Card. Heenan from across the decades

Let’s bump this up:

A friend told me about this quote. So, I looked it up!

Cardinal Heenan addressed the Synod the day after the experimental Mass had been presented and said he did not know the names of those who had proposed the new Mass but it was clear to him that few of them had ever been parish priests.

"At home," he said, "it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children."

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

97 Responses to Card. Heenan from across the decades

  1. Dr. Eric says:

    At the local OF Mass in my little town there are more little old ladies than married couples or young men and at St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis there are more young men with families than older ladies. Whether this means that it’s more difficult for older ladies to drive into downtown St. Louis to attend the EF or the that young men prefer the usus antiquior, I’m not sure.

  2. pforrester says:

    Was the Cardinal’s comment made right after VaticanII?

  3. Dr. Eric says:

    This 34 year old man prefers the EF. The prayers are direct quotations from the Holy Scriptures, not paraphrases. The gestures have deep symbolism. And there is a deep reverence for Who it is that is sacrificed on the Altar (not what looks like a picnic table.)

    There isn’t a blur between the cleric and the layperson. In fact, it seems that the altar rail enforces the difference, like the iconostasis does in the Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, and the altar curtain does in the Churches that use the Coptic Rite.

    Also, the EF is so much closer to the other ancient rites than the OF which seems to be closer to what my grandmother does at her Lutheran church. I have drawn more than a few parallels between the EF and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the East Syrian Rite used by the Chaldeans, and the Holy Qurbono used in the Maronite Liturgy.

    I could keep going, but I’ll stop there.

  4. For the Internet, it’s good enough as is, I suppose, but is there a formal citation for this as well?

    Right on re: the dearth of men. I’m reminded of Leon Podles’ book on the subject.

  5. Jack Hughes says:

    S Irenaeus

    I believe the referece is from the late Michael Davies “Liturgical Shipwreck) although he may have got it from somewhere else.

    For my 2 cents I say that the late Card. Heenen was dead on!!!

  6. Rellis says:

    The evidence is obvious that mean have been driven away from the Ordinary Form, but I was under the opinion that this was largely because of the details external to the Novus Ordo Hannan would have seen (bad music, bad architecture, lay people taking over).

    What Hannan must have seen was a Latin, ad orientem, reverent Novus Ordo.

    Why would he have thought THAT would drive away young men? Would it have?

  7. momravet says:

    So…the women and children go to Mass because they know Our Lord is there despite the ceremonial trappings, not because of them.

  8. ncstevem says:

    It’s always been my impression that there is a sort of girly man quality to those males who like the hand holding during the Pater Noster and the hand shaking at the sign of peace.

    Kind of like the parents who thought it was a good idea when my nephew’s soccer league introduced a rule that if one team went ahead by 5 goals, their team would actually LOSE the game !! The idea behind this rule was that we don’t want the fragile egos of these kids hurt by having their team blown out of the game. My brother told me there were actually fathers who thought that it was a good rule. I told my brother he needed to get my nephew into a more competitive league which he did. Does it surprise anyone that my brother lives in CA.

  9. Archromanist says:

    The date was October 26th, 1967 (according to Bugnini in footnote 15 on p. 350 of his apologia pro clade liturgica). The Synod of Bishops was meeting. The Missa Normativa (the prototype of the Novus Ordo) had been celebrated in the Sistine Chapel two days before. It was celebrated in Italian, not Latin, and by Bugnini. It was sung. Cardinal Heenan is making the intervention from which the above quotation comes.

    Here’s what Cardinal Heenan says directly after the quotation above: “…women and children. Our people love the Mass but it is Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments to which they are chiefly attached. I humbly suggest that the Consilium look at its members and advisers to make sure that the number of those who live in seminaries and religious communities does not exceed the numbers of those with pastoral experience among the people of ordinary parishes.” A Bitter Trial, St. Austin Press 1996, p. 69. Earlier Cardinal Heenan writes, “I cannot think that anyone with pastoral experience would have regarded the sung Mass as being of first importance.” Id., p. 68.

