Brick by brick at Seton Hall University

From a reader:

Mass will be offered in Latin in the Immaculate Conception Chapel at Seton Hall University on all Mondays of this semester at 7:00 PM.  The Latin Masses will alternate between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. 
 
Here is the schedule:
 
Feb. 8 – novus ordo
Feb. 15 – extraordinary form
Feb 22 – novus ordo
Mar. 1 – extraordinary form
Mar. 15 –  novus ordo
Mar. 22 – extraordinary form
Mar. 29 (Monday of Holy Week) –novus ordo
Apr. 12 – novus ordo    
Apr. 19 – extraordinary form
Apr. 26 – novus ordo
May 3 – extraordinary form (last week of classes)

Brick by brick at Seton Hall University
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Brick by brick at Seton Hall University

  1. Grabski says:

    Probably goes w/o saying, but SHU is the diocesan college under a fine bishop.

  2. benyanke says:

    I think I know the “reader” who sent this in…

  3. tonio5555 says:

    This is significant as it is the first set of regularly scheduled TLM’s at Seton Hall. SHU has offered 2 Masses before. In 2008 Fr. Grimm offered a TLM in a makeshift chapel (main chapel was under renovation), and in 2009 Fr. Grimm also offered Holy Mass in the main chapel. Hopefully this series develops into a weekly or even a daily TLM on the SHU campus.

  4. Rob Cartusciello says:

    A lot of good things are happening at the SHU campus, which also houses Immaculate Conception Seminary.

  5. Oneros says:

    Good developments.

    Though I’m just not sure of the logic behind all these places, including seminaries, that have started alternating the Old Rite with the Latin Novus Ordo every-other-week. I mean…what’s the point? Do they still not understand that, for most people at least, love of the traditional Rite is not about the Latin? They seem to be trying to draw an equivalence between Latin Novus Ordos and the Old Rite, as if they are “basically the same thing” and interchangeable…

    But most people I talk to, both trads and novus ordo, see the Latin Novus Ordo as the worst of both worlds; lacking in substance AND in a different language. It’s just not grounded enough in the traditional collection of texts native to that archaic tongue to justify it. Reading texts composed in 1970 in Latin-for-Latin’s-sake…seems sort of silly, very artificial, just an exercise in esotericism.

    Seriously, I’m not sure what the “alternating” serves except as a sort of “antidote” to the “bad” idea of Old Rite “purism”. I don’t see, for example, any argument that alternating like that somehow “weans” people into the Old or anything like that. If people can stand the Old one week…they’d probably be just as willing to come to it the next. I don’t really see the purpose of interposing the New like that at all these places except out of a strange desire to have every possible combination.

  6. Father Bartoloma says:

    Bravo to my college alma mater!

  7. Jahaza says:

    It’s not that bad over this period, but in the long run, this kind of thing causes signifigant calendar confusion… you pop in and out of Septuagesima, etc.

  8. AndyMo says:

    But most people I talk to, both trads and novus ordo, see the Latin Novus Ordo as the worst of both worlds; lacking in substance AND in a different language.

    I disagree. By that logic, the ideal would be a faithfully translated Extrordinary Form Mass in English, and I doubt many would want that.

    Oddly enough, I’d give that a try if it were legal and allowed…

  9. Mike says:

    AndyMo–I agree. Also: Latin is the language of the universal Church. It’s a step towards a more mature, universal Faith; also, as Fr. Z’s blog shows, the translations are usually weak, to say the least.

  10. mpm says:

    I think a lot of good things are coming to fruition in the Archdiocese of Newark these days. This is another one.

    I really couldn’t care less what the rationale behind alternating EF and OF in Latin at the University chapel is: no harm, no foul. But if the seminarians can attend (i.e., no scheduling conflicts), it will give them a chance to experience the Latin Rite properly celebrated (for future reference). Same for the laity, but they won’t be future pastors.

  11. Geoffrey says:

    This is the right way to do it!

