Divisions???

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by palmas85;And before I get slammed by the Traditional Mass haters, I know the Pauline Rite can be celebrated correctly and reverently and is in some few places, St Patricks in New Orleans for one. [B

The problem is when you go to a Pauline Rite, you never know what you are going to get until you get there.[/b] It could be reverent, it could be in Latin with chant. It could be very nice and worshipful.

Then again it could have a sister offering the consecration to the earth mother or a Priest dressed in some ridiculous costume giving Barney blessings or who invites some illegal alien to give the homily. It could have one extraordinary minister for every two in the congregation and use corn tortillas for the Eucharist or anything in between.

You just never know, and that my friend is one of the major problems. You just never know, At the very least, at a bare minimum, you knew what to expect in the Traditional Mass

Traditional Mass lover here. But for justice's sake:

I've never seen any of those things, but I do know they have happened. But, I could just as easily make list for the traditional Latin Mass: you could walk in to find a donkey in the sanctuary, servers acting out Mass like a burlesque show, the priest not knowing Latin or the prayers at all and just making up gibberish, the bishop's or priest's concubine(s) and children accompanying him into Mass and sitting in the front row, shockingly filthy sacred vessels (and it takes a lot of filth to shock a medieval peasant), the priest purposefully omitting the words of consecration, the priest wearing a talisman from a witch, priests and bishops openly teaching heresies concerning the most central aspects of the faith from the pulpit, Mass being a general school of impiety, etc. Read the saints, Popes, and Councils. These things happened with about the frequency of the abuses you mentioned. Go into a traditional Latin Mass and you never know what you're going to get. Sheesh.

Of course, just like at a Pauline Mass now, the vast majority were nothing spectacular, but they were the Mass, and they had some reverence, and people were there to offer God worship with their entire heart and soul. And just like now, there were some spectacular Masses, but also some grave abuses. It's the human element of the liturgy that causes the aberrations, not the liturgy itself.

[rwoehmke]

Originally Posted by palmas85

Would you say then the reverence at a average Pauline Rite Mass today is better about the same or worse then at a typical Low Mass pr Vatican II? Lets remember, I served at hundreds of those and I have a pretty fair memory of what they were really like. I don't see then with the rose colored glasses of some nor the outright hatred of others. I remember them as they were. And I will sau this without reservation, I never saw anything in even the sloppiest Low Mass that even remotely approached the indifference irreverence and sloth of your typical Pauline Mass today.

And before I get slammed by the Traditional Mass haters, I know the Pauline Rite can be celebrated correctly and reverently and is in some few places, St Patricks in New Orleans for one. The problem is when you go to a Pauline Rite, you never know what you are going to get until you get there. It could be reverent, it could be in Latin with chant. It could be very nice and worshipful.

Then again it could have a sister offering the consecration to the earth mother or a Priest dressed in some ridiculous costume giving Barney blessings or who invites some illegal alien to give the homily. It could have one extraordinary minister for every two in the congregation and use corn tortillas for the Eucharist or anything in between.

You just never know, and that my friend is one of the major problems. You just never know, At the very least, at a bare minimum, you knew what to expect in the Traditional Mass

I started serving Mass in 1942 and probably served my last Mass in 1958. I am not talking abuses by the folks in the pews, but by the priests who raced through their Latin and could generate a 15-20 minute low Mass, altar boys who mouthed the prayers and responses who were fortunate if they knew 10 % of what they were saying; about as effective as a Chinese prayer wheel.

Folks in the pews did what they always did, some dozed, some followed closely in the dual language missal, some prayed the Rosary. I guess I would hesitate to accuse them of abuse. I actually remember a priest or two that boasted of how fast they could get the job done.

I am sorry but I just can't see replacing properly celebrated NO Masses with the old Low and High Masses, without a choir and all the bells and whistles of a Solemn High Mass. Never-the less, I am not going to lose sleep over it regardless of which direction things go.

[BobP123]

I am not talking abuses by the folks in the pews, but by the priests who raced through their Latin and could generate a 15-20 minute low Mass

That was to accommodate the Mass times. However, I have yet to attend a TLM done in less than maybe 45 minutes since 1997, and that only because of short sermons.

Altar boys who mouthed the prayers and responses who were fortunate if they knew 10 % of what they were saying; about as effective as a Chinese prayer wheel.

I don't know where that analogy came from but my public school friends certainly loved the Latin prayers. Why else would they race me in reciting the Gloria and Credo? They didn't mouth off any prayers and would have put a lot of Catholics to shame today.

Folks in the pews did what they always did, some dozed, some followed closely in the dual language missal, some prayed the Rosary.

And they still do that for the most part. Both rites.

I am sorry but I just can't see replacing properly celebrated NO Masses with the old Low and High Masses, without a choir and all the bells and whistles of a Solemn High Mass.

So a Solemn High is your preference? Why didn't you say so?

