To the clerics that are against the TLM


#1

More and more talk about the freeing of the Tridentine Mass. More and more whining and crying from some of the more liberal bishops of France, Germany, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.

As I’ve stated many a time in the past, I’ve come to the conclusion that these liberal bishops are so dead-set against the Tridentine Mass because either;

  1. They hate it
    or
  2. They’re afraid of it.

I can’t come to any other conclusion.

But anyhow, I remember reading sometime back that Fr. Franz Schmidberger, first Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, was asked if the SSPX would demand the abolition of the New Mass.

He stated; “We do not demand the abolition of the conciliar Mass at first. With the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass, the conciliar Mass will disappear of itself.” In other words, eventually the faithful will realize what an absolute watering-down of Catholicism the New Mass is, and eventually, it’ll die on the vine. Agree, disagree or indifferent to what Fr Schmidberger said… that’s irrelevant. At least he had the guts to let the world know where he stands.

Now when it comes to the ultra-liberal, Modernist, “Spirit of Vatican II” bishops… why don’t they have the same guts as Fr. Schmidberger?

Why don’t they just call the pope’s bluff? Why don’t they just come out and say "we believe that the Tridentine is just for dinosaurs and a very small minority of cranks. If The Holy Father wants to liberalize the Latin Mass… then go right ahead! We’re absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Catholics will reject the Latin Mass because of it’s lack of tambourines, bongos, hand holding, feel good spirit, arm raising, shaking hands during The Sign of Grope, fast-food gingle hymns, spontaneous applause, chewing gum while taking Communion, self-worship, etc.

OK, all joking aside… if the rabid anti-Latin Mass crowd is so cock-sure that the Mass of Paul VI is where it’s at, then I challenge 'em to pony up and put their money where their mouth is.

But I doubt they will.


#2

What a surprise! I didn’t know you were the “Caveman”! I love you Caveman and enjoy your blog. :slight_smile:


#3

Yup. Me too. It’s my favourite. :smiley:


#4

I seriously doubt if the Novus Ordo will disappear by simply placing it side by side with the Latin Mass and ignoring the NO to death. It simply doesn’t work that way. This “Schmidberger prophecy”, frankly is just another bag of traditionalist hot air, and reminds me of Karl Marx’s bold prediction a century and a half ago that the state would “wither away” under Socialism, and guess what… the state is still here. And so would the NO.


#5

I don’t think the bishops are affraid of the Tridentine Mass. I think they’re afraid that if the SSPX crowd is too soon re-united with the Catholic church that they will not realize that the whole rebellion against the pope by Lefebvre and his crowd was wrong.

Part of being a good Catholic is obedience. Lefebvre should have been obedient to the pope and prayed that God would guide the pope rather than deciding to ignore the pope. And I’m sure these biships will do as the pope says. So if the pope re-unites the SSPX with the Catholic church, I’m sure the bishops will be obedient to him.

But no matter what happens with the SSPX church, the NO Mass is here to stay. Some of us actually like it, although I’ve never had it with bongos. But hey, make a joyful noise unto the Lord! And if that means play your bongos, then I’ll make like the little drummer boy! :stuck_out_tongue:

:heart:


#6

The so-called liberal bishops don’t have to say "we believe that the Tridentine is just for dinosaurs and a very small minority of cranks. " Not at all. All they have to do is what they’re doing. The TLM will be here and there and that’s it.

Hello, Motu? Don’t think so.

John


#7

I rather think that the TLM will always be here and I think it will be revered and appreciated (though I think the vernacular mass will always be the one favored for most of the average Catholics of the world). What might keep a lot of people from even giving it the benefit of the doubt and attempting to appreciate it is the arrogant attitude, typical of many who self-identify as “traditionalists,” exhibited by the SSPX priest that the OP quoted, as well as the implication that irreverence is inherent in the Pauline Rite, rather than simply an abuse of the Pauline Rite.


#8

Yet of course, the laity have had very little choice in the matter at all if they want Latin in the Mass. The Latin was pretty much taken away and the vernacular thrust upon them.


#9

I would say that the hierarchy has learned their lesson regarding that and there won’t be any more big jolts, such as has happened before.

I rather imagine there were some disgruntled people when the Church switched from Greek to Latin,. was well (but I can’t prove it).


#10

Too true!

:heart:


#11

Maria,

Your tune would have probably been different during Pope Leo XIII’s reign and you had been an Anglican. They were still “in communion with Rome” until Pope Leo XIII decided not only to make their Masses illicit, but also INVALID and INVALID RETROACTIVELY. Can a Pope do this? Yes, according to the logic that one Pope can overrule another in disciplines.