    Now, Heenan does make a number of other points later in his intervention, all of which are sound. But his remark about emptying the churches of men seems clearly tied to the presence of music in the Missa Normativa. I think we can all agree that music is GOOD, that Solemn Mass rather than Low Mass IS the true liturgical standard (even for parishes), and that Heenan’s point here represents much of the worst of preconciliar liturgical minimalism/decadence/stuntedness/sclerosis, etc.

    Here’s how Bugnini replies, BTW, in a footnote: “On October 26, Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, took the podium and accused the commission of technicism, intellectualism, and a lack of pastoral sense. Cardinal Lercaro immediately replied that forty-seven Fathers, almost all of them pastors of dioceses, and eighteen parish priests belonged to the Consilium.” A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, Liturgical Press 1990, p. 350 f.15. You’ll note that Bugnini says Cardinal Heenan intervened on October 26th, though the Cardinal refers to “yesterday” in the quotation, and the Missa Normativa, according to Bugnini, had been celebrated on October 24th. I have no explanation for this discrepancy, unless Bugnini’s records were faulty or the Cardinal meant to make his intervention on the 25th but could only do so on the 26th and the extant text of his intervention reflects that, etc.

  10. GirlCanChant says:

    I am in my 20′s and attend an EF Mass on Sundays, but during the week I am at an OF Mass at a local Newman Center. To me, what is most important is that I am able to assist at Mass. (N.B. – When I say assist, I mean in the traditional sense, not that I am a server. I don’t want to start the whole “female altar server” debate again.) I certainly prefer the EF, but if you love the Lord in the Eucharist, you learn to ignore everything else. Part of me likes having the EF only on Sundays, since it emphasizes the importance of the Sabbath, but this is probably a coping mechanism since there aren’t any churches that provide an EF during the week.

  11. CDNowak says:

    “What Hannan must have seen was a Latin, ad orientem, reverent Novus Ordo.

    Why would he have thought THAT would drive away young men? Would it have?”

    That is the question of the hour. I can only speculate as to an answer, perhaps someone knows more how the experimental Mass was celebrated? If it was versus populum, with one of the new Eucharistic Prayers, perhaps the *kiss* of peace, perhaps I could see the objection.

  12. Jason Keener says:

    Over the years, I’ve spoken to at least five men who are now older who stopped attending Mass after all of the liturgical changes in the wake of the Council. I certainly don’t think that was a good idea, but I can see where these men are coming from. These men had grown up understanding that the Extraordinary Form was the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven and the Church’s greatest treasure. What must these men have thought about the overall credibility of the Church’s message when She so quickly dispensed with Her greatest treasure for the kind of foolish and unserious liturgy so prevalent after the Council?

  13. Jon says:

    Cardinal Heenan made the statement after seeing the Novus Ordo offered ad experimentum at the Bishop’s Synod in October, 1967. There were no altar girls, no EMHCs, no Communion standing, or in the hand, it was ad orientem, and entirely in Latin. The place of celebration was…the Sistine Chapel.

    And Cardinal Heenan wasn’t the only one to see something a miss that day. Paul VI himself, on seeing the NO for the first time, remarked, “There’s no mystery. Where’s the mystery?”

    This is why, last month a very famous priest, a man whose name virtually all of you would recognize, said to me, “The future of the Church is with the Traditional Mass. The Novus Ordo is a stump. A green shoot may spring up now and then, but the tree will never grow.”

    Except for the fact that more reverent celebration (which includes the new translation) of the Novus Ordo ameliorates the abuse and profanation of so many NO Masses, I can’t help but feel that the reform of the reform as popularly conceived is a waste of time. That is a waste of time in the sense that the clock is ticking; ticking for the Church, and ticking for souls. Any effort to make the Novus Ordo universally palatable is bound to fail. The solution, in my estimation, is either to allow the Traditional Mass to a degree in the vernacular, or to implement a variant in strict adherence to Sacrosanctum Concilium, such as the Ordinary of 1965.