  12. smallone says:

    I would personally rather have a Latin NO mass than ANY translation at this point. I think the vernacular provides too much opportunity to ad lib. Not that this is required of course but so many seem to give into the temptation.

  13. TJerome says:

    I think there is some logic to alternating between the two forms. First of all, the format of the OF in Latin is familiar to modern day Catholics, so from
    that standpoint it’s probably a more comfortable experience for the uninitiated. Two, if the OF is done well with the Roman Canon, it gets the point across
    that there is similarity and continuity, notwithstanding the differences, between the two forms of the same Rite. Good for Seton Hall. Tom

  14. Oneros says:

    “I disagree. By that logic, the ideal would be a faithfully translated Extrordinary Form Mass in English, and I doubt many would want that.”

    On the contrary, I think you’d see a HUGE surge in popularity of the Old Rite if something like the Anglican Missal (basically just a translation of the TLM in nice high church English) were allowed.

    “Trads” might gripe…but the Old Rite does not just exist to please THAT particular constituency anymore, especially not since Summorum Pontificum. It is supposed to be the property of the whole Latin Rite again, and so decisions about things like this regarding the older form should starting being made with the needs of your average Catholic in mind (though that still not how the Vatican acts). It cannot remain frozen in a special “preserve” just for esoteric aficionados, a point Cardinal Ratzinger made in “The Spirit of the Liturgy”.

    Most average Catholics I talk to are hesitant about the Old Rite ONLY because of the language-barrier. Show them the translations side by side (ala http://www.latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm) and most are pleasantly surprised. Most Catholics in the pews are STILL under the impression that the ONLY changes to the Mass were translating it and turning the priest around to face the people and allowing different “styles” of music. And the hierarchs who have a personal investment in keeping the Protestantizing changes to the meaning of the TEXT itself and the reduction in the rich and symbolic GESTURES…do nothing to dispel this impression.

    “Latin is the language of the universal Church. It’s a step towards a more mature, universal Faith”

    Latin is the language of Rome and the Roman Rite, and the bishop of Rome happens to be the visible head of the Church on earth so his documents come out in Latin. But Latin is not thus the “language of the universal Church.” There is no such thing.

    By your logic, the Eastern Rites should eventually be phased out in favor of one mass-produced, centralized, monolithic World Liturgy. But that is not the Catholic way, thank God…

    “I would personally rather have a Latin NO mass than ANY translation at this point. I think the vernacular provides too much opportunity to ad lib. Not that this is required of course but so many seem to give into the temptation.”

    See, these arguments contradict so much.

    First, if you argue that “priests don’t really know Latin”…you’ll be told, “Well, they should! Priests should become expert Latinists in seminary!”

    But then, arguing out of the other side of their mouth…they tell you that Latin is good at Mass exactly because it protects the Mass from priests, since they don’t know Latin and therefore can’t change it!!! But if they did know Latin (which you allegedly desire) then they could change or ad lib it too!!! So…what do you really want?!?!

  15. Henry Edwards says:

    Regular readers here know of my particular devotion to the EF Mass. Actually, I am devoted to well-celebrated Roman rite Masses in all forms, OF or EF, Latin or vernacular.

    In particular, I know from experience that the OF can be offered so beautifully and reverently in Latin that most Catholics would think it an EF high Mass. “Our problem, dear friends, is not with our Mass, but with our priests and people.”

    So I think that alternation OF and EF Latin Masses is a wonderful idea, partly for the reason Tom @ 3:30 pm has cited.

    Some years ago, well before Summorum Pontificum, I wrote up just such a proposal for presentation to a previous bishop. He approved only the TLM half of the proposal!

  16. Oneros says:

    “the translations are usually weak, to say the least.”

    So…you’re saying it’s better to have the people not understand them AT ALL than to get a dumbed-down version (which, nevertheless, contains the basic nugget of meaning)?

