Via Media

Via Media


The Hermeneutics of the Continuity of Rumors

posted by awelborn

Fr. Z has rumors, confirmations and educated guesses.

That SMS is the third confirmation I have gotten. So, I feel safer about saying what I am piecing together. Remember: this is based reliable sources but it is still supposition on my part. I sift the exaggerated stuff out and try to get a consistent picture. In no special order…

1) The document will definitely be a Motu Proprio. (That means it will be from the Pope and not a document of a Congregation or joint document issued by different dicasteries.)

2) At the beginning of November it was in its final draft, after four revisions.

3) During the third week of November it was suggested that the document might come out in about three weeks. This would put it around… well… now.

More.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(46)
post a comment
Fr. Shawn O'Neal

posted December 6, 2006 at 10:35 am


I am interested to see whether parish priests will receive any form of advance information about it. Also, I hope any document of this type will be very specific concerning public and private Masses.
One big question remains: Would there need to be any type of amendment to Canon Law in regard to the number of Masses that a priest can celebrate each day? I hope not.



report abuse
 

Randy

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:40 am


So what happens when a priest does something invalid. Then you can’t go to the bishop because he doesn’t regulate this mass? That would drive radtrads nuts.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:41 am


Interesting. How would that number limit work, though? If you get more than 100 people at an advertised Mass, do you have to call the Bishop and see if you may still procede?



report abuse
 

guido03

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:46 am


Dec. 8th sounds like a great day to have the announcement. Not only is it you know what, but it is the due date for my second son, James David.



report abuse
 

guido03

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:46 am


Dec. 8th sounds like a great day to have the announcement. Not only is it you know what, but it is the due date for my second son, James David.



report abuse
 

Tim Ferguson

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:52 am


lets wait until the actual text is published before trying to analyze it too much. If a priest does something invalid, then the bishop is still the appropriate person to whom concerns should be brought. If the motu proprio limits it to private Masses with fewer than, say 100 participants and more than 100 show up, it certainly wouldn’t invalidate the Mass. Canon Law would not need to be amended in the sense that the Code would need to be re-written – a privilege is a relaxation of the law, and a privilege could be given to permit priests to say more Masses than is currently allowed – but that would certainly not force any priest to do so.
Keep in mind – this will be an indult, granting a privilege, and privileges in canon law are to be interpretted in a broad manner. (Faviora amplianda!)
That said, lets wait until we actually have a text in hand before trying to parse it and determine all of the “what ifs”



report abuse
 

Greg

posted December 6, 2006 at 1:01 pm


I hope you are praying for the indult Amy.



report abuse
 

W Riley

posted December 6, 2006 at 1:35 pm


Come on Rome!



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 1:44 pm


I just hope all this energy and prayer could be displaced, under the model of “superabundant satisfaction”, toward improving the preaching and music at the Mass that most of us attend.



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted December 6, 2006 at 1:53 pm


RP: As others have observed, I suspect that improving the overall quality of the Mass that most of us attend is one of the reasons for promulgating the indult.



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:04 pm


Rich, I suspect that the Latin Mass will not become a standard to uphold but more like the USS Constitution moored in Boston Harbor and the oldest commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy. “Old Ironsides” is beautiful but antiquated and incapable of participating in a battle today.
To the rank and file of today’s Catholics who have never seen the 1962 Mass before, or who saw it celebrated with the main goal of having it done validly as quickly as possible, the old Mass is about as relevant to the way they worship as a 1797 vessel is to the way the Navy patrols the seas.
Now that may be the fault of the changes from 30 years ago, but we have to treat the situation we have now, and not go backwards to the situation we had then.



report abuse
 

ignorant redneck

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:33 pm


I don’t want to sound too cantrarian–but I’d rather see a Moto Proprio on the “new mass”, that named names and singled out bishops who allow liturgical zoos, midified the GIRM, and enforced some sort of liturgical propriaty on the church in North America and Europe. With Teeth. Big. Long. Pointy. Well Used. TEETH