    Even in the most ideal setting and celebration, the Novus Ordo, by virtue of its origin, rubrics, and textual composition, is a broken dream, and a hopeless cause.

  14. Archromanist says:

    “entirely in Latin.”

    Not so. It was in Italian. See my comment above. Bugnini twice mentions this explicitly: “The secretary of the Consilium celebrated in Italian….” “The Italian language…[was] a further obstacle to participation.” A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, Liturgical Press 1990, pp. 348, 350.

  15. Andrew says:

    Jon:
    “… I can’t help but feel that the reform of the reform as popularly conceived is a waste of time.”

    I agree with you. In my mind, in my experience, the NO is not the product of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

  16. Henry Edwards says:

    I think we can all agree that music is GOOD, that Solemn Mass rather than Low Mass IS the true liturgical standard (even for parishes)

    Leaving aside the question of when was the last time we heard any GOOD music at an OF Mass, it may well be that most of us can agree that a sung Mass is the “liturgical standard”. However, the bulk of young men and working fathers that concerned Cardinal Heenan then apparently still aren’t sophisticated enough to know this, judging by their paucity at the typical normative Sunday liturgy.

    In recent years I’ve attended sung EF Mass regularly on Sundays, and have tended to take for granted the common liturgical wisdom about music and solemnity (the more chant and incense, the better). However, in recent months a quiet early morning EF low Mass has again been available to me daily for the first time in many decades, and I am reminded afresh that this — this “minimalist Mass” so maligned by modern liturgical sophisticates — was so long the bedrock of daily practice and spirituality of a sort that hardly exists anymore among those “young men and working fathers”.

    And now, kneeling in the quiet of dawn broken only by the dialogue of priest and altar boy – hearing the Mass as Pius X said it should be heard, following with eye and heart the action at the Altar, praying silently with the priest his words and uniting my will with them, in a way that the most glorious solemn high Mass may not always inspire – I’m beginning to think I can at least guess what Cardinal Heenan may have meant.

  17. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Archromanist:

    That quote of Cardinal Heenan, without your very helpful context being supplied, would lead one to think that he was criticizing the Novus Ordo, which did not even exist for two more years.

    After your qualifications that Heenan was watching the interim Mass in Italian with musical accompaniment, his comment makes sense. Most men prefer what is simple to what is more complicated, and what is quicker to what is longer.

    This would explain why the vast majority of the Catholic clergy abhor the idea of returning to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. While they might admire the reverence and beauty of the traditional rubrics, the priests I know speak of what a pain it would be to return to an entirely Latin rite, with “complicated” rubrics and multiple gestures.

    If the Low Mass in the EF was simple and attractive for the working man in the time of Cardinal Heenan, you can imagine the attraction of the Low Mass version of the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo were said ad orientem, with some Latin and no music, it would be a quicker and simpler rite than even the EF Low Mass. Even on Sunday, you would be in and out in 45 minutes. Before you know it, you’d be back home, on the couch, waiting for the next game to start on TV.

    Thus, Jon, I would not be so quick to pronounce it “a broken dream, and a hopeless cause.” As has been stated before, the vast majority of Catholic men, when given the option of a local traditional Latin Mass and a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo, are flocking to the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Latin Mass. That might not be a happy statistic to rejoice at, but it is most definitely the reality.

    And when it comes to the Catholic clergy, I do not find them agreeing with your very famous priest at all. I have offered to teach the EF Mass to more priests than you can imagine, only to be told what a “great idea” that it, “sure, give me a call” and “gee, things are really busy, but once I have time, I can’t wait to get started.” As much as they might criticize how the Novus Ordo is celebrated in parishes, they have absolutely no intention of giving it up.

    The best that can be hoped for is that the ancient Mass will grow and be accorded the respect it deserves in the Church. But that it will supplant the Novus Ordo is a pipe dream and a fantasy.

