Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
It took a year to put this weak document out, i see nothing in it that we already knew,already.  the part of teaching Latin and the ExtraOrdinary rite in seminaries is soo weak it will be ignored. The priests can say any mass they choose(even religious order priests) but in PRIVATE, if their Bishop or Religious Supereior doesn't like the Latin Mass he can stop the PUBLIC ones. Like i said before there is a trojan horse working in the Vatican put there by Pope Benedict called William Cardinal Levada who not only is head of the doctrine of the faith  but also the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the Congregation for Bishops who is an avowed enemy of the Latin Mass and the Bishops he has appointed out west near his old Archdiocese in San Francisco are liberal/Modernist. I will mention not only his good buddy the current Archbishop of San Francisco but also his appointments in Reno, San Jose, Salt Lake City and the 2 modernist auxiliaries in S.F. Levada turns 75 in JUne but i'm sure Benedict will keep him on till 80  so i see him undermining any tradition that is put out there. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
(05-13-2011, 11:21 AM)Gerard Wrote: While the TLM may be much more prominent than it was in the early years.  The Novus Ordo on average is so much worse that it was in the early 70s.  I remember the reverence and care the priests took with the Eucharist in the early Novus Ordo days.  Incense, communion on the tongue at the altar rail.   In the late 70s into the 80s that reverence and care slipped away, due to the imposition of Communion in the Hand, Communion under both species, the simplication of vestments from decent looking to the nighgowns now so prominent.   


What year(s) did the major abuses start to take shape at the NO in these United States??

I find it ironic that Extraordinary Ministers didn't start showing up until after a directive called "Immensae Caritatis" in, I think it was January of 1973?? So up until that time laypeople were still kneeling at the Altar Rail and receving on the tongue by the ordained only?? What year did most dioceses take out the Communion Rails and introduce all those abuses to the Mass?? Did the "modernistic" churches that were constructed after 1966 include Altar Rails or no??

CITH may have started in Europe in 1969-70, but I don't think it really took hold until 1976-77 here in the states, is that correct???

Thanks in advance!
I can see the half a cup crowd is out in full force!! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
A better analogy is the dogs eating the fallen morsels from the children's plates. Patience and obedience are still virtues. I know you guys are using your noodles and taking this apart, so good for you. I'm just giving you a more measured analysis.

(05-13-2011, 11:28 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: I understand the Holy Father needs to treat lightly as he implements his reforms, but this is weak. And weakness doesn’t win the day. A few bishops will react, but where I live in Mahonyville, there will be nothing, because they do that bare minimum and the Vatican doesn’t do anything. It’s been the same story since the 60s.

The problem is, what can he really do about places like Mahonyville?  If he gets too forceful and really tries to force apostate bishops back to obedience, they may simply leave the Church and take millions of souls with them.  Maybe that'd still be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's a clear-cut decision, and it's certainly not his style.  If he started excommunicating and replacing them, would the average lay Catholic in the pew know enough to know whom to follow?  It seems like he's trying to perform a balancing act here, making it possible for younger priests and devout lay people to follow Tradition and strengthen the Church in local pockets, while not causing a schism by pushing too hard at the top.
(05-13-2011, 11:21 AM)Gerard Wrote: We won't reach a real reversal until the Novus Ordo is being again offered in a reverent manner.  Only then, when it is offered that way and the TLM is prominent will the TLM start to draw down the remaining numbers of the Novus Ordo.  My Dad has frequently said, "They did away with the Latin Mass because  if it had been offered alongside this "thing" nobody would go to the new mass."

Exactly.  One thing I think everyone here can agree on is that the TLM is superior to the NO.  Not just the liturgy itself, but all the trappings that tend to go with each -- the art, the music, the confessionals or lack thereof, the devotions that the two groups tend to do/not do, etc.  (Yes, I know somewhere in the world there's an NO being said with perfect reverence in a traditional building, with a crowd of people saying the rosary before Mass and forming long lines for Confession.  But that's the exception that proves the rule.)  So the TLM doesn't have to be forced on people the way the NO was.  It just needs to be made available -- which this document encourages further on top of Summorum Pontificum -- and people need to be educated about it.  They don't know why it's superior to the NO -- though some instinctively recognize it.  Too many today don't even know why a Catholic Mass is superior to the Protestant worship service down the street; they certainly aren't equipped to contrast and compare two Catholic rites.

The main thing I hear from Catholics new to the TLM, if they don't love it, is that it's too foreign and difficult.  They don't know why Latin matters; they don't see why they should kneel so much; they don't know there's anything wrong with girls serving or a crowd of EMHCs; they actually like "On Eagles' Wings."  To them, the TLM just seems like a bunch of people trying too hard.  They're like a guy driving a sports car who sees an Amish family riding to town in a horse and buggy.  He might think it makes a pretty picture, and he might even like to try it once to see what it's like.  But he doesn't see any reason to trade his car, that he can just hop into and go, for a slower horse that he has to feed and clean up after.