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:39 pm


RP, I’m not sure I buy the Thomas Day argument, that Catholics anticipated the old rite with dread and therefore sought as quick a celebration as possible. The fact that attendance levels held up as well as they did indicates otherwise.
Moreover, I think we’re already seeing the fruit of an increased amount of “Latin talk” within the Church. As I indicated the other day, a Cincinnati parish introduced the chanting of the ordinaries last Sunday. There was no discernible hue and cry, even from the baggage-laden V2 teenagers who’ve created so much mischief for the past forty years. That would have been unthinkable here just six years ago.
A formal introduction of the Tridentine Rite, coupled with less foot-dragging than greeted Ecclesia Dei (no sure thing) would only accelerate this process.



report abuse
 

Maureen

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:42 pm


If you keep watching the clock, it’ll never be morning. And if you insist on staying awake, Santa Benedict will never come. :)
I think the point is less the _Constitution_ as outmoded military device, than Old Ironsides, source of spiritual military strength.
Or, to change metaphors, the well-founded reluctance of the Church to throw away anything, much less Grandma’s good china.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:06 pm


“That would drive radtrads nuts.”
What is a radtrad? Are they related to neoCons?
I guess the Pope is a radtrad.
Or are all those opposed to the justice of offering a rite of Mass more regularly that has never been abrogated neoCons as well.
I thought they were Catholics. The same with those who are attracted to the Catholic theological bulwark of the Traditional Latin Mass.



report abuse
 

Patrick Kinsale

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:11 pm


I’m with the ignorant redneck. Let’s go after the abuses in the Mass as it now stands.



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm


Rich, we tried (or, at least, the pastor and I tried) to introduce Latin ordinaries for the semimonthly bilingual English-Spanish masses and it lasted exactly one week. I believe very angry Anglophones, including some in the choir who weekly bring The Latest Contemporary Song to be tried out (only to discover that the people don’t sing them), wanted no part of anything that reminded them of that oppressive, authoritarian, anti-intellectual church of their youth.



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:14 pm


One other item, Rich: it was the priests who wanted to get the Mass over with as fast as possible, including pastors who scheduled Sunday Mass on the hour and, at my parish, Saturday memorial Masses — sung, no less! — every half hour.



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:18 pm


Well, RP, since your pastor gave it a week, I’m not surprised. And if it concerns the ordinaries, the choir ought to have little to say, no?



report abuse
 

tim

posted December 6, 2006 at 3:37 pm


RPBurke, with all respect, your analogy of the traditional Mass as being unsuitable for warfare today is ludicrous. It is much more apt to point out that your fault-finding of the traditional Mass as the “USS Constitution” means you are sitting in your little novus ordo paddle boat, taking on water, pointing a cork gun at the bad guys.
The traditional Mass is the Mass of the greatest Saints and Martyrs of the Church; tell them it is unsuitable for spiritual warfare. Geesh.



report abuse
 

Meg Q

posted December 6, 2006 at 4:02 pm


With estimations of how many will be allowed for the “private” Mass, and priests learning or re-learining the ’62 books, I just love this picture forming in my mind:
Diocesan Liturgy Head (in a huff): Excellency, the priests saying the ’62 Mass with the Motu Proprio are saying it *incorrectly*! I’m afraid we have some *abuses* on our hands!
Bishop (shocked): No!
DLH: Yes, I fear it’s true. Well, thank goodness we’re already known for our rigor in correcting abuses in the liturgy . . . and we already have all that experience in cracking down, too!
[and SCENE]



report abuse
 

anon

posted December 6, 2006 at 4:15 pm


“Moreover, I think we’re already seeing the fruit of an increased amount of “Latin talk” within the Church. As I indicated the other day, a Cincinnati parish introduced the chanting of the ordinaries last Sunday.”
We used to have lots of Latin at our parish and most people seemed to like it. Our previous pastor instituted a “high mass” with extra altar boys and tons of incense, and people liked that too.
Then the new pastor introduced a “Latin Mass,” with a professional choir singing complicated concert pieces, and people don’t like it. They have voted with their feet (some of which have walked right out of the parish to another one). Our parish is filled with orthodox and well-educated Catholics, many with large families. If you can’t sell the Latin Mass to that crowd, it’s difficult to imagine selling it in the sorts of parishes about which commenters here often complain. And this is NOT a Tridentine Mass.