    The ICEL translations are patronizing and ugly, yes, and I look forward to the new ones (though they still aren’t great; why no thous and thees?) But I hardly believe they’re soooo harmful as to prefer total incomprehension by the average laity (who are, remember, rather…well, AVERAGE; they need to be spoon-fed) over using them.

    And most Novus Ordo resources for providing the English on paper at a Latin Novus Ordo…use the ICEL translations ANYWAY. So this merely defers the problem a step…

    Catholics are constantly letting Perfect be the Enemy of the Good…

    “Two, if the OF is done well with the Roman Canon, it gets the point across that there is similarity and continuity, notwithstanding the differences, between the two forms of the same Rite.”

    Cui bono? Whom does proving this serve? As someone who loves the Old Rite and hates the New…I really have no investment in proving that the New is the “same Rite”. Trying to spin the rupture as a non-rupture through after-the-fact back-editing…serves only the status quo. There was a change, it was a bad change, and they should reverse it. Saving Face is a waste of time.

    Imagine if Coca-Cola had been so stubborn about New Coke and allowed Coke Classic only “by indult” for 30 years, and then brought it back on a limited basis but tried to convince people that they were really just “two Forms of the same soda” and refused to just admit their mistake and revoke it. Frankly, I doubt the company would have lasted long enough to go through all those bureaucratic hoops, to play all those mentally-masturbatory games…

    “It’s not that bad over this period, but in the long run, this kind of thing causes signifigant calendar confusion… you pop in and out of Septuagesima, etc.”

    Another reason why this status quo compromise is still very unstable and undesirable.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Oneros: And most Novus Ordo resources for providing the English on paper at a Latin Novus Ordo…use the ICEL translations ANYWAY.

    Actually, most Latin Novus Ordo Masses I have attended provide for the people the Latin-English Ignatius Press missalette “The Mass of Vatican II”. Its English translation of the Order of Mass (Roman Canon only) is the very fine translation offered some years ago by the priests organization CREDO.

    Ironically, in the past I’ve thought a principal advantage to offering the Novus Ordo in Latin to be that the people in the pews need not be subjected to the ICEL 1973 paraphrase, but could use any faithful and accurate translation they wished.

  18. smallone says:

    Oneros, if more priests knew Latin really well, how many of them would become fluent enough to ad lib? Even assuming a high level of fluency, Latin is no one’s mother tongue and I think courses in “conversational Latin” are pretty rare.

    And, of course, it would probably fly right over the heads of most of the congregation. Including folks like myself, who can understand just enough to know something is going on but can’t think fast enough to figure it out. But that is another problem.

  19. TJerome says:

    Oneros, please calm down. Although I attend the EF frequently, and participated in it prior to the Council, I can see value in the OF if celebrated properly. My personal belief is that over a long period of time the EF and OF will likely meld into a form of Rite envisioned by the Council Fathers. Although I was not a proponent of the “reform” because in my parish the congregation sang the propers and the ordinary, a few of the more modest changes early on, did make sense. Tom

  20. Mitchell NY says:

    Is it me or is it strange, odd sounding to be proclaiming Latin to be the Mother tongue of the Church and yet there is no conversatioanl Latin course, Probaly half Priests do not speak it at all. People talk about it as if it is a given that your Priest will almost be expected to NOT know Latin. So many worry about implementing the Moto Proprio, SP, myself included, and yet we should probably all take a step back and think about implementing Veterum Sapientia, a binding Apostolic Constitution first. I am curious on what level is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in regards to the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia on Latin and its’ importance? Anyone who knows, please clue me in. I am no expert on this.
    As to Seton Hall I am happy just to hear Latin being used for Mass although I can see both sides of the arguement. The calender issue is strange and yet why use the Latin NO when you can use the Tridentine Mass. Eventually people will realize if not at first that the Tridentine’s text is much richer. Is that the point of it? To prepare people or let them see for themselves. As you delve into the two deeper and deeper it must become apparent. There must be a logic to someone’s decision and I wish we could simply hear it. It would avoid all the guesswork and give everyone a better understanding without speculation. Regardless it will eventually give way to what I hope to be the Pope’s “Marshall Plan”. Isn’t patience a virtue?

