Here is a story from Lubbock (Texas) Online.
This article is really badly written, but even so it betray not just ignorance but also laziness regarding facts and backgorund along with a bias against the issue. Still, it is instructive.
My emphases and comments.
Local clergy not expecting big demand for ‘Dominus vobiscum’
BETH PRATT
A-J RELIGION EDITOR
The Latin Mass is unlikely to generate a lot of interest in the United States for several reasons, according to Catholic clergy in Lubbock.
The announcement or church permission, called indult, [NO! NO! NOT AND INDULT! The Motu Proprio does something quite different. It doesn’t create an exception. It declares that the faculties priests have are far wider than they were previously considered to be.] released in July by Pope Benedict XVI, is about church unity, Rodriguez said. It is the bishop’s call to learn whether a Latin Mass is needed in his diocese. [NO! NO! NOT UP TO THE BISHOP! The provisions of Summorum Pontificum say that the PASTOR of a parish makes this decision.]
"I will study it and see if there is a pastoral need for a Tridentine Latin Mass," he said. [I hope he does study. But the fact remains that the parish priest is the point man for this.]
The bishop can still say Mass in Latin, [Just read that statement and think about it for a while.] "although you get rusty. I had plenty of it for years and years in Chicago. For our parish priests to conduct a Latin Mass, they would have to train and be tested. [TESTED? Here is that old testing canard again. This oozes with a negatively biased double-standard. Are there going to be tests for men saying the newer Mass too? Let’s see if they actually no what they are doing and understand what they are saying.] What is important to me is that through the document of the pope, he is affirming the validity of the Tridentine Mass, a bridge, as equally sacred as the ordinary way now in the new order." [Just think about that last phrase. Could there be a doubt?]
The pope’s motive has to do with trying to maintain Christian unity with very traditional Catholics who prefer the Mass all in Latin, he said. [This is not a terribly profound way of interpreting the Holy Father’s motive.]
"We don’t have many of those people here. We don’t know Latin. The newer generation of priests didn’t study it."
Tridentine Mass
• The Tridentine Mass was celebrated for almost 1,500 years throughout the church. The name comes from the 16th-century Council of Trent. Parts of the Tridentine Mass date back to the sixth century.
• Along with the reforms made by the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965, the introduction of the new Mass in the language of the people was approved to make it more understandable and accessible to congregants. Some see the revival of the tradition as a signal that the pope’s sympathies are with the more conservative Catholics.
• Celebrated entirely in Latin except for a few phrases in Greek and Hebrew, the Tridentine Mass is celebrated by the priest with his back to the congregation. [GGRRRRR…..]
So far, the bishop has not had any requests for a Latin Mass in the Lubbock diocese. [I wonder if that is really the case.]
"It is not so much applicable to the U.S. as it is for Europe [ROFL!] where the archbishop broke away," Rodriquez said.
The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a French bishop traditionalist who took the lead in opposing changes and reforms made by the Second Vatican Council in 1962, continued to conduct [second time that word is used, hmmm] Mass in Latin rather than in the vernacular, which means the language of the people.
Lefebvre founded a traditionalist Catholic priestly society in 1970, called St. Pius X. In 1988, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work before he died in 1991 at the age of 86.
Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops without permission from Pope John Paul II and as a result was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. [This article is poorly written.]
Rodriguez noted that there has been confusion between the Tridentine Mass and the use of Latin.
"It’s not a completely different liturgy," he said. "We still use Latin in song and the Gregorian chant."
The Rev. David Cruz, pastor of Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church, was not sure at first how to interpret the media reports of the document coming from Rome.
"Now that the ancient tradition has been revived, my feeling is that it is not apt to diminish the way that the majority of Catholics in our country worship today," Cruz said. "It is just another means to celebrate the Eucharist, but that the way we celebrate it now is just as meaningful, just as beautiful, just as sacred to us."
As a pastor, he has not had any comment or request for a Latin rite. [Look what happens when sloppy terms are thrown around.]
"Overall, believers ought not to infer that this revival of the Latin rite is meant in any way to suggest that the way we worship now is any less beautiful. Sometimes we think that because something was done centuries ago that it carries some kind of sacred quality."
If that were the case, he noted, "the original Eucharist was in homes, informal settings [By which he means to say that the early Christians treated Mass informally? What a load of….]
The Latin rite "is not even a blip on the radar screen of most people I know," he added. "Most are happy with the way they worship. … I can’t see us going back to the way it was done centuries ago."
Monsignor Ben Kasteel, rector at Christ the King Cathedral, said that some of the church’s concerns about Mass in the vernacular is really more about the quality of the translations from the Latin. [This is one of the most intelligent statements in this article.]
That Rome might have questions about a more contemporary worship style and how it might have found its way into corrupting the essentials of the Mass is not surprising, he said.