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 4:42 pm


tim, you need to consider the entire metaphor more carefully. Old Ironsides was the very best for its time and place, but as conditions changed the essentials remained — a warship has to float, has to be able to withstand attacks, etc. — but other aspects changed.
The Tridentine Mass has lasted a long time, but there was a need for change, identified by the world’s bishops in the second Vatican council. Now whether what followed is an improvement is the subject of a great deal of debate. But it would be irresponsible to send Old Ironsides to fight in Iraq. In the same way, it is absurd to assume that a large-scale reintroduction of the old Mass will produce any kind of substantive change, except to please those who’ve been demanding it.



report abuse
 

W Riley

posted December 6, 2006 at 4:46 pm


Holy Rosary in Indianapolis has a High Mass celebrated with the 1962 Missal and the vast majority of the people who attend that Mass have no prior recollection of the use of that Missal. The parish has a daily latin low Mass at noon, which is well attended. The parish also has the Paul VI Novus Ordo Mass. The combination works well and I think everyone benfits from the blend.



report abuse
 

franklyn

posted December 6, 2006 at 4:54 pm


Dear Rich Leonardi,you are misinterpreting Day.He never said people anticipated the TLM with dread.What he was referring to was High Mass.When I was younger (in the 1950s)my father who was an organist and choirmaster used to tell me about how a large crowd of parishioners would suddenly thin out when the altar boys lit six candles instead of two.The movie Fatso starring Dom Deluise had the star,Dom.on the phone trying to make a date with a girl after sunday mass.After suggesting several masses he decides on the 10:30,and then he yells “Oh no! Thats the High Mass”.But as Day pointed out once you surrendered to High mass you would be taken in by its beauty.



report abuse
 

caine thomas

posted December 6, 2006 at 5:01 pm


Or, to change metaphors, the well-founded reluctance of the Church to throw away anything, much less Grandma’s good china.
That’s a great analogy, Maureen! Especially when you consider that we go to Mass to consume the bread of life. (I’m always afraid to use the word “supper” and risk a beatdown over semantics.)
I believe Benedict said (back in the day) that he felt it was a tragic consequence when, in putting aside the Tridentine mass, the general perception was that it was “bad” and the new mass was “better”.
I personally think that making the latin Mass more available is a great thing and would be attractive to non-believers. Like a beautiful icon, it harkens to what is ancient. Since it has been set aside so long it is effectively “new”. And because it is the Mass, it points towards the eternal.
What’s to be afraid of?



report abuse
 

Richard

posted December 6, 2006 at 5:09 pm


Hello RP,
Rich, I suspect that the Latin Mass will not become a standard to uphold but more like the USS Constitution moored in Boston Harbor and the oldest commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy. “Old Ironsides” is beautiful but antiquated and incapable of participating in a battle today.
To the rank and file of today’s Catholics who have never seen the 1962 Mass before, or who saw it celebrated with the main goal of having it done validly as quickly as possible, the old Mass is about as relevant to the way they worship as a 1797 vessel is to the way the Navy patrols the seas.

