Told that the Tridentine Mass is discouraged

A Candidate in RCIA asked a nun in his parish about the ‘old’ Latin Mass he has heard about and if it was okay for him to attend one. She told him it was ‘discouraged’.
He didn’t pursue the subject with her (‘why’, ‘by whom’).

This may be true ‘personally’ for her and the pastor, but it does not sound like an accurate statement as far as Rome goes, or even some of our U.S. Bishops. While I don’t remember ever reading anything from Rome saying attending the TLM was ‘encouraged’, I certainly don’t remember reading anything saying it was ‘discouraged’. Am I correct?

Can you guys help me with some facts about the TLM: What has Rome said, what about our American Bishops, is it’s offering on the rise, etc. I’d like to be able to give him the facts about this.

We’ll get a lot of replies on this one, but to start off, obviously Rome doesn’t take away with the left hand what it gives with the right. If the Mass is properly under the current rules for the indult, i.e., if it’s allowed by the bishop and celebrated by a Catholic priest in communion with Rome, then it can’t be claimed at the same time that Catholics are “discouraged” from attending it. However, if your friend phrased the question in such a way that it implied that she meant, say, a SSPX chapel or an independent traditional chapel, then I think “discourage” was too mild a word and probably used diplomatically because “forbidden” is a non-PC word in many modern Catholic contexts.

[quote=jbuck919]We’ll get a lot of replies on this one, but to start off, obviously Rome doesn’t take away with the left hand what it gives with the right. If the Mass is properly under the current rules for the indult, i.e., if it’s allowed by the bishop and celebrated by a Catholic priest in communion with Rome, then it can’t be claimed at the same time that Catholics are “discouraged” from attending it. However, if your friend phrased the question in such a way that it implied that she meant, say, a SSPX chapel or an independent traditional chapel, then I think “discourage” was too mild a word and probably used diplomatically because “forbidden” is a non-PC word in many modern Catholic contexts.
[/quote]


Just to clarify - it was not SSPX. There wasn’t any confusion on this point.

Like so many of these things the wording is important. I do think the Church discourages the Tridentine Mass. It’s offered only with an indult that is infrequently given. Many Bishops, priests, nuns and brothers certainly say, or imply, they don’t like it and it should not be celebrated. I think “discouraged” is a pretty accurate way to put it. For example, there isn’t one anywhere near where I live. That certainly discourages attendance by folks like me.

Its not discourged but its not encouraged either.The Pauiline Mass of the 1960s is the official Rite of the Church.

Its not discourged but its not encouraged either.The Pauiline Mass of the 1960s is the official Rite of the Church.

i don’t think ‘offical’ is the right word. clearly, the church has never been opposed to liturgical diversity but treasures and protects it. the coucil of trent recognized as being equal any rite that could prove itself older then 200 years. the truth is, the catholic church recognizes as equal in dignity other rites as well: byzantine, coptic, ethiopian, marionite, …etc. these are as offical as the pauline mass is. so, the tridentine mass is offical, meaning legitimate, though not normative. i would say that the paul vi mass is the normative mass for the latin rite. there are others such as the ambrosian and mozarabic which both offically belong to the latin rite.

Your nun may have meant several things, as in “I discourage you from going” or “the bishop discourages you from going” (which could be easily disproven if there is an Indult Mass in your diocese). The TLM under the Indult is precisely what the old Holy Father John Paul II of happy memory wanted for those who felt an attachment to it. So it isn’t discouraged by “the Church,” by any means.

While it is improper to say that it is formally discouraged it is true to say that in many diocese that it is discouraged in practice. In practice means that a lot of Bishops do not allow for the generous use of the indult. Even in diocese where it is allowed it seems as if it is tacitly permitted but definitely not encouraged and in practice is actually discouraged.

[quote=OMI]Its not discourged but its not encouraged either.The Pauiline Mass of the 1960s is the official Rite of the Church.
[/quote]

I agree. In our Diocese it rates one line in the bulletin every Sunday with all the other Masses listed. It is never talked about and the Mass is said in The House of Prayer, not the main church.

The Cathedral Website where our TLM is says:

The Cathedral Offers Three Distinctly Different Masses to its Parishioners:
Saturday at 4:30 p.m. there is a very quiet and contemplative Mass. Organ music and song leadership is provided by Greg Schaffer, organist, and Therese Sprinkle, cantor. Greg is particularly known for his wonderful improvisations on the organ. Music is traditional hymnody.

Sundays at 10:00 a.m. the music is provided by The Bishop’s Choir under the direction of Dr. Robert Schaffer. The music at this mass focuses on classical and traditional music with only an occasional contemporary offering. There is music for participation and for meditation. There are also very special presentations of liturgical organ music by the Maestro, Dr. Robert Schaffer, and Greg Schaffer.

Sundays at 5:30 p.m. the music is provided by Anawim of Covington under the direction of Margo Johnson. This is a more contemporary Mass, but does offer some traditional and classical music. At this Mass, Margo Johnson both directs the musicians and leads the congregation in song. The piano and organ music is provided by Jim Wolfe with flute and trumpet music provided by other members of the group including Doug Johnson and Bryan West.

