Have things where you are changed since the MP took effect?

“Modern music” is not an abuse, nor is it necessarily irreverent.

There are quite a few people who find ancient music “upsetting.”

But our upset feelings are not indicators of abuse or irreverence in the Mass. We need to stop relying on our “feelings” to interpret whether God is at work. With all due respect to Protestants (I was one for 47 years), this is a “Protestant”, especially “charismatic” approach to faith, and it leads to disatisfaction and even loss of faith when our feelings aren’t good. Our emotions are not a barometer of faith, and they can’t be used to interpret the Bible or the teachings of the Church.

I think it is good that you are travelling to a Mass that is more suitable for your personality. As long as that Mass is available, be content. Allow others be content in the Mass of their choice, including the “modern” music.

What do you want in a week???

Some places, such as northern and middle Illinois, already had EU Masses in place before the MP, and not simply one in a location inconvenient to most. Not a lot has changed because it has been one little week, and these Masses already existed.

The Church is over 2000 years old. Give Her time- please!

And ditto whatever Kirk said…

I am not going to quote Vlazny; you can either research his comments through the Sentinal, or “Father Z’s” comments (he responded favorably to Vlazny’s letter).

St Birgitta’s has had a Latin Mass for a long time - whether EF or OF I don’t know, but they seem to be fairly stable and I seem to recall that it was onloy one Mass on Sunday. St Patricks had the OF in Latin on Saturday evenings, and is closer in than St. Birgitta’s, and the response to it was not overwhelming.

The bottom line is that it will be based on enough people coming forward locally. There simply is not a perceived need for one in every parish, or one in every other parish, or even on in every ten parishes. The issue is a bit of a Catch 22; we have almost 2 generations who have not ever seen an EF Mass - Low, High or Solemn High, and there doesn’t appear to be much public discussion of the issue. Then there is the whole issue of finding priests who are even qualified, and finding time in the schedule of the ones who are not to get them trained.

It is my understanding that there may be at least some discussion going on within the priests and the bishop; and from his comments and the times I have met him, I do not perceive Vlazny to either be against the EF nor duplicitous. Time will tell.

Another part of the problem is that I don’t recall ever seeing a poll trying to find out if there is an interest, and if so, how much and where. Lacking that, we are pretty much at an anecdotal stage as to how many people desire the EF.

Like I said earlier, my comments should also include the weeks leading up to Sep 14, not simply the last 7 days.

Yes, Bishop Vlazny did respond favorably, but being open to the MP is not the same as taking direct action to see indults are established in multiple locations. In that Sentinel article he was clear that he didnt think there were many priests qualified to meet the requests for the EF. The bishops described in CT made sure to track down and provide such priests.

St Brigitta’s does have one, but it is located in the industrial outskirts of the city. As for the St Patricks, I heard they had the EF on the 3rd Saturday of each month, no wonder the response was not overwhelming.

The bottom line is that it will be based on enough people coming forward locally. There simply is not a perceived need for one in every parish, or one in every other parish, or even on in every ten parishes. The issue is a bit of a Catch 22; we have almost 2 generations who have not ever seen an EF Mass - Low, High or Solemn High, and there doesn’t appear to be much public discussion of the issue. Then there is the whole issue of finding priests who are even qualified, and finding time in the schedule of the ones who are not to get them trained.

I totally agree. The idea that there should be one in every parish, every other, or maybe even every 10 is simply unrealistic. The problem as you said is that there doesnt appear to be a demand (given most dont know what the TLM is), yet there hasnt been enough publicity about it to see just who is interested.

It is my understanding that there may be at least some discussion going on within the priests and the bishop; and from his comments and the times I have met him, I do not perceive Vlazny to either be against the EF nor duplicitous. Time will tell.

The article in the Sentinel seemed to say he wasnt against it but given the “priest shortage” and lack of qualified TLM priests he didnt think there would be a way to meet any requests in the first place.

Another part of the problem is that I don’t recall ever seeing a poll trying to find out if there is an interest, and if so, how much and where. Lacking that, we are pretty much at an anecdotal stage as to how many people desire the EF

I sent an email to the Archdiocese asking if there was a place people could request it and if not there should be, I havnt heard back. Until there is some kind of poll taken everyone in the area will be in the dark as to just what the demand is.