  21. Oneros says:

    “Oneros, if more priests knew Latin really well, how many of them would become fluent enough to ad lib? Even assuming a high level of fluency, Latin is no one’s mother tongue and I think courses in “conversational Latin” are pretty rare.”

    Of course. I just find it funny that you will hear from the proponents of Latin the argument that Latin is good for liturgy because it is a dead language…and yet I have also heard many express a desire to revive Latin as a spoken language, at least in seminary classes, sermons at international gatherings, etc. So which is it? Is it good because it’s dead? Or should we revive it? Make up your minds, that’s all I’m saying.

    “I can see value in the OF if celebrated properly.”

    I can see the absolute value, it is a valid Mass after all. But what value does it have relative to the Old? The best people usually have to offer is “an expanded lectionary”…which, as Jeffrey Tucker recently explained on New Liturgical Movement…isn’t as great a development as it seems. So…what, then? A butchered collection of Collects? Vapid “Prayers of the Faithful”? The Gradual replaced by a “Responsorial Psalm”? The Jewish Offertory? The lack of a Last Gospel and Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? A cutting of signs-of-the-cross and genuflections? Extra “Eucharistic Prayers”?? A calendar scrubbed clean?

    In reality, the OF finds defenders among even trad-sympathetic conservatives only because they are uncomfortable with the idea that the Vatican could produce something so valueless. So, they’ll tell you, just dress it up like the Old…and it will basically be fine. But why the radically altered texts and gestures?? What reason for that? The reasons Bugnini gives in his writings…are not good ones. So why defend Mass Lite? It’s valid. That is all that can be said for it. Any strengths it has, the Old has too.

    “My personal belief is that over a long period of time the EF and OF will likely meld into a form of Rite envisioned by the Council Fathers.”

    HERE I think is the huge fallacy in thought in the modern Church: this delusion that “the Council Fathers” (as if they were all of one mind) actually had something specific and concrete in mind that they “envisioned” when writing Sacrosanctum Concilium…but that, instead of just describing what that was in a straightforward manner, spoke in vague terms and then left it to a committee which “misinterpreted” what “the Council Fathers” had “really wanted”. And yet, those same Council Fathers, back in their dioceses…didn’t particularly object when that happened. But, someday, over-the-rainbow, we will arrive at the “true implementation” of what Vatican II “really meant” when we find the secret “true meaning” of its documents and discover all their “treasures”.

    Really, we need to get past this notion that Vatican II was some sort of divine mandate or that texts have some sort of absolute meaning like that. It didn’t teach heresy. That’s all that can be said for it. The bishops…were individual men, with wildly varying visions and opinions. Lefebvre thought it was just going to be the Old Rite with some of the Propers translated. Bugnini obviously had a different vision. Some of the bishops probably had a MORE liberal vision. They all agreed on a text vague enough to satisfy all their imaginations, that meant something different to each of them. It was like an exercise in deconstructionism. It made no dogmatic decrees, so it should simply be ignored, put in the list of ecumenical councils but (like, say, Vienne)…simply be allowed to fade into irrelevance.

  22. Grabski says:

    TJerome is right; it’s easier for the verities of the EF to flow to the OF through Latin then through the vernacular.

    Though I think that a vernacular permission for the EF would spell the end of the OF, but that’s just IMHO.