#12

Really, do research this. The Catholic Church did not regard them as still “in communion with Rome” at all and while some Anglo-Catholics within Anglicanism may have nursed some fond hopes of being recognized as being Apostolic by the Holy See, it didn’t affect or impact the vast body of that communion (Anglo-Catholicism was a relatively new movement, ie, the Oxford movement, etc.), the majority of which were Broad or Low Church and didn’t much care what the Holy Father thought anyway. And the pope didn’t “make” their masses and orders invalid, they already were invalid (in much the same way that John Paul II didn’t
excommunicate Archbishop Lefrebreve, he simply confirmed that they had excommunicated themselves).


#13

I’ve read quite a few stances agreeing and disagreeing with my initial post. And that’s OK… resonable men (and women) can disagree.

And with that said, I must state that I strongly adhere to the notion that the uber-liberals in positions of power do hate and/or are afraid of the TLM.

After all, what were the words again… “wide and generous application”? Where is the wide and generous application? In the vast majority of diocese in the US that “graciously permit” the TLM, they’re few and far between.

In my diocese… ther’s ONE episcopally “approved” TLM. I personally know of Catholics diocese wide who, in accordance with Ecclesia Dei, have requested such for their home Deanery, and been ignored. So their only recourse is a hundreds of miles round trip drive every Sunday. Is THAT an example of “wide and generous”? It sounds to me more like a case of “Hate” or “Afraid of”. I can come to no other rational conclusion.

You know, gang, the reason for this thread isn’t if we like/dislike or approve/disapprove of the TLM or the NO… it’s about those in positions of power who scream the loudest against the TLM.

I have to ask, yet again—

If the rabid anti-Latin Mass crowd is so cock-sure that the Mass of Paul VI is where it’s at, then I challenge 'em to pony up and put their money where their mouth is.

But I doubt they will.


#14

I never understood it either.

If you hate the TLM, just choose not to celebrate it. Why deny it for all those who wish to attend when the Holy Father has made it clear in the past that it should be an option?

Their position is based on being selfish and prideful. I don’t want to force the TLM upon everyone, but I want EVERYONE to have the option for a TLM.

PS. Caveman you have the best blog ever. :smiley:


#15

In light that there was some concern to me mentioning “bongos” and self-worship, etc… I thought I’d post this in reference to said bongos, self-worship, etc.

Please keep in mind that this didn’t happen at some obscure Jesuit retreat house in Boston, or at *St. Che’s Catholic Community *in Berkely.

This was at the largest Catholic Archdiocese in the United States, with the full consent and approval of the Cardinal Archbishop.

And we wonder why our seminaries and convents are empty. And we’re stunned that the majority of practicing Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Yeah… the “Spirit of Vatican II” has been a roaring success.


#16

Is there a barf emote?


#17

Thanks Unfinished! I honestly do appriciate that!


#18

But Rohr (and charity forbids saying what I think about this priest) is not representative of the vast body of the clergy, nor is the particular Cardinal Archbishop representative of the Bishops, nor is what they allow to be done to the NO Mass to be confused with the NO Mass itself. Yet these things are trotted out as though they are normative. They aren’t.


#19

I’m enjoying it immensely. :wink:


#20

OK, my own opinion is that most of our Bishops are rather ambivalent about the Tridentine Mass it self. But…

They are afraid of the “faithful” who hate the Tridentine Mass.

These are the vocal “spirit of Vatican II” folk that run the offices in most parishes and the chancery offices. They hold the purse strings, host the benefit galas, make big donations to the cathedral funds.

Demographics is the reason. In my experience the most rabid anti-TLM folk are of a certain age (50-75) and have the most disposable income. They grew up with the “old” Mass but came of age in the post VII time with little or no adult catechises.

Small local example: My parish does “Latin for Lent”. We do the Kyrie (Greek), Agnus Dei, Mysterium Fidei, Sanctus in Latin each Sunday in Lent. Our earlier Mass is mostly comprised of those parishioners of that “certain age”. I went to Latin Mass only until I was 9. I can chant the Latin prayers so I know that these parishioners who had an extra decade or two of Latin than I did can certainly do it. Yet a few weeks ago there were three people chanting the propers in Latin (out of about 50 at Mass): Father, the cantor and me.

Every year Father gets a lot of flack and complaints about his use of Latin. People threaten to withhold collection money. About half of our parishioners left when Father came to our parish. He is much more orthodox/conservative than his predecessor and the more liberal attendees voted with their feet. If our local pastor gets this much grief from the less-than-liberal remnant, I can only imagine what the pressure on the Bishop would be.


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.