I haven’t been to St. Patrick’s since the dust-up over the schola and their move, so I am not familiar with their schedule. I used to take RCIA members there fore a Saturday night Mass; results were always mixed with some liking it very much and some not. Interestingly, when I followed up with those who liked it, I found none had ever returned. It is not that hard to get to (and neither is St Birgitta’s if someone truly prefers that Mass, for those in Portland).

However, for public Masses, the MP remarks of a “stable group”. Taking a poll may more likely simply result in people who would like to come to one some time, but don’t represent those who would attend regularly. I suspect the latter group will only come about from collections of those who are willing to go to private Masses on a regular basis.

Well, to put it in perspective for others watching: We have 396,523 Catholics (without getting into unregistered Catholics, such as immigrants) out of a population of 3,103, 850. We have 124 parishes and 155 diocesan priests. Some of the parishes are staffed by order priests; I don’t have the numbers. There are 155 order priests; but as most know or should know, thier primary charism often is not being the pastor of a parish; for example, we have Benedictines, but the normally live in a monestary (although several are assigned to parishes); we have Jesuits (some teach; and a few are assigned to parishes such as The Madeline in Portland and St. Francis (go figure) in Sherwood. It is not liek we have a plethora, with someone to take up the slack while a priest goes to school.

Again, good question, but I would be surprised if anything shows up; again, the issue forst is “stable group”; second is size of the group, third is priest available (what do you do if they are in Medford with no priest trained? Medford is just as short-handed as anywhere and about 200 miles from the seminary). I am sure that something will be done, but I don’t expect it to happen soon.

Ah, well…

No change here. There has been a very small indult chapel in the downtown of the largest city of this archdiocese and at this point that is it. Apparently, our Archbishop is holding a meeting this fall with the priests and one of the topics is supposed to be what is to be done. But I’m not holding my breath.:frowning: As was said earlier, there is a lot of church ignorance amongst the population in this area (I even had to explain that the EF that I referred to had been known as the TLM, when I was asking my pastor whether he would be saying any) and it seems to me, from responses the Bishop has made on radio, that He is not wild about the FSSP saying an EF in his diocese (but I might have misunderstood his words).

JKirk,

Why do you have to hear the prayers said by the priest in your language? You don’t need to hear the Priest say the prayers. You can say them yourself.

When I am at Mass, I unite my prayers with those of the Priest and say them in English. I say the same prayers that the Priest says in my own language. Some of them I say with him in Latin, but only those they are understand in Latin. The others, I say in English as he says them on the altar.

That is one of the many things I love so much about the Mass. While the Priest is at the altar praying to God in the language of the Church, I am at my pew (or serving) and saying the prayers along with him.

We don’t need to hear the Priest saying the prayers. We can say the prayers right along with him in our own language. That is one of the benefits of having a Latin/English Missal… and it doesn’t take too long to be able to follow right along with the Priest. There are enough bows of the head, and genuflections, to know exactly where the Priest is at any time.

Personally, I would find it a distraction if the Priest was facing me and saying to prayer while looking my way. It would be like saying the Rosary with someone else while looking at each other. It would find it a distraction. I much prefer the Priest facing God and uniting my prayers with his.

I really think you need to give the Traditional Mass another try. Get a missal, and learn how to follow along with the Preist.

There is such a difference between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional mass that it doesn’t surprise me that it will take some people (some personalities) a little time to fall in love with it. I can’t imagine anyone giving it 6 months who would not fall in love with the old Mass.

Right, Pax,
The priest isn’t praying to us.
My own tendency is a sort of polyglot. Some English, some Latin, some Spanish. Last Sunday at a Melkite Catholic liturgy, I didn’t understand the bishop’s Arabic but am sure God understood him as I joined the same prayers in Spanish. The Melkites do pray “Kyrie Elaison”, so were were together in this snippet of Greek.

You may not be able to imagine that, but I grew up with the TLM, and I know many, many people who do not have any desire to go back. An example? My mother, who is 90, had about 50+ years of the TLM. I spoke with her recently; her comment is that she thinks the OF was the best thing that ever happened.