  23. TJerome says:

    Oneros, although you may not like Sacrosanctum Concilium, I think you’re treading on shaky ground when you attack it. However, to lend support to your view of the liturgical changes, I can tell you I had a priest friend, now deceased, who was a peritus at the Council. He spoke conversational Latin, taught Latin in the seminary, as well as Biblical Greek. He told me that his impression of what the Council Fathers intended by listening to the debates and conversing with many of them, was that the bulk of the Mass was to remain in Latin save for the changeable prayers if that is what the Bishops of a particular country decided. Latin was never to be abandoned for the Ordinary of the Mass itself. He was pretty shocked by what ensued. Although he would say the OF when it was promulgated, he said it entirely in Latin to the end of his life. I was privileged to be his server many Sundays. Bugnini took an inch and ran a mile. His Consilium should have been reined in, but unfortunately it was not. I think that process has begun with Benedict. The Church thinks in centuries not decades. If it takes a century or two to undo the damage, that’s what the Church will do. Quite frankly, I never thought I’d live to see the recovery of traditional Liturgy that I have, and for that I am grateful, having lived through the idiocy of the 60s. Tom

  24. Oneros says:

    “Oneros, although you may not like Sacrosanctum Concilium, I think you’re treading on shaky ground when you attack it.”

    How so? Just because it is a council document?? They’re not Scripture. THAT needs to be understood. Vatican II is treated with a reverence that previous councils were not. Vienne called for a Crusade that never happened…and, you know what? I’m glad it didn’t.

    I don’t particularly like the Syllabus of Errors either. We’re not required to like all the things that come out of these men, either individually in the person of the Pope or when they all meet in council. These documents are, I repeat, NOT SCRIPTURE.

    Infallibility is a negative protection only. A guarantee they WON’T contain heresy. NOT a guarantee that they WILL contain anything good or valuable.

    “Latin was never to be abandoned for the Ordinary of the Mass itself.”

    And? So what if that is what many or even most of the bishops “intended” at the time of the Council itself?

    Obviously, the Vatican (and many of these very bishops) LATER decided somewhat otherwise. Which is perfectly fine…on disciplinary things like this, they can change their minds. Their hands aren’t bound by the Council on disciplinary questions, as so many seem to believe.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium was not Inspired by the Holy Spirit like some sort of oracle.

    The important point is, then: if they could change their mind about this once, they could do it again.

    The important thing now is not “implementing what Vatican II ‘truly meant’ to do” which is not even a cognitively meaningful concept…but to implement what is best for the Church today. Who cares whether that is “what Vatican II wanted”…? There is no reason a future Pope needs to.

    “Bugnini took an inch and ran a mile. His Consilium should have been reined in, but unfortunately it was not.”

    And they let him. Which it was well within their power to do. On disciplinary matters like that, a Pope can overturn a council, and in some ways (if what people assert about the “true intentions” of the bishops at Vatican II are true)…Paul VI did just that when he approved what Bugnini produced and the bishops accepted that. Vatican II wasn’t “misinterpreted” or “implemented incorrectly”…its plans were simply MODIFIED (for the worse) by an authority (the Vatican) which DOES have the authority to do such a thing.

    But if Paul could do it, so could any Pope. People need to study up on their theology re: the authority of a Council vs the authority of the Pope. We CAN speak not just of a Pope “truly implementing” Vatican II…but of him possibly ignoring, altering, or overturning it in the future. As we can for anything except dogmatic decrees strictly so called. He could do that.

    You know that a Council cannot bind the Pope if he does not assent to it, the Council must be in UNION WITH the Pope. But, in the same vein, just because a Pope agrees to the disciplinary decrees of a Council at the time…this does not mean his (or a future pope’s) “hands are tied” in the future. He can revoke his approval or overturn such disciplinary decisions in the exact same way a Pope can change the disciplines implemented by a previous Pope.

    To speak of finding the “true interpretation” of Vatican II on Liturgy as if it is some sort of mandate is therefore silly. If the Pope wanted to totally restore the Old Rite because he felt it was best for the Church today…he could. And if liberals cried, “But you’re ignoring Vatican II”…he could say, “Yes, I am. It’s disciplinary decrees do not bind future Popes”. There is no need to cast it as a fulfillment of Vatican II. That’s part of the problem in the past decades: Vatican II has been given too much psychological authority that it doesnt have (ie, even over the Pope). Every decision is made with reference to Vatican II. But that’s needless. Let’s move on. Let’s stop living in the 1960’s and start making decisions without worrying about whether they are consonant with Vatican II or not. They don’t have to be.