Really, I totally reject the metaphor you’ve tried to offer here.
The TLM – whatever its apparent inadequacies vis-a-vis the *means* promoted to achieve greater actuosa participatio in Sacrosanctum Concilium – is NOT “incapable of participating in a battle today.” It is still a valid, licit mass. It is not a piece of hardware rendered useless by newer models. Not relevant to current Catholics, perhaps? To some, maybe. Yet how much is this a measure of the liturgy and how much is a measure of the laity?
Ratzinger himself, in the proceedings of the 2002 Fontgambaut conference, argues that the TLM can serve as a sure measure, a kind of control group of unassailable orthodoxy and continuity of tradition by which reform of the Novus Ordo can better proceed. And so I think Rich is right to suggest that this may actually be the primary motivation for this move. The liturgy was meant to grow organically over time, and it is valid to observe that the liturgy from 1570-1962 did very little of this. Yet it is also hard to deny that what happened since can hardly be called organic growth. The TLM, by wider contact with the life of the Church, can serve as a guide for makingth N.O. the true organic growth of the Roman Rite, which is to say substantially the mass of the ages, with relatively minor changes.
I believe very angry Anglophones, including some in the choir who weekly bring The Latest Contemporary Song to be tried out (only to discover that the people don’t sing them), wanted no part of anything that reminded them of that oppressive, authoritarian, anti-intellectual church of their youth.
We must ever pray for them, but am I ever tired of aging boomers insistent on inflicting the neuroses of their youth on the rest of us in our liturgical life.



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted December 6, 2006 at 5:15 pm


Dear Rich Leonardi,you are misinterpreting Day.He never said people anticipated the TLM with dread.What he was referring to was High Mass.
I’m aware of that, but it’s beside the point my post.



report abuse
 

PMcGrath

posted December 6, 2006 at 5:50 pm


If the Motu Proprio is as Father Z describes it (see his post), it is going to be a disaster.
It hinges on the “private/public” distiction Fr. Z. mentions in his post (see Nos. 4,5,6 there) and the Diocesan Chancery attitudes reflected in some of some of the commentators at WDTPRS.
Mahony, Brown, Liebknecht et al. want Tradition completely suppressed. We know that. By their fruits we know them.
These bishops will allow NO (that’s ZERO, not Novus Ordo) public Tridentine Masses. And if they’re “private,” as far as the rest of the Catholic world is concerned, they don’t exist.
Unless the Holy Father in the Motu Proprio publicly berates the rebel bishops for not allowing “generous” use of the Tridentine Mass as JP2 requested in Eccesia Dei, these rebel bishops will do all they can to suppress it, the same way that the Springfield MO priests are trying to subvert the no-purification-by-EHMCs rule (see the comment to that effect by “Barb” in the WDTPRS posting).
Unless we have that kind of a smackdown, the Motu Proprio is worse than useless.



report abuse
 

Fr Martin Fox

posted December 6, 2006 at 9:37 pm


A couple of points . . .
If we’re going to talk about this, let’s do so with clarity and accuracy. Every Catholic parish celebrates “the Latin Mass”! When you attend Mass, in the vernacular, that is the Latin Mass, translated. I.e., the current rite of the Mass is a–and in another sense, the “Latin Mass.”
Since what we mean to say is the “old rite,” or the “traditional” rite, or the Pius V rite, or Tridentine Rite, why not simply say that? “old rite” is clear enough, and less letters, than inaccurate, and somewhat polemical, “Latin Mass.”
Also, it’s noteworthy to me that many are taking an intense interest in the liturgical theology questions involved, but seem utterly dismissive of the ecclesiological questions. Hmm.
For example: folks are actually saying they want priests offering Mass without the bishops having authority over the question. As someone said on Fr. Z’s site, they want the bishops “impotent” on the matter.
To want the Mass celebrated without reference to the bishop is at best a very strange way to be “Catholic,” not to mention materially schismatic. I don’t like to use the word “heresy” casually, but really, when you veer off out of the orbit of the Church as Our Lord constituted — i.e., making schism — you lose a vital protection against heresy.
My point is, if you really, really, really want “to do it right,” then you do the whole Catholic thing right, not merely the liturgy. It’s all of a piece (what “Catholic” means, by the way).