[otjm]

Originally Posted by palmas85

I've noticed that there seems to be a pretty good split on this issue. Some people are staunchly in favor of it, others equally opposed.

My question is, what will happen in the hypothetical event that the Traditional Mass returns AND is actually favored by many if not most and in three years is named the normative rite and the Pauline Mass the extraordinary rite? That is a possibility and could happen. What will the die hard Latin haters out there do?

Is there enough interest to keep the Pauline Rite alive in that eventuality or would it eventually die off? Remember, it was thought at one time the Traditional Mass would be dead and buried within 5-10 years, yet it is still alive and growing. Would the Pauline Rite be able to do the same?

Let's put it in perspective: There are 194 dioceses and approximately 18,584 parishes. Granted that the indult has not been widely given, there are about 120 dioceses with at least one parish offering the 1962 Mass. Assuming, for the moment, that there are an average of 2 parishes per diocese offering it (and since many of the dioceses have only 1, that seems to be a reasonable assumption), then there are 1.399% of the parishes in the US with the indult Mass.

I know and understand the numbers are low because the indult has not been widely allowed. However, I think that if there was the demand that some think there is, more bishops would have allowed it.

Assume for the moment that the number of parishes went up 400% - that is, a factor of 5; that still would mean that 93% of the parishes would have the normative Mass. 1000% - a factor of 11 would still have over 83% with only the normative Mass.

The power of the vernacular - and I limit it only to the issue of the vernacular, not the issue of which set of prayers is better - is way stronger than those who want an all Latin Mass propose.

Eventually, if one is to tread what the Pope actually said, there will be further modifications to the Liturgy; the odds are that both the normative Mass and the Mass of 1962 will see changes (possible changes to the 1962 Missal are noted by the Pope).

I don't think it is an issue of hating Latin; it is an issue of simply not being able to understand it. Prior to Vatican 2, some people used a missal that had a translation side by side with the Latin; and depending on the parish and area, more or fewer people bought one and used it. Schools at that time taught Latin - both public and private - and most people were taught Latin as a translated language, as opposed to a spoken language. It was not for no reason that so many people embraced the normative Mass; they could understand what was being said.

In thoery, anything could happen. However, given what has happened, it is much more likely that there will eventually be a blending of the two; I would suspect that it will nto come in the lifetime of much of anyone on these threads. Whether we have one Eucharistic prayer or several, whether the Mass of 1962 is eventually said in the vernacular, whether Latin is mandated for certain parts of the Mass whichever format it is said in all remain to be seen. Time will tell.

[AlexV]

The phrase "normative Mass" is inaccurate. It's always been inaccurate, but it is especially inaccurate after the explicit definition of the 1962 liturgy in the Roman Rite.

The only correct use of "normative Mass", Latin MISSA NORMATIVA, is to describe the 1967 liturgy shown off to the Synod of Bishops by the Consilium for the Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

That is the only time the Church has ever used that phrase to describe a liturgy, and it was abandoned in 1969.

[MaryD7]

Originally Posted by otjm

Let's put it in perspective: There are 194 dioceses and approximately 18,584 parishes. Granted that the indult has not been widely given, there are about 120 dioceses with at least one parish offering the 1962 Mass. Assuming, for the moment, that there are an average of 2 parishes per diocese offering it (and since many of the dioceses have only 1, that seems to be a reasonable assumption), then there are 1.399% of the parishes in the US with the indult Mass.

Here's an article that was in our Diocese paper today about the two TLM's in our Diocese. One has been in existence since 1988 and one just started last year. The total attendance between the two is about 160 people.
http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/tab...stories18.html

This is a link to the stats for our Diocese. http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/about/abt_stats.html

There are roughly 1.56 million Catholics in Brooklyn and Queens. That means about .01% go to the TLM. Granted, maybe many people did not know about these two particular churches having TLM's (I didn't) but I think that if there was such an overwhelming demand the attendance would be much higher ... especially considering the one in Brooklyn has been going on for almost 20 years.

[palmas85]

Originally Posted by MaryD7

Here's an article that was in our Diocese paper today about the two TLM's in our Diocese. One has been in existence since 1988 and one just started last year. The total attendance between the two is about 160 people.
http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/tab...stories18.html

This is a link to the stats for our Diocese. http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/about/abt_stats.html

There are roughly 1.56 million Catholics in Brooklyn and Queens. That means about .01% go to the TLM. Granted, maybe many people did not know about these two particular churches having TLM's (I didn't) but I think that if there was such an overwhelming demand the attendance would be much higher ... especially considering the one in Brooklyn has been going on for almost 20 years.

Actually you would be surprised at how few people even know these Mases still exist and that it is entirely proper to attend them.. Also, you have a lot of misinformation about the Traditional Mass floating around in Catechal circles. I have seen potential converts told in RCIA classes to avoid the Traditional Mass because the only people attending are unfriendly antagonists who defy the Church and its authority..