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    Fr. Sotelo: As has been stated before, the vast majority of Catholic men, when given the option of a local traditional Latin Mass and a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo, are flocking to the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Latin Mass.

    Perhaps the “are flocking” in this sentence should be replaced with “would flock”?

    Especially if (as tends to be the case) the “local traditional Latin Mass” is a Missa Cantata of the more solemn form scheduled on Sunday afternoon and lasting long enough to knock out the whole ball game on TV.

    But I wonder how many men nowadays actually have that attractive option of “a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo” on Sunday morning. Which I agree would be the Mass of first choice for most. (In areas I’m familiar with, most Sunday morning NO Masses are full of songs and other noise, with the possible exception of a quieter early morning Mass which, for whatever reason, is usually more sparsely attended.)

    However, I understand the main line of your argument, perhaps because I do have regular occasion to attend an OF Mass of both the utmost reverence and the utmost simplicity, and it exhibits a spiritual dimension of the Novus Ordo that I suspect is entirely unfamiliar to most typical “Sunday Catholics”.

  19. robtbrown says:

    Fr Sotelo,

    1. IMHO, there are two reasons most clergy don’t want to return to the EF: First, it demands more of them than the NO. Not only doesn’t it take much training to say the NO, parish priests are used to mass being an experience of the community rather than the more solitary experience that comes with the EF.

    I’ve mentioned before here the comment of a Dominican prof I knew in Rome. He said that Roman study is very important for a priest because he learns to say mass alone. This priest, once promoter of studies for the OP’s and a very well known German moralist, is now 86 years old.

    Second, they have already been trained and established themselves in the NO–they don’t want to make the effort and take the time to change.

    2. I disagree about the EF public low mass. IME, it was not at all attractive because basically, unless it was a dialogue mass, it was a private mass. This was the weakness that opened the door to the massive liturgical changes.

  20. Mashenka says:

    One Saturday afternoon about seven years ago, a friend took me with her to our local Italian Catholic church, where they sang a hymn originally in Spanish, called Pescador de Hombres (Fishers of Men). It was beautiful in Italian, accompanied by guitars, mandolins, violins, a bass viol and I think a judiciously struck glockenspiel (just for a little “ting” at the end of some of the lines, to suit the rhythm of the barcarolle). Yes, it was sentimental, emotional, and all the rest, but if it hadn’t been for that hymn, the whole liturgy would have been utterly blah.

    Your mileage may vary.

  21. Central Valley says:

    Heenan’s words were prophetic. It is very difficult for people to follow the EF when they have been denied it for forty years. We now have two generations of OF catholics who are acustomed to going to Mass on Sunday to be entertained by celeberty priests. As a forty-somthing year old husband and father who attends the EF on a regular basis, I can tell you the conversation after Mass among men in the congregation is about the Mass, the homily and the readings. When you attend the OF Mass, the conversation after Mass is about sports etc. Fr. Sotelo, a blessing to his diocese and the faithful, makes some very valid points regarding what I would refer to as spiritual and intellectual laziness among the clergy, didn’t they used to call that sloth?

  22. Supertradmum says:

    To answer a question above: the reason why men leave the NO is that it is “personal” and “subjective”, rather than “objective” and “transcendent”. Some women have the born capacity, or trained capacity to see things objectively, a gift which most men have by nature. Subjectivity has become the order of the day for Masses, meetings, classroom behavior, etc. to the point where very few people are trained to step back and look at something without a personal reference-a necessary religious gift and one seen in the saints.

    Without objectivity, one cannot be humble and see one’s position as a sinner and child of God. We now have two generations of youth who have never been asked to look at anything except with regard to themselves and their needs.

    Ergo, loss of men in the most objective and sublime of activities a person can enter-the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  23. Mark Pilon says:

    “Even on Sunday, you would be in and out in 45 minutes. Before you know it, you’d be back home, on the couch, waiting for the next game to start on TV.