Why? Because of the power of the vernacular. This is a woman who grew up saying the rosary (not during Mass, but in family - where people just might be looking at you while they said it with you in the kitchen after dinner - my grandparents did); a woman who rarely ever missed a Mother of Perpetual Help devotion (she had a lot to pray for; my dad had brain cancer in 1958 and eventually died of it in 1971); a woman who made sure we made the 9 First Fridays and 5 First Saturdays. she finds tremendous power in joining her prayers with the priest as he prays the Mass; and she prefers that she be able to understand what he is saying. And yes, she had a missal, and when we coud read, she made sure that her children had one each, too; and she made sure we used them.

I am sorry that you cannot understand how someone would not fall in love with the old Mass, but believe me, they are out there, and they are not few and far in between.

To put it another way, I think many people would agree that classical symphonic music is more formal, more complex, and more ornate than, say, the blues or rock and roll or easy listening. However, there are people who would agree to that and still do not wish to listen to it. I know you are knot alone; I have met others who have fallen in love with the EF and con’t understand how anyone else wouldn’t. But it is a fact; there are those who don’t.

If you like a mass in the vernacular, with the Priest facing the people, with communion under both forms, with the Altar replaced with a table, you would have loved Luther, Cranmer and the other heretics of the 16th century, for these are the exact same changes they made.

I guess, in your opinion, the heretics of the 16th century (who hated the Mass and whose stated goal was to destroy it by gradualy changing it) were just a little ahead of their time.

That’s a little extreme. The Church has the authority to change it’s liturgy. If you prefer one form over the other, that doesn’t make those who prefer the other heretics, or closet Protestants, or admirers of Luther.

I’ll attempt to explain this, though I very much doubt that you and I will see eye to eye on this (and that’s fine).

First of all, I’ve never liked ad populum and have always favored ad orientum, just to get that out of the way. The issue I was addressing was the vernacular.

Secondly, if you want to ask a question and understand your fellow Catholics, you might want to watch HOW you ask that question (“personalities?”). I’ve long wondered if the EF would not have been better received by Catholics, be they lay or ordained, if it had not been for the smug and arrogant attitude of some advocates OF the EF. It’s very dismissive to say that you can’t imagine anyone not falling in love with that form (a great number of people, older Catholics of my aquaintance, genuinely prefer the OF in the vernacular, precisely BECAUSE it’s in the vernacular and Cardinal Dulles once stated that when he first began attending Mass, before his conversion, he did not particularly care for “the form in which the Holy Sacrifice was clothed,” which, given when he converted, would have been the Tridentine). It is a mistake to universalize our experiences precisely because they are OUR experiences (which is why I do not discount that praying in Latin is of value to some people, maybe to many people).

As for my preference for the vernacular:

I don’t believe that there is anything ontologically sacred about Latin, that Latin is sacred OF itself. There is nothing more sacred about the word “crux” than there is “croix” or “cruz” or “cross.” The original liturgy was in Greek, as far as we know (though I rather imagine the FIRST was in Hebrew or Aramaic) and the switch was made to Latin 350-400 years after our Lord ascended back to the Father and the switch was made for pragmatic reasons: by and large, Latin was still the language of empire and was the vernacular of the wider body of
believers in the West.

I certainly believe that Latin is sacred because it has been used to convey sacred meaning and purpose, just as Greek and Hebrew are sacred (not of themselves, but because of their use). I certainly believe that the Church, as old and massive as she is, should continue to have Latin as her language (all priests should have some training in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, IMHO). After all, what language would she pick if she dispensed with Latin? For the same reason, I certainly agree that there are settings for which it is highly desirable to have the Mass in Latin (papal masses and international gatherings such as the Holy Father has mentioned).

For day in, day out, regular parish worship, however, I think we’re going to see the bulk of the Catholic world continuing to want to attend Masses offered in their own tongue. Why? Because of the purpose of language. (cont).

Language is intended to convey ***meaning ***to the hearer and people think and reason in their native language (normally). Certainly, Mass in Latin (or any language) is effectual, ie, the Mass does what the Church professes that it does, it confects the Holy Sacrifice, it makes present again and renews in a bloodless fashion the Sacrifice of Calvary, and the Mass does this whether we understand what is being said or not. But the truths OF the Mass, the prayer and the story and the stirring glory of the words of the Mass may also, in addition to making the Atoning Passion and Death of Christ present and effectual for us, root even deeper into our minds and hearts and souls if we understand those words as they are spoken. Often, the words of the Mass come to my mind unbidden, when I’m walking down the halls at school, for example. That’s a side benefit that I don’t think that should be lightly dismissed.