Believe me once word gets out and gets out in a big way, people will come to it.

[BobP123]

I have seen potential converts told in RCIA classes to avoid the Traditional Mass because the only people attending are unfriendly antagonists who defy the Church and its authority..

And sometimes these TLMs are undermined by the very people (bishop, priest, etc.) who helped set those TLMs up in the first place. Strange. But that should change a little now, if not in this country certainly Europe and other places. The TLM is getting much more publicity and support now, especially from the young, who don't carry as much baggage as us almost-seniors do.

[JKirkLVNV]

Originally Posted by palmas85

Believe me once word gets out and gets out in a big way, people will come to it.

I don't think people will be flocking to it, Palmas, because I think if you did just a rudimentary poll outside the door of most Catholic parishes after Mass and asked which people would most prefer to attend, a Latin Mass or a Mass in their own language, most are going to vote for the their own language. I will admit that it remains to be seen. Let's just wait. In the meantime, could we maybe stop running down the ordinary rite, which the Holy Father seems to have some hope for? Could we stop painting with the broad brush of "Latin haters?"

[BobP123]

The total attendance between the two is about 160 people.

Meaningless statistic. If, however, you take the average distance they each travel in getting there and compare that against the average distance the non-TLMer travels, that might be a little more meaningful statistic.

Also would the reverse hold in a hypothetical situation (if you only had two NOs in the diocese, for example)?

[MaryD7]

Originally Posted by BobP123

Meaningless statistic. If, however, you take the average distance they each travel in getting there and compare that against the average distance the non-TLMer travels, that might be a little more meaningful statistic.

Also would the reverse situation hold in a hypothetical situation (if you only had two NOs in the diocese, for example)?

??? Why is it meaningless? That's the number.

Also, what's the big deal? Obviously, the Diocese isn't going to take away the TLM, no matter what the numbers are. And as for the distance traveled...I'm not sure what bearing that has on anything either. Many people commute to a particular parish here in NYC. One does not get an award for travel to a preferred parish.

As to your last hypothetical question ... I think those two NO's would be packed to the gills.

[steve green 2]

I love Low Mass in particular. Simple, QUIET, and able to pray.

I think young people would flock to in high numbers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ComradeAndrei]

I don't think it is an issue of hating Latin; it is an issue of simply not being able to understand it. Prior to Vatican 2, some people used a missal that had a translation side by side with the Latin; and depending on the parish and area, more or fewer people bought one and used it. Schools at that time taught Latin - both public and private - and most people were taught Latin as a translated language, as opposed to a spoken language. It was not for no reason that so many people embraced the normative Mass; they could understand what was being said.

That, or they just kept going to the same church that they fulfilled their Sunday obligation in or figured "Oh well, Father knows best...". I think "embraced" is a rather generous term. I just met a guy today who spoke with me about his interest in the old Mass and how, being in the army in Korea, Mass was the same if it was at home in Nebraska or over in Korea or in any other part of the world he'd been to. He had some videos of both High and Low Masses that he watches sometimes and was kind of surprised to hear that such a thing can still be had in Omaha and Lincoln. I doubt that he's the only one. Not only do we have older folks who liked the old Mass but acquiesced when Fr. brought in the new even with Simon and Garfunkel recessionals and wrecking the old architecture (and who could blame them, they should be able to trust their priest) but young folks who never grew up with it and are drawn to it inspite of all that works against them within and without the Church.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my experience in various parishes is that most people simply do not know squat about what the traditional Mass is, what is the big deal with the Motu Proprio, or even what Mass (TLM, NO, Eastern DL) really is about. The kind of people who frequent these types of discussion boards are a rare species.

Why won't people be flooding the rectories across the world with requests for the TLM come Sept. 14? They simply have no clue what all this stuff about "Latin Mass" is really about. The progressives made sure of that and many still continue with all of their nonsense about "The old Mass was just the priest with his back to the people mumbling Latin to the wall..."

[BobP123]

As to your last hypothetical question ... I think those two NO's would be packed to the gills.

Even if they were told it might be schismatic and/or no one knows about it?

[BobP123]

As for the vernacular, the real "win out" would be the vernacular over the non-vernacular. People are more drawn in by the prayers when they can easily follow them.

People in 1965 were not entirely comfortable with the translations they had to follow. Many still had their missals and had found them adequate only to find the words being spoken were not quite the same. Even today the priests and bishops are hesitant on revising the English translations to conform to Vatican's Latin texts. They know even a simple "And with your spirit" to substitute an "and also with you" response will trigger confusion so they prefer to leave it alone.

Vernacular brings about a whole new set of problems and many councils and Popes had known about this. It's not the no-brainer marketing tool that most people think it is. And those that adhere only to what they can understand better reread the Scripture passage on the Tower of Babel if they take their Catholic faith seriously. One can always expand his horizons a little bit and learn a few Latin prayers that every Catholic should know, can't he?