    As has been stated before, the vast majority of Catholic men, when given the option of a local traditional Latin Mass and a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo, are flocking to the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Latin Mass. That might not be a happy statistic to rejoice at, but it is most definitely the reality.”

    I really can’t comment on behalf of the vast majority of Catholic men but I’ve been to both types of mass and the TLM wins hands down… for me preference for the TLM has nothing to do with simplicity, but everything to do with the TLM having a much better atmosphere conducive to worship and reverence. I would argue that perhaps some of those Catholic men eager to spend a minimal amount of time in a church so as to watch the “next game” need to work a little more on their spiritual and prayer life…and maybe need to spend more time with their families too – instead of sitting in front of the Digital HD wide screen TV. Also most people flock to the Novus Ordo because they have to – there is no other choice.

  24. Supertradmum says:

    robtbrown,

    Another reason why some priests will not say the EF is that they hate it. In my deanery, there is not one Latin Mass because the members of the religious order are not allowed to offer it or say it in the churches were they serve. This effects at least ten parishes. I wish this was a fiction, but it is sadly true. Outside this deanery, there is an EF and one of the members of the religious order used to say it, but he is now gone. I have always wondered why the animosity, but it is a mystery to me, shrouded in disobedience and evil.

    Cardinal Heenan is only one of a series of great British leaders of the Church in the 19th to the mid-20th centuries.

  25. Supertradmum says:

    PS, as to games on television, most men I know who go to the EF do not watch television or even have one in the house. Perhaps, there is a difference in NO and EF spirituality which spreads into the home as well. Needless to say, most of those men head home schooling families. We have not had a television since 1996 and if there is an important game, such as the World Cup, the computer is available. At our house, sports is not god…

  26. Jack Hughes says:

    Dear Fr. Soleto

    I believe you are not taking into account the problems that many people have in getting to the EF, especially when it is offered in so few places.
    Speaking as someone who attends both Forms of the Roman Rite I prefer the EF; I attend the OF most of the time becasue unless I were to attend the local SSPX Chapel (half an hours walk) it is extremely difficult and costly to get to the EF and involves a round trip of 172 miles (four hours) costing the equivalent of $40 – something that I as a student cannot afford on a regular basis.

  27. Supertradmum says:

    Jack Hughes and Father Soleto,
    Our family cannot afford to go to the EF either, as all our wage earners are currently unemployed. But, what a wonderful comfort it would be in these hard times to go to one EF Mass a week.

  28. Mitchell NY says:

    Cardinal Heenan’s remarks were indeed on the mark. Reading through the posts I can’t help but feel disgusted every time I read or hear that Mass is still prohibited in Latin, whether it OF or EF. That is just outrageous. No Latin for Latin Rite Catholics. For every Priest or Bishop who prohibits this it just smacks of hypocrisy. Perhaps Cardinal Heenan saw the eventual prohibition of Latin as well, being the Missa Normativa was said in Italian. I am curious though, was it 100 % vernacular or was the Consecration in Latin during that 1967 “debut”?

  29. Athelstan says:

    Hello Dr. Eric,

    Also, the EF is so much closer to the other ancient rites than the OF which seems to be closer to what my grandmother does at her Lutheran church.

    That was by design, methinks – the Rhine not only flowed but gushed into the Tiber.

    And yet, on the other hand, this seems not quite fair to Missouri Synod Lutherans, the services of which I have had occasion to witness a few times. At least in their rubrics and language, they were more “Catholic” (though not valid, obviously) than most ordinary form masses I have attended. They still commonly use altar rails, for example.

    Based on the attendance composition I have seen at typical OF masses – especially in Europe – it is hard to deny the validity of Cardinal Heenan’s observation, if indeed he did say it.

    Hello supertradmum,

    Another reason why some priests will not say the EF is that they hate it.