They missed the 12:15 TLM, which is only briefly mentioned in the “Mass Schedule”

I would think it might be “discouraged” just for coming close to that line of licit TLM and ilicit TLM. I’ve known people who got too comfy with the allowed TLM and ended up going over to the kind that weren’t given permission. Obviously not everyone who goes to the licit TLM is going to switch over, but some people may have that fear. I know my family does after seeing loved ones get lost. :frowning: But this is just my thought.

[quote=MariaGorettiGrl]I would think it might be “discouraged” just for coming close to that line of licit TLM and ilicit TLM. I’ve known people who got too comfy with the allowed TLM and ended up going over to the kind that weren’t given permission. Obviously not everyone who goes to the licit TLM is going to switch over, but some people may have that fear. I know my family does after seeing loved ones get lost. :frowning: But this is just my thought.
[/quote]

I don’t know, I’ve seen too much hostility to the Traditional Mass from the religious and the clergy over the past 40 years to think that this is in any way an isolated incident. And that it was a nun or sister that made the comment doesn’t surprise me at all. Remember, some of the first groups to get on the bandwagon with wholescale reforms and the destruction of traditions after Vatican II were numerous womens religious orders and organizations.

The National Association of Womens Religious, NAWR, is a very vocal mouthpiece of many such sisters, and they have advocated among other things female non-attendance at any liturgy presided over by male priests and feminist liturgies that concentrate on womens suffering and their unjust plight and oppression within the church.

No I’m not surprised in the least at the incident. saddened, but not surprised.

Just what we need right now: another layer of (Latin) unintelligibility!

Why not go further and have the homilies in Latin as well. Then neither the speaker nor the congregant would understand.

Few people even with formal Latin training—I speak from experience—can be functional with Latin syntax especially when it must go into complex mental constructs, as in any common linguistic interchange.

99.9% of our people and of those in my travels understand and find the current vernacular liturgical language and approach meaninful.

Bob Kay

Well, at my Latin Mass parish most of the congregation actively and loudly takes part in the Mass… singing along with the choir, making the responses along with the altar boys, etc. Many NO parishes don’t have their parishioners take part so enthusiastically. Besides, the prayers of the Mass are to God, not the people. They get the same graces whether or not they understand every word immediately as it’s said. I’ve found Mass in the vernacular at times to be an actual distraction… there’s not as much time for silent mental prayer and meditation.

To: Goreyfan,

Thanks for your comments.

I can only appreciate Part Two, Article 3, sections 1322-1421 (The Sacrament of the Eucharist) and the whole of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed., because it was rendered into English.

Reading those sections I find nowhere therein where it specifies a particular language is preferable to another. Elsewhere in this same catechism it allows for the genius of any particular culture to carry out litugical events in a manner familiar to that culture, within ecclesiastical norms of course.

In a positive spirit,

Bob Kay

There’s nothing wrong with Mass in the vernacular but in the Roman rite the use of Latin was never abolished for exclusive vernacular use and Latin missals provide English translations for the faithful to follow along. Both Latin and the vernacular have their places in Liturgy (I, obviously, prefer the former) and can and should coexist in the Roman rite.

To: Goreyfan,

Thanks once again for your thoughtful reply.

I respect your view greatly.

I have one minor exception in your latest post: “…can and should coeixst…”, in my view, is more devisive than perhaps “…can and may…”.

It has been a stimulating exchange and I am thankful for that!

Bob Kay

Well, I don’t know if can and may is necessarily better than can and should. I realize that, for very good reasons, many Catholics have grown attached to vernacular Masses. I wouldn’t want to take their Mass away from them anynore than I’d want my preferred way of worshipping taken away from me. The Catholic Church is big enough for us all, provided we are loyal to the Magisterium. :thumbsup:

Bob,

goreyfan is actually right in line with Vatican II, SC par 36:

    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

  2. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

  3. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Latin was to be preserved, and the decision as to whether or not to use the vernacular (and to what extent) could vary from region to region. Now, granted, we’re 40 years after the fact and official policy could have changed (which it has, de facto), but judging from the fact that a priest still needs no special permission at all to say the N.O. entirely in Latin, I think “should” is a good wording.

And that it was a nun or sister that made the comment doesn’t surprise me at all. Remember, some of the first groups to get on the bandwagon with wholescale reforms and the destruction of traditions after Vatican II were numerous womens religious orders and organizations.

The National Association of Womens Religious, NAWR, is a very vocal mouthpiece of many such sisters, and they have advocated among other things female non-attendance at any liturgy presided over by male priests and feminist liturgies that concentrate on womens suffering and their unjust plight and oppression within the church.

I have a friend studying to become a nun and she said something that really struck me the other day. She’s in a full-habit-wearing-order and the nuns out of habit bother us both. But she gave me this to think about and I’d just like to share it:

Consider how hard it must have been for many of the nuns who went through that period. When the religious order you dedicated your life to suddenly decides to no longer wear the habit or make more liberal reforms, what can you do besides voicing your concern? You vowed obedience and you can’t just stop being a nun. So you have to grin and bear it. And to keep your faith through uncomfortable situations and living with several sisters who don’t share your devotion to God, that’s an amazing feat! :clapping:

And there are still plenty of good nuns out there! Though we could always use more! :yup:

Just thought I’d add a little positive note! :heart:

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.