    For example, here is no need to go through mental gymnastics of trying to “reconcile” something like Dignitatis Humanae with previous teachings on religious liberty just to “save the appearances”. It is intellectually dishonest. The Pope could say, “Religious liberty is a prudential matter, so neither is strictly speaking doctrine, but this is the current party-line the Vatican now uses in its diplomatic interaction.” Or he could say, “Religious liberty is a prudential matter, so neither is strictly speaking dogma, but Vatican II went too far, and we’re going to go back to the previous more conservative position.” Or (as I think he eventually may do if the talks with the SSPX go well) he may say, “This isnt a dogmatic matter, so Catholics are free to consider all the relevant sources and come to either conclusion. Vatican II is not somehow more definitive than a past Pope just because it came later in history”.

  25. This is a particularly interesting development. If you Google up Land O’Lakes Statement, you will see that Seton Hall was a co-signatory to that document which effectively removed all signatory schools from the authority of the Church by setting up lay boards to run them, etc. I understand that Abp. Myers has insisted that anyone teaching theology at SHU must sign the Mandatum of the Vatican in order to insure that orthodoxy is being taught there. When you see the Traditional Mass, the priest entering the Sanctuary with the acolyte, standing at the foot of the steps preparing themselves by prayer, especially the Confiteor, before THEY DARE ascend to the Altar, you know this Mass is about the “priests” in the pews (see Mediator Dei, Pius XII) represented by the Sacerdotal Priest at the Altar petitioning GOD. Awe is the best term to describe it.

  26. Henry Edwards says:

    Oneros: If the Pope wanted to totally restore the Old Rite because he felt it was best for the Church today…he could.

    He and almost everyone else realizes this would not be good (or even feasible) for the Church today. (Even though the Church would be better off now if 40 years ago the modest renewal of the TLM envisioned by the Council fathers had been carried, rather than being sidetracked by the introduction of the Novus Ordo.)

    I certainly realize it now, even though I have argued the contrary in the past, occasionally citing

    I Had a Dream: Gregory Leo Pius I
    http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_feb04.html

    as my secret hope. However, the Church juridically now has two forms of the Roman rite, and will have until the two have merged. So long as they are distinct, the vast majority of Catholics will worship in what is presently called the ordinary form. Get used to it.

    In the meantime, sniping at one form by devotees of the other is as tedious as it is non-productive. What’s most needed now is enrichment of the OF by the ars celebranda of the EF. And perhaps one can talk constructively of the “mutual enrichment” that Pope Benedict has mentioned.

  27. TJerome says:

    Oneros, I agree that Vatican II did not create a new Church and thus its decrees must be read and interpreted in the light of the whole Catholic tradition. I believe that’s what Pope Benedict is telling us, particularly with regard to the Sacred Liturgy. However, I don’t believe its decrees can be summarily dismissed because of the way many were unfortunately implemented at the time. I believe if Sacrosanctum Concilium had been implemented in the way my priest friend
    who was at the Council suggested, most of us would not have a problem with that result at all. It probably would have been better received by most
    Catholics. Tom

  28. seminarian87 says:

    Deo Gratias…..its about time! Hopefully Seton Hall will start getting up with the times. I have no idea why they wont change anything with the liturgy in the Major Seminary on campus….maybe the positive reaction by the students about the TLM will ruffle some feathers with the lib Priests….

  29. Oneros says:

    “And perhaps one can talk constructively of the ‘mutual enrichment’ that Pope Benedict has mentioned.”

    And I’m simply saying we need to be a little more bold in deconstructing the motives behind such Vaticanese. In sociologically and psychologically analyzing why there is this whole circuitous word-game going on over these issues, instead of the Pope just coming out and saying, “Okay, well, we experimented with something, but it didn’t work out as we had hoped. Instead of trying to fill all the holes in the Novus Ordo ship…we’re just going to approve nice hieratic vernacular translations of the Missal of 1950, since that’s the only thing that Catholics (at least your average Catholic without a liberal agenda) seem to really find particularly desirable in the New Mass anyway”.