However, if he had to start brewing his own fuel for his car, and the speed limits got lowered to 10mph, and parking started to be charged by the horsepower, he might reconsider getting a horse.  Likewise, if the NO-goers I know had to learn several prayers in Latin, give up their 70s pop songs, watch the priest's back during the consecration, listen to serious homilies about sin and hell and the need for regular Confession, and tell their daughters they can't serve anymore, the TLM wouldn't seem so strange to them anymore.  Then they might be more willing to give it a chance, since it wouldn't feel like a completely different religion anymore.

So every time a priest or seminarian gets interested in tradition and orthodoxy, even if it just means he tries to pull the NO back within the rules, it's a start.  Also, the facts of time and demographics mean that, by the time the TLM-haters die out (and I mean the haters, who are mostly of an age, not the people of all ages who just don't see the point), there will be a cadre of young priests and lay people who are open to the TLM.  

I don't know whether that's Pope Benedict's master plan to phase out the "banal" "fabrication."  Maybe he really has come around to a belief in reform of the reform.  Nevertheless, that may be the way it goes.  Right now, the TLM-haters are a large group that's at the age where they have a lot of time and money to invest in getting things their way.  When that pressure is gone, things could change in a hurry -- as long as there are "ghettos" of Catholic tradition ready to reeducate the rest, and a generation of young priests without that 60s ideological bone to pick who are truly interested in serving God and shepherding their people.  These documents allow and encourage those things to develop, without freaking people out.
TiMoose has been appointed by the Pope as Patriarch of Patient Catholics effective immediatedly! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
(05-13-2011, 07:20 AM)mcwhite Wrote: who took 4 years to issue a document which adds very little to the original.

It took 4 years because there was a 3-year evaluation period, which ended on September 14 of last year. And it would add little, since really it's just an instruction on how Summorum Pontificum should be interpreted.

maldon in page 2 makes some really good points...

The Reuters headline made me happier than the actual document, I must admit.

Reuters Wrote:Vatican increases pressure to allow Latin mass

I wonder how many news publications around the world will reprint this?
(05-13-2011, 12:30 PM)Mhoram Wrote: So every time a priest or seminarian gets interested in tradition and orthodoxy, even if it just means he tries to pull the NO back within the rules, it's a start.  Also, the facts of time and demographics mean that, by the time the TLM-haters die out (and I mean the haters, who are mostly of an age, not the people of all ages who just don't see the point), there will be a cadre of young priests and lay people who are open to the TLM.  

Great post.  I agree that "reform of the reform" can be a step towards tradition.
I would just like to point something out. Gerard has a gift for making ironic and tongue-in-cheek statements, and I don't know if or to what extent he was doing so when earlier he spoke about how anyone with a bishop that is against SP should basically be in the SSPX chapels, but I do want to say that, joking or serious, there is something deadly and profoundly right about what he was saying, and I think the Holy Father knows it and intends it. Now, do not get me wrong: I am not talking about exactly what Gerard said, but really about an implication of what he said. Given the wording of SP and the wording of the Instruction ("Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff," for example), and given the various explanations and answers given by Vatican officials over the years concerning the liceity of attending SSPX chapels, and given the fact that for years now the SSPX hierarchy have been simply supportive and obedient of the Pope, it is clear that all are on a level playing field here. The pope knows and expects us to learn that full spiritual communion with the Church depends on our filial obedience to his directives, and that there is a difference between this spiritual, fundamental communion and institutional communion. And right now, there are many NO bishops who are simply not in communion with the pope, and we do no owe them our obedience. They may enjoy the appearance of communion simply because they have not been ejected structurally from the Church, but to the extent they demonstrate resistance to SP and the Instruction, they demonstrate their separation from the One Vine, with its One Vicar on earth. In contrast, while praising SP, the SSPX hierarchy is exercising great restraint where criticism of the NO is concerned. The result: they are spiritually, and therefore truly in communion with the pope, and I agree with Gerard's conclusion, joking or not, and I would even go farther: anyone in a diocese with such self-excommunicating bishops must seek elsewhere if at all possible, and not be bothered by qualms of conscience due to the slowness of institutional communion to manifest itself.
What could he do? Well we do have a model of a Pope which came down hard and it helped the Church. In fact the twin pillars of Pius V and Pius X were just those types of Popes. And in a sense the Novus Ordo is riding on the remnant benefits which they helped create. There is very little post 1962 fruit that they are riding on. So there is precedent for a Pope benefiting the Church through a strong approach. Now Benedict is not that type of Pope for sure. He's a man of the council. And it doesn't have to be fire and brimstone either, but much more is called for. Just a little indignation please. A little whipping of the money changers please. Plus as I criticized in my post, I think his designs are not fully for the traditional Mass. He is for it as a museum piece and maybe some day everyone finding a middle path in a mish-mash of the two missals. I can say right now that won't work and will prolong a restoration. I would be more happy if he allowed the TM in the vernacular, and had the TM in Latin and vernacular coexisting. Time will show the NO will die the death.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)