And if language is intended to convey meaning (I can’t think of another reason for it), then we should ask what the language of worship is for. Certainly it is for God. It is God that we address. I just cannot quite buy that God needs it to be in Latin (first and last of all, God NEEDS nothing). And while I know that we need to give God our best, I also don’t buy that Latin is our best (I’ve already given the caveat of why I DO agree that Latin is important). I don’t think that one language is better than another, so “best” doesn’t come into play. The giving of our hearts and our selves is our best. Our language, spoken or used in mental assent or surrender, is the WAY we give our best and that may be the language in which we think or reason.

You mention following in the missal. As it stands now, why would I want to trade NOT using a missal for following along in one? I know the responses by heart, I MAKE them from my heart. And there is something strange to me (I’ve said this before) about a priest who speaks the language of the congregation standing before that congregation and addressing God in a tongue foreign to both the priest and the congregation while the congregation follows what he’s saying by reading a translation of his words into the language that both they AND the priest speak, in a book. I simply don’t get it.

Certainly, we need to be careful of the words we choose to address God. There’s far too much casualness in how we address the Ancient of Days, ie, “the Man Upstairs,” “the Big Guy,” “hey, thanks for the grub.” We should aim at a higher prose in addressing Him. Catholic Dude mentioned the classical English translation of the EF. I’d favor that one.
As it is, I have to say that the quotes Catholic Dude provided prove the innate loveliness, the splendor and glory, of the EF.
There are other minor changes I would prefer to see in the interests of noble simplicity (still a worthy goal, IMHO, I realize that to some, the thought of ONE confietor or the congregation always making the responses, for example, is a horror), but the words, well, I’d have to say that language fails me. I’m speechless in the beauty of it. But I feel that way because I UNDERSTAND the words.

Nothing different here.

See, this is why “traditionalists” are the EF’s WORST enemies! Some of them can’t respond to a sober, charitble post with anything, but invective. They would do far greater service to the EF if they simply didn’t mention they liked it.

You commit the genesis error, ie, that something is bad because of it’s origin.

The Mass was originally in a vernacular. The switch to Latin was a switch to a vernacular. It is sanctioned by the Holy See.

Communion in both kinds was an apostolic and patristic practice that persisted in the Church and did not finally end until the 1400’s. It is sanctioned by the Holy See.

Altars have not always looked like what you probably think an altar MUST look like to BE an altar.

Trent taught that anyone who said that the disciplines with which the Church governed her sacraments were incentives to impiety was anathema. Is that traditional enough for you?

A bunch? I live in CT and I haven’t seen a bunch. Two to be exact in Fairfield County. If this is happening, it’s a well-kept secret. Let me know…

JKirk,

If you prefer the vernacular over Latin why is it in your signature ?

Or do you prefer accurate vernacular translations of the official Latin ?

james

[quote=Pax et Caritas]If you like a mass in the vernacular, with the Priest facing the people, with communion under both forms, with the Altar replaced with a table, you would have loved Luther, Cranmer and the other heretics of the 16th century, for these are the exact same changes they made.

I guess, in your opinion, the heretics of the 16th century (who hated the Mass and whose stated goal was to destroy it by gradualy changing it) were just a little ahead of their time.
[/quote]

Hmm. Neither Pax nor Caritas

BTW, to answer the OP’s question, no extraordinary rumbles within ArchChicago. The group that have always wanted the TLM have largely set up their own spots (e.g. St. John Cantius). I doubt there will be much expansion past the existing sites. as Captain Kirk says I doubt as well that there are hordes beating down the door.

You guys deserve your accommodations where they’ll exist, but I seriously doubt that people are waiting for the “Mass of the Ages” if we could only see it. “If you schedule it, they will come…” Nah.

John

I think translation should be as accurate as possible, but I don’t think Heaven crumbles if there’s a dynamic equivalent. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Holy See to tighten things up.

My signature is not my worship.

You’r way too defensive. That was not meant as an insult in the least. It was simply an acknowledgement of the fact that there are a lot of different personalities out there and they react differently to different situations.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.