    If they are of a certain age, they are likely “one change” men – they had one change in them, and that was it. They’re invested in the newer form of the liturgy, as practiced. To embrace tradition, even just elements thereof in one or two OF masses each week (let alone the TLM), would be to disavow everything they have built their priestly careers on, as they see it.

    Of course, in France, there are also political aspects to the question. But that does not come into play elsewhere.

  30. Supertradmum says:

    Athelstan and Dr. Eric,

    A dear priest friend of mine who is 78 told me that when he joined the seminary, his confreres and indeed, to a certain extent, himself, had odd ideas about ecumenism. These men wanted to “protestantize” the Church and make it more available to the Protestants. This is one reason why they embraced the NO. Also, some of these priests in that age group truly believed in the end of a hierarchical Church and a strong replacement of the “collegiality” model. This idea, by the way, is still be held by some clerics as the true model of the RCC, and, as teachers in some seminaries, pass these prejudices on to the next generation of priests. So, indeed, as the book states, the Rhine flowed into the Tiber.

  31. AJP says:

    Very astute observations from Cardinal Heenan. When you look at the typical big suburban parish OF Mass, with the drippy Gather hymns, armies of women surrounding the often effemimate priest, homilies that make no demands and no clear teachings, and the overall atmosphere of suffocating touchy-feeliness, it’s a wonder that *any* straight men attend church. And looking around such parishes, it’s clear that a lot of men, a lot of fathers, are not coming to Mass.

    On the other hand, sadly the EF is not a panacea for this. Based on what my older family members have recalled, before Vatican II it was not uncommon for men, especially fathers, to not attend Mass. Church was seen as a woman’s thing. This attitude was not uncommon among “ethnic Catholics” (Eastern Europeans in our case). The dynamic of men not attending Mass weekly and not being as devout as women on a whole is quite old and quite complex. It’s not as simple as promoting the Latin Mass – although I would argue that the litugical upheaval after V2 were like throwing gasoline on the fire, as far as men’s church attendance goes.

  32. AJP says:

    Ditto to Athelstan . . . I have Missouri Synod in-laws, and their church’s sanctuary and services look and sound more Catholic than a lot of RC parishes I’ve seen! Sadly they are also facing some of the same problems with the trends toward causualness and irreverence that we see in the Catholic Church – e.g., a move to replace the hymns of Bach with contemporary “praise and worship” evangelical rock music :(

  33. Jack Hughes says:

    Fr. Seleto

    Another point is that unless you attend a personal parish of the FSSP or ICKSP ones ability to attend the EF is dependent upon the annual game of musical chairs that Diocesan Bishops play; a friend of mine is loosing his Priest who offers the EF once a week, the new priest is according to rumors very much an OF man who won’t take the wishes of the ‘stable group of faithful’ into account. Life is further complicated when your Bishop has stated for the Record that he doesn’t like the EF.

    @ supertradmom – I feel your pain, I’m currently rationing myself to once a month and Holy days of Obligation (the PROPER Days and not the transfered feast), If I’m still in the UK come Christmas however I just might be able to get to it for the entire octave as the FSSP priests are converting a house the fraternity brought so that they can have guests for short periods. If however I’m in the Philipines (a posibility) I may have to sneak off to the local SSPX Mass Centre (if its feasable).

  34. Penguins Fan says:

    I recently returned from Saturday Vigil Mass at our parish. There was much conversation going on in the church before Mass – and during Mass as well. To my left, there were two old men conducting a conversation during Communion. Everyone heard them and they did not care.

    Our parish priest is a very nice, kind, gentle man who is retired from the Navy. He also interjects his own words throughout the Liturgy and roams off of the altar during the homily.

    I prefer the Extraordinary Form. My wife does not – at least not yet. Our 2 1/2 year old won’t sit still for anything except a cartoon movie or a ride in the car.

    I offer it up – for now. Soon there will be a change and we, as a family, will go to St. Boniface on the North Side of Pittsburgh for Mass as it should be celebrated – whether or not the Diocese of Pittsburgh wants to spread the EF.