    Instead, there is all this spin. This sugar-coating. This face saving.

    “I don’t believe its decrees can be summarily dismissed because of the way many were unfortunately implemented at the time”

    A Pope COULD summarily dismiss them, though. And we may, thus, hope a Pope does that some day. We’re allowed to hope for possible things. We’re allowed to advocate for them, even, as long as we don’t do anything disobedient in practice in the meantime.

    My problem is with needing to “interpret” everything as an “implementation of” Vatican II. Couldn’t the Pope make a liturgical decision today of his OWN authority, independent of any consideration or reference to the Vatican II vision? A vision that is almost 50 years old and so may no longer be the right thing for the Church TODAY (heck, it may not even have been then)…

    You may believe that if Sacrosanctum Concilium had been interpreted “conservatively” it wouldnt have been so bad. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly things like “the hour of Prime is to be abolished”…are offensive in and of themselves, not merely the result of interpretation.

    But, my point is, you don’t HAVE to defend Sacrosanctum Concilium, though you may. You can if you want, but you are under no obligation to try to “salvage” it or save face for the hierarchy about it.

    Someone can be a good Catholic and believe the whole thing was a totally worthless idea. Rejecting “the Spirit of” Vatican II is one thing…but there is nothing stopping you from disliking the concrete texts either, none of them were dogmatic decrees, and disciplinary decrees do not bind future Popes!

    “It wasnt the Vatican II texts, it was the nebulous ‘Spirit’ that was bad” or “It wasnt the Council objectively, it was the Implementation”…are thought-terminating cliches among conservative Catholics. But we are, in fact, allowed to believe that the texts themselves were problematic right from the start, that the bishops intents were misguided, that much of what the council produced was imprudent. We just can’t believe it taught heresy. That is our only limitation.

    Many conservatives defend the Vatican II texts “in themselves” (and as more than merely non-heretical)…and it’s frustrating because you can never tell whether they really believe what they say deep down, or whether they’re only saying it because they believe that “loyal Catholics” have some sort of religious obligation to spin the documents in a positive light. You don’t. You are free to believe they were imprudent, in themselves, not just in their “implementation”.

  30. Gulielmus says:

    Oneros said “But most people I talk to, both trads and novus ordo, see the Latin Novus Ordo as the worst of both worlds…”

    I wonder how those people would explain the situation in Washington, where the Latin OF at the cathedral draws a far greater crowd than the several weekly EF Masses in the area put together.

  31. Oneros says:

    There are so many variables I couldnt even begin to explain that.

    The fact that it’s the cathedral, the scheduling, the possibility that these aren’t necessarily people “going out of their way” to get the Latin OF, merely people for whom it is a convenient Sunday Mass in their area.

    If you’re talking about Washington DC, the only Sunday TLM I know of there is St Mary’s, and then there are a couple farther away in Maryland.

    I’d have to see evidence that these were people deliberately seeking out the Latin OF for the very reasons that it was A) Latin and B) the Novus Ordo. Currently, I just don’t buy it. I don’t think there are many people saying, “I really want Latin! I’ll go out of my way to get Latin! But I want it to be Novus Ordo too for some reason.”

    Almost always people saavy and dedicated enough about the issue to desire Latin specifically…are likewise saavy and dedicated enough to figure out the Old Rite. Because, frankly, the language barrier is the greater barrier. There is just no comparison of difficulty level. If you can get over having the liturgy be in a different tongue…you can get over the fact that some of the prayers are different.

    I simply cant believe that people are allegedly smart enough to deal with the language difference…but then too stupid to figure out some changes to the prayers and gestures (especially when the basic outline is the same). If they can deal with the Latin, I doubt the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or Last Gospel are going to throw them off so much…

    No, there are other agendas here. And I intend to figure out what they are.