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 6, 2006 at 10:06 pm


Richard, you really have it backwards. Old Ironsides still floats, still has cannon; but it needed to be replaced. The old rite is similarly still valid, but the world’s bishops decided it needed attention.
As I said previously, there’s lots of legitimate debate over whether the attention produced better, for lack of a better word, worship. I absolutely agree that we lost good, necessary things in the mad dash to renew the liturgy. But don’t tell ME that the liturgy didn’t need to be renewed: tell, say, Pope John the Great (No. XXIII).
On the ecclesial matters, Fr. Martin is right on.



report abuse
 

ignorant redneck

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:27 pm


Fr.Fox
Thank you for a breath of fresh air.



report abuse
 

F. C. Bauerschmidt

posted December 7, 2006 at 8:41 am


My point is, if you really, really, really want “to do it right,” then you do the whole Catholic thing right, not merely the liturgy. It’s all of a piece (what “Catholic” means, by the way).
Fr. Fox, you are a very sensible man.
I wonder sometimes about those who look for the Pope to put the “smackdown” on bishops. Is this really the way that we want the Church run? Is this how we would want our parishes to operate? Is this what Jesus wills for his Church?
Speaking as someone who has had a modest role in pastoral leadership, it seems to me that when you have to put the smackdown on someone, it’s a sign that something has gone very, very wrong with your leadership.



report abuse
 

Cathy

posted December 7, 2006 at 8:54 am


In terms of availablity and popular ‘voting with one’s feet’:
I live in an archdiocese where three parishes offer mass in the old rite. Given travel times on Sunday mornings, no one in the archdiocese is more than about a 1/2 hour from a church with the old rite.
I think that each of these masses is fairly well attended and people drive to get there. I don’t know the specific numbers but I’ll bet there are maybe 3000 folks attending weekly.
In an archdiocese of 2 1/2 million. Even if you take the numbers of weekly mass attendees – about 625,000, that’s .48 of 1%.
I can’t imagine that the numbers are going to change remarkably if the old rite is only 15 minutes away.
My personal feeling is let anyone say it and anyone go. (With the bishop’s authority – thank you Fr. Fox!) But don’t expect a groundswell.



report abuse
 

PMcGrath

posted December 7, 2006 at 9:33 am


I wonder sometimes about those who look for the Pope to put the “smackdown” on bishops. Is this really the way that we want the Church run? Is this how we would want our parishes to operate? Is this what Jesus wills for his Church? … it seems to me that when you have to put the smackdown on someone, it’s a sign that something has gone very, very wrong with your leadership.
No, it’s not the way you want the Church run, but we’ve come to the point where a certain amount of smacking down needs to be done. Sometimes you have to take the whip of cords into the Temple courtyard.
As for “something [that] has gone … wrong with your leadership,” the breakdown is 1) the terno episcopal appointment paradigm that had brought mediocrities to the miter, and 2) I hate to say this — JP2′s casual attitude to governance.
There’s a saying in politics: Personnel is policy. If you want butt-kicking apostolic life in the parishes, you have to appoint butt-kicking, anti-bureaucratic bishops.



report abuse
 

F. C. Bauerschmidt

posted December 7, 2006 at 9:41 am


I’m afraid you’ll have to tell me what a “terno” is. Google is no help (unless you are referring to women’s fashion in the Philippines, in which case I have even less of an idea of what you’re talking about).



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 7, 2006 at 9:54 am


I’m afraid you’ll have to tell me what a “terno” is.
Described neatly — and on line, for free — by Fr. Thomas Reese in his book “Archbishop.”
Here’s the link to the chapter on the selection of bishops:
http://www.americamagazine.org/reese/archbishop/ab-chap1.htm



report abuse
 

Richard

posted December 7, 2006 at 11:44 am


Hello RP,
Richard, you really have it backwards. Old Ironsides still floats, still has cannon; but it needed to be replaced. The old rite is similarly still valid, but the world’s bishops decided it needed attention.
As I said previously, there’s lots of legitimate debate over whether the attention produced better, for lack of a better word, worship. I absolutely agree that we lost good, necessary things in the mad dash to renew the liturgy. But don’t tell ME that the liturgy didn’t need to be renewed: tell, say, Pope John the Great (No. XXIII).