These concerns might have something to do with the pope’s giving more visibility to the Latin rite Mass. Whereas with the Tridentine Mass, the movements and gestures are clearly prescribed and recognized for their uniformity wherever Catholics worship in the world, the fear is that the Mass in the vernacular may result in "deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear," according to a document Kasteel provided addressing such questions. [The writers are entirely CLUELESS. What is this, a high school newspaper?]
The mandate from the Second Vatican Council for the renewal of the Sacred Liturgy is in the Constitution on the Liturgy, No. 50, in which the writers decreed that:
"The Order of Mass is to be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, … and will more readily achieve the devout, active participation of the faithful." [for heaven’s sake… talk about cherry-picking a quote.]
To the question of whether the new norms will cause division in parishes among those who favor the Latin rite and those who prefer the post-1962 rite, the pope is said to view those concerns as unfounded.
To comment on this story:
beth.pratt@lubbockonline.com 766-8724
shelly.gonzales@lubbockonline.com 766-8747
What a terrible article… in so many ways.
Loading ...
The Diocese in Lubbock needs our prayers and a Papal butt-whoopin’
God bless.
Wow most of these articles are quite asinine, especially the ones where they set out the “diocesan policies” of the motu proprio.
The Latin rite “is not even a blip on the radar screen of most people I know,” he added. “Most are happy with the way they worship. … I can’t see us going back to the way it was done centuries ago.”
How about going back to the way it was done HALF a century ago?
Or even the way it’s done NOW. The 1962 Missal is still being used. It is a modern rite.
To say that “Most are happy with the way we worship,” means nothing. Is that supposed to mean informal worship is more fitting, just because people like it? What is people used this logic during the reformation?
“Most people seem to like what Luther is doing, even if he is being disobedient. Besides, I can’t see us going back to the way Mass was done ten years ago.”
“devout, active participation of the faithful” hmmm, wonder what that was meant to mean?
Most could’nt care less with the way we worship, they stay at home.
This man is, as Fulton Sheen used to say, either lying or ignorant.
how embarrassing. in the defense of other texans, there are many of us who have read the document.
Wow… and to think he actually read Summorum…NOT! The “clarification” that is rumored to be coming from Ecclesia Dei cannot get here soon enough.
My parish has a fantastic priest who celebrates a very prayerful Novus Ordo. I’ve never even been to an extraordinary form Mass, but these people–these “progressives”–who (ironically!) don’t want to allow folks the freedom to chose between two expressions of the one rite–not unlike those of us who prefer Sunday morning Mass with organ to Saturday evening with guitar and/or piano–are driving me insane.
So, how ’bout we recommend they read the VII documents? How’s this for “cherry-picking”:
“[T]he use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites…But since the use of the mother tongue…frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its uses may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and instructions and to some prayers and chants, according to regulations on this matter to be laid down for each case in subsequent chapters. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, par.36)”
Also, the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal says, “Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts…of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. (GIRM, par. 42; see also Sacramentum Caritatis, par. 62)”
“Most are happy with the way we worship …”
I would think that the reality of that is more accurately said, “Most in charge of liturgy are happy with the way we worship…”
I honestly think the reason why not many people will make a request is because:
1) the average person in the pews just doesn’t know that liturgy can be better
2) the average person in the pews is always fed false catechesis about the older form of Mass, eg the article quoted above and the attitudes of those “hostile” to (or just ignorant of) the old Mass
3) the average person in the pews is just not used to some of the differences in the older form of Mass
Certainly… “most are happy with the way we worship”… generalizations like this can be made and are presumed to be true… HOWEVER… just try to say “there are many people in the parish who would prefer the TLM and you have to produce signed affidavits that the parishioners are not being forced, that they are members of the parish, that they contribute regularly to the offertory, that they accept the Ordinary Form as valid, that they are “attached” to the Older Form… and still if you produced 200 signatures, this Pastor would probably still not believe that these parishioners are interested!
I am a parishoner within the Lubbock Diocese. I know for a fact that there is a demand within the Lubbock Diocese. Whether or not the Bishop knows about this demand is questionable.
There is a priest within the diocese who will be saying the Extraordinary Form of Mass when he returns from his sabbatical (which is actually the feast of the Immaculate Conception-Dec. 8…hopefully he’ll start then)
The Lubbock paper is pretty awful. Everything is poorly written, and this article was no exception. Sigh…the Lubbock Diocese tears at my soul sometimes.
“So far, the bishop has not had any requests for a Latin Mass in the Lubbock diocese.”
This statement is simply not true. I have sent in a couple of requests to the bishop for Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The most recent letter was, as I recall, in November. It was not answered.
Joseph, who is the priest who will be offering the Old Mass when he comes back from his sabbatical?
There is a parish in Lubbock that says the TRUE Latin Tridentine Mass. The name of it is Corpus Christi Parish and it is located at 1114 30th Street.
The pastor’s name is Fr. Joseph OFM. He does NOT say the indult – this is the real deal.
