interested” in an indult. But part of that problem may be lack of exposure or geographic impediments. The indult Masses I am familiar with are all steadily growing in attendance. Why? I think there are plenty of people who would opt for the TLM once they’ve seen it. But they never get a chance to see it, because there is not enough interest. The catch, then, as I see it, is that you need to have a Mass available in order to see if people want it, but you can’t get a Mass because the bishop says not enough people want it. I would like to see more bishops giving a priest permission to add a Mass and see what kind of reception it gets rather than just dismissing the idea outright.

I also mentioned simple geography as a problem, and that’s because it looms large in my mind since I’m in that situation and my diocese is very rural on the whole. Say the indult over in the corner of the diocese only gets about 50 attendees (that’s sheer speculation). One could look at it and conclude, “Well, it looks like only fifty people in the diocese are interested in a TLM.” In theory, though, there could easily be another 50-100 people scattered throughout the rest of the diocese that can’t make the one indult and are too isolated to form another sizable community. Just some food for thought.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Hi Kirk, one of the problems that I have seen when you have an SSPX presence is that thier congregations tend to be small, very small in some cases. I can think of one compelling reason for that. Most true traditional minded Catholics are faithful to the Church and will not attend them. I won’t, never have,and as you well know I’m one of the staunchest Traditional Mass defenders here. I stayed with the Church through the years when there was no Traditional Mass offered. So to base your opinion about the rite on what you saw at a Chapel most of us wouldn’t go to anyway is kind of I don’t know uninformed maybe.?

Tell you what Kirk Vegas is about a six hour drive or a forty five minute flight to San Diego. Come down here, I will put you up for the night and take you to the Indult Traditional Mass at Holy Cross Chapel in the Cemetary. Thats where it is, really. Actually due to the crowds, it spills out into the mauseleum itself, which is a rather unique experience, kneeling amidst the tombs. Thats really going back to the primitive church I guess. Then you can make an objective and informed decision. Who knows you might like it The Norbertine Priests are very very good, no mumbling at all. The Bishop recently appointed a new local Priest to help out so things are pretty good here.

What have you got to lose, if nothing else, the weather here is better than Vegas

I go to CA at least once a year, I may take you up on it. I’ve thought about going to the Serra Chapel in San Juan for their TLM.