I’m not arguing this last point. “Renewal” – yes. SC is upfront about it:
” 1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”
And yet, it also adds that it desires to “preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way” and “be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”
You suggest that Council decided that the Rite “needed to be replaced.” With all due respect, if you had phrased it that way to the Council Fathers, virtually all of them would have adamantly rejected such an expression. The Roman Rite of the ages is considered eternal, to be “revised,” “preserved” and “given new vigor” – but *not* replaced, not like an obsolete warship. The language of SC just doesn’t support such a perspective. And certainly the history of the Roman Rite doesn’t give any precedent for such a radical change. The liturgy changed very, very little from the time of Gregory the Great (I might go even back to Damasus) until Vatican II.
As it turned out, what was promulgated in 1970 turned out to be quite a bit more extensive than what the Council seemed to be calling for, and as Todd likes to argue around here, it must also be recognized that many of the same bishops who voted for such a conservative position in the Council ended up implementing something much more radical in the following years. This leaves us with a conundrum, not least because we’re compelled to recognize the Novus Ordo as valid and licit, and its promulgation as a legitimate exercise of papal authority, even if perhaps an unwise one.
I’m left to wonder how a liturgy which had been the source and strength of the Church for fourteen or even seventeen centuries is suddenly rendered obsolete – that what sustained Bede, Anselm, Aquinas, Borromeo, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, and Fulton Sheen suddenly can’t do anything for late 20th century Catholics. Especially since, judging by many metrics (mass attendance rates, accessing of the other sacraments, etc.) the new order of the mass doesn’t seem to be doing such a hot job either.
Hello F.C.
Speaking as someone who has had a modest role in pastoral leadership, it seems to me that when you have to put the smackdown on someone, it’s a sign that something has gone very, very wrong with your leadership.
Well, something *has* gone very, very wrong, and perhaps we’re left to conclude that it’s with many of our bishops over the last few decades.
Fr. Fox is right to suggest what should be the model of episcopal governance and how we interact with it. And that’s the problem: What do you do when so many bishops have exercised what amounts to a rupture of continuity with not only the tradition but even the current teaching of the universal Church?
Such episcopal behavior is not unprecedent, God knows, save by its scope and scale. And that leaves a pontiff, the curia, and even the laity in a tough spot in trying to right the ship.
What do you do when the ecclesial backbone of the Church ends up being the greatest obstacle to renewing its worship life – to say nothing of clerical malfeasance?



report abuse
 

Torquemada

posted December 7, 2006 at 12:07 pm


Open the windows wide to the fresh air of Tradition. There is nothing to be afraid of. Learn the Traditional Mass, let it inspire your faith and your intellect. If you don’t know it, refrain from speaking about it until you learn it well.



report abuse
 

Brian

posted December 7, 2006 at 4:37 pm


Fr. Fox,
The SSPX and the Priests of Campos’s St. John Vianney both have bishops. They practice a completedly different form of Catholicism than the vast majority of the USCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCB bishops–even the so-called “conservative” ones.
Along with the motu proprio, I sincerely hope that a canonical structure is established that gives traditionalist Roman rite Catholics the same freedom to practice the Faith, whole and entire, as that given to Eastern-rite Catholics.
Then, the Novus Ordo establishment won’t be bothered by those of us with large families who homeschool who go to Church for peace–not war.
We’re tired of the internal struggle and war and frankly, stupidity, of the post-Conciliar establishment.
It might not be all, but it is the vast majority. A frog in a pot of water will boil to death once the temperature is turned up gradually.
Everyone can complain about “ghetto traditionalist Catholicism” all they want. There are more young families than you think seeking to move to an area of the country simply and primarily so they can practice the fullness of their Faith–liturgically and ecclesiologically.
Calling people like that “schismatic” is inaccurate and a disservice.
Of course, as much as some would like it to happen, the Pope isn’t going to put the smackdown on any bishops.
I pray for the canonical structure so my conscience doesn’t have to ping me on where my family will celebrate Mass when we travel or on Holy Days.
We have learned by now not to trust the Church authorities and especially CCD and adult education teachers to teach us or our children the Faith.
We will not delegate that responsibility to anyone–as much easier as it would be to make our lives.