  32. The Cobbler says:

    Hey, Oneros,

    Just wanted to say, I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks it’s funny people agree over their difference in Latin being good because it’s dead and good because it’s still alive.

    I don’t have the education to have an opinion on this topic, myself. I just know contradictions when I see ‘em and prefer my liturgy as rich as reasonably possible.

  33. Supertradmom says:

    In the deanery where I live, there are no Latin Masses, either NO or TLM, and will not be under the present hierarchy. Those of you who have access to either or both, be thankful. God bless the Seton Hall people!

  34. TJerome says:

    Supertradmom, sorry to hear you have no Catholic priests in your deanery. Someday you will, I’m sure. Tom

  35. Oneros says:

    I don’t like contradictions either The Cobbler. So I’ll say it again, and would like an explanation:

    How can any of you apparently believe that people are allegedly smart enough to deal with the language difference…but then too stupid to figure out some changes to the prayers and gestures (especially when the basic outline is the same)?

    If they can deal with the Latin, I doubt the differences of the Old Rite are going to throw them off so much (especially on a weekday where there would never be any question of a third reading or bidding prayers that they might be expecting from a Sunday Novus Ordo).

    Proper differences like a different feast, the different Collects, the different Lectionary wouldnt because these things change every time at both OF and EF anyway. What the priest is doing up there with his hands likewise shouldn’t phase them.

    The only structural things are the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, and the Offertory and Communion prayers of the Priest…but these last two are often not heard even at the OF, they just know the priest is saying something to himself while the offertory and Agnus Dei are sung.

    The biggest difference that is likely to make it harder for a newcomer to follow along is the LONG stretch of silence during the Mass of the Faithful. Of course…that isn’t a feature intrinsically tied to the Novus Ordo: they could easily make the Offertory and Communion prayers optionally audible at the EF (though I imagine the Canon would remain quiet).

    But, come on, if you can get over having the liturgy be in a different tongue…you can get over the fact that some of the prayers are different or are silent. The language barrier is by far the biggest mental difficulty. The other differences are easy compared to that.

    So, be honest with me, do any of you seriously believe that people for some reason are capable of following along with Mass in a foreign tongue…but then incapable of adapting to some different prayers??

    I’d like to hear the reasoning behind this, because it would be only justification for offering a Latin Novus Ordo INSTEAD of a TLM.

    Of course, cases where the Latin Novus Ordo is the only thing possible for whatever reason, where it is not being done AT THE EXPENSE OF a possible TLM…are different. But I think such cases are rare these days because, once again, in my personal experience with priests…it is almost always unfamiliarity with the LATIN and fear of sounding foolish reading it…which makes them hesitate to learn the TLM. So, I worry the Latin Novus Ordo could be an excuse for some lazy pastors not to just make the leap and learn the Old Rite; if they’re comfortable with the Latin, that’s 95% of the hurdles right there.

    So I’ll say it again: the Latin Novus Ordo is the worst of both worlds. It’s existence mainly serves some very narrow “political” agendas in the Church as a sort of “compromise nobody really likes”.

    On the other hand, allowing the Old Rite to be said in a nice vernacular translation (ala the Anglican Missal)…and possibly making the Offertory and Priest’s Communion Prayers optionally audible…would lead to a HUGE expansion in the use of the Old Rite, because for both your average priest and your average lay person…the language barrier is THE reason they are hesitant about the Old Rite. If they have gotten over that barrier, it’s 95% of the battle.

    So, at that point, what point does the Latin Novus Ordo serve? Are you telling me that people who have gotten over that 95% are unwilling to go that last 5% of the way? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it.

  36. TJerome says:

    Oneros, Latin is the normative language of the Latin Rite. Gregorian Chant is based on the normative language of the Latin Rite. Priests of the Latin Rite are required under canon law to learn Latin. Hence, if Church law is followed there should not be a problem. If I could chant 5 ordinaries in Latin by the time I was 10, I think 100% of the seminarians and priests could deal with Latin. Tom