There is a parish in Lubbock that says the TRUE Latin Tridentine Mass. The name of it is Corpus Christi Parish and it is located at 1114 30th Street.
The pastor’s name is Fr. Joseph OFM. He does NOT say the indult – this is the real deal.
Perhaps the readers would be interested in contacting him.
“There is a parish in Lubbock that says the TRUE Latin Tridentine Mass. The name of it is Corpus Christi Parish and it is located at 1114 30th Street.
The pastor’s name is Fr. Joseph OFM. He does NOT say the indult – this is the real deal.”
This chapel is a sedevacantist chapel under the “jurisdiction” of a bishop named Louis Vezelis. Hence, it is entirely unacceptable even for those of us who will attend the Mas offered by an SSPX priest.
“There is a parish in Lubbock that says the TRUE Latin Tridentine Mass. The name of it is Corpus Christi Parish and it is located at 1114 30th Street.
The pastor’s name is Fr. Joseph OFM. He does NOT say the indult – this is the real deal.”
Like Perry said, Fr. Joseph is a sedavacantist priest. Sedavacancy is an obvious schism, as they do not recognize the Holy Father as the leader of the Catholic Church, and call Vatican II a heresy, but it was merely interpretation of the council, and the implementation that gives off that idea (without actually being a heretical thing, merely illicit in some practice).
Perry, Fr. Martin Pena at St. Joseph’s has been wanting to say the extraordinary rite for quite some time, but only now will he be able to. Hopefully, the Ecclesia Dei Commission will have published the guidelines for the interpretation of the motu proprio by then, so that we can have a stable community ready to go by December 8.
Vivat Iesu!
There is a reason why some Texans refer to Lubbock as “Lub-buttocks”
Now if you are of good faith you will read the following regarding your “Pius X” Chapels – The SSPX:
The Lefebvrite sect posing as a Roman Catholic religious community is not recognized even by the Apostate Church. We of the Roman Catholic Church do not recognize this organization as representing the Church.
Unfortunately, those young men who choose to join that organization are not considered as validly ordained priests. Certainly, their indignation is understandable. But, instead of being angry with us, they should be angry with their own leaders who do not seem to be concerned with the validity of their ordinations.
Lefebvre was ordained and later consecrated by a Freemason. For this fundamental reason, there is a serious doubt as to Lefebvre’s validity as a priest and bishop. Because his orders were doubtful, all those whom he ordained or consecrated can only receive what is doubtful.
We must follow the practice of the Church in such matters. The practice of the Church is to require that such ordinations or consecrations must be repeated in order to make certain that they are valid. Otherwise, all Sacraments administered by such doubtful clergymen, priests or bishops, can only be doubtful. For the sake of salvation and the honor of God, such ordinations cannot be considered certain when, in fact, they are not.
As for the foundation of this organization, it was founded as a hospice for students supposedly studying at the local university in Switzerland to become priests according to the `Spirit of Vatican II.’ That was the pretext used by Marcel Lefebvre to get the Bishop of Lausanne to give him permission for this `society’ which only had the legal title of a pious union. A `pious union’ is not the same as a Religious society or congregation. The authorization given by the Bishop of Lausanne was simply for an “international house for candidates for the priesthood who will study at the University.”
An “international house” is not a “seminary.” The Bishop of Lausanne could not have had such an intention because no one in Marcel Lefebvre’s position could start a seminary.
You, too, could make a sign and place it on your front lawn to read: “Nazareth Homestead” and then give yourself some religious-sounding name like “Servants of Jesus and Mary.” Then, you could print up envelopes with a return address saying “Servants of God” _ or something like that _ and send out letters to people asking for money to promote your devotion to Our Lady of Illinois. You can even get `tax exempt’ status for your new religious “Society”. You can do all that and you will fool a lot of foolish people. That’s why they speak of `fooling’ someone: It means to make a fool of a person. And, as Barnum said many years ago: “There’s a sucker born every minute!”
Our Lord Himself warned us against false teachers; St. Paul returns to that same warning over and over again. Wouldn’t you think that our Lord knew what He was talking about? And that St. Paul also knew what he was talking about? Let’s face it: How many false teachers can there be?
Any honest and perceptive person who has followed the evolution of Marcel Lefebvre’s sect can only gasp in disbelief at what one reads. The patent and constant contradictions defy the possibility of a kind construction of Lefebvre’s statements. It has been said: “This `Society’ was conceived in deception, was born and bred in deception, and it can only survive through deception. It cannot possibly be the work of the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost does not need deception to teach truth.
Joseph–If you see this message and would care to chat more about the situation in Lubbock, please feel free to e-mail me at pjwill1958@yahoo.com.
Bridget–I don’t have a great deal of time during the day, and my computer access is currently limited. I would be happy to carry on the discussion with you as well. If you like, you may certainly e-mail me at the above address.