report abuse
 

Julia

posted December 7, 2006 at 4:55 pm


Re: People voting with their feet when they saw 6 candles lit instead of 2.
Why do people insist on thinking that we were all bored out of our minds with a Latin Mass?
There are many reasons why people in the 50s and early 60s didn’t attend high Mass. Some people really didn’t want to spend the time because Mass bores them; others had somewhere to go and couldn’t afford the extra time that day – like home to make Christmas dinner for the family; some people (doctors, nurses, firemen etc.) worked on Sunday and needed to get in and out; some people had little kids with them who would get even more squirmy at High Mass.
No different from today. Mass today varies in length in our parish depending on which priest is saying Mass. And it is well-known where to go if you want to make it a quicky one.
In particular, I’m reminded of our St Therese spectacular on her feastday since the parish is named for her. Father told those in attendance – before the procession started – that if they didn’t want to be at a really long Mass they could make a shorter one at the Cathedral if they left right away.
I sing in the choir – I love the longer choir Mass. Others don’t want to spend that much time in church. It’s just not true that all current Masses are the same length and the people don’t chose which one they attend without a thought to its length. And – there are still people who are bored no matter what the length.
My understanding of why TLM needed some tweaking: There was a terribly complicated calendar that needed to be revised and some things had crept in that never did make sense. Adding more Scriptural readings was a big plus, too.
I watched the Mass at the Holy Spirit Cathedral in Istanbul. It was really neat to see about 8 or so languages used. And I noticed that everybody – no matter what their nationality – could sing along with the Latin. We really need to keep Latin going for that reason if for no other. That could end some of the hostillity in parishes that have ethnic Masses and “American” Masses. Put back the Latin into most of the dialog and use various vernaculars in the hymns. My Jewish relatives still have Hebrew in their services – it’s unifying.



report abuse
 

Fr Martin Fox

posted December 7, 2006 at 9:46 pm


I’m all for Mass in Latin, all for “reform of the reform,” but the idea that there are hordes out there just waiting, waiting, waiting . . .
I placed a notice in my parish bulletin, saying I was open to offering Mass (current rite), in Latin. Asked for responses.
I got three: two for, one against.
Where are these people? I could use their help . . .



report abuse
 

RP Burke

posted December 8, 2006 at 2:02 pm


Richard:
You suggest that Council decided that the Rite “needed to be replaced.”
Nope. I did more than suggest but said less than needs replacement. Here is what I actually said:
… the world’s bishops decided it needed attention.
Indeed, sails unfurled, Old Ironsides is quite a sight, a beauty much greater than that of modern warships. But it couldn’t continue in its current form.



report abuse
 

Torquemada

posted December 8, 2006 at 9:42 pm


Dear Father Fox:
Do you know how to say the Traditional (pre Vatican II) Mass?



report abuse
 

Fr Martin Fox

posted December 8, 2006 at 11:26 pm


Torquemada:
If what you’re saying is that I can’t expect anyone to step forward and be supportive when I offer to have the current rite in Latin, but that they’re going to hold out on me, remain silent, passive, until I offer a Tridentine Mass?
Sorry, I’m not playing that game.
You wanna help? Help. If you leave the playing field to others, so you can indulge your shadenfreude (sp?), go ahead, but I’m going to keep busy doing what I can.
I offered to have the Mass in Latin. I would think folks would consider that a huge step forward.
And all I heard was crickets.
Not encouraging.



report abuse
 

RC

posted December 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm


Mahony, Brown, Liebknecht et al. want Tradition completely suppressed. We know that. By their fruits we know them.
These bishops will allow NO (that’s ZERO, not Novus Ordo) public Tridentine Masses.
Then who approved these Masses already celebrated according to the indult in the LA and Orange dioceses?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.