  35. Mike says:

    Interesting comments, all.

    I do think the issue of men not going to Mass complex, and likely more in it than just NO or TLM.

    I am, however, taking my two sons to a TLM in Va tomorrow; I find the whole thing bracing, transcendent, affirmative of my lay status, honoring the priesthood, touching in its reverent beauty, in short the kind of amazing that that should appeal to all, man or woman…now, the way the NO is said in our regular parish, well, that’s totally girly man.

    Sorry, but that’s the sad truth of it.

  36. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Henry:
    You have put into better words what I was trying to get across. It is better to say “would flock” instead of “are flocking” because not everyone has the advantage of a reverent Novus Ordo nearby. But where they do, they do not cross over to the EF Mass. Other things being equal, I suspect that the average working man with a family wishes to attend Mass in the vernacular, which means the Novus Ordo will always have that edge over the EF Mass.

    Supertradmum: I believe that Dr. Brown hit the nail on the head. As a priest who brings this subject up with priests as I do, I do not see “hatred” of the EF Mass, evil, conspiracies, or effeminacy as reasons for resistance to the EF Mass. Most clergy do not want to invest the effort it would take to learn the EF, and as Dr. Brown stated, they have become dependent on the communitarian notion of the Mass and feel lost without that “feedback” of the congregation. The priest who offers the EF Mass must accept, up at the altar, being “alone with the Alone.”

    Jack Hughes: I would see nothing wrong with a person attending the SSPX Mass if the other Masses locally do not help your Eucharistic and liturgical piety to grow. Love for the Church should not force a devout Catholic to wander in the liturgical desert with no manna from heaven. Yes, I am adamant about being in communion with the local bishop, but if the Bishop has not provided for you spiritually, you can still have communion with him in your heart while walking with your feet to the closest EF Mass which truly nourishes your soul.

  37. robtbrown says:

    Another reason why some priests will not say the EF is that they hate it.

    See above: My comments on #1, esp. the solitary experience.

    In my deanery, there is not one Latin Mass because the members of the religious order are not allowed to offer it or say it in the churches were they serve.
    Comment by Supertradmum

    They now have the right to say it. Unfortunately, some let themselves be intimidated (illegally) by superiors.

  38. gwscott says:

    Re Cardinal Heenan: an extract dated Easter 1965, almost the last, from Evelyn Waugh’s diary: “A year in which the process of transforming the liturgy has followed a planned course. Protests avail nothing. A minority of cranks, for and against the innovations, mind enormously. I don’t think the main congregation cares a hoot. More than the aesthetic changes which rob the Church of poetry, mystery and dignity, there are suggested changes in Faith and morals which alarm me. A kind of anti-clericalism is abroad which seeks to reduct the priest’s unique sacramental position… Pray God I will never apostatize, but I can only now go to church as an act of duty and obedience — just as a sentry at Buck House is posted with no possibility of his being employed to defend the sovereign’s life. Cardinal Heenan has been double-faced in the matter. I had dinner with him a deux in which he expressed complete sympathy with the conservatives and, as I understood him,promised resistance to the innovations which he is now pressing forward. How does he suppose the cause of participation is furthered by the prohibition of kneeling at the incarnatus in the creed. The Catholic press has made no opposition. I shall not live to see things righted.” That Easter entry was the last in the diary. Waugh died on Easter Sunday the following year.

  39. Dr. Eric says:

    Athelstan,

    My grandma is ELCA not Missouri Synod so her church is a little more low church. But, I used to live in a little town which was near the village where the oldest Missouri Synod Seminary west of the Mississippi stood. The buildings are still there in the tiny little village of 300 people. So, I am acquainted with the Missouri Synod and the church in my former town was more Catholic looking than our Archdiocesan church, it even had a statue of The Sacred Heart in it!

  40. Sixupman says:

    There is a story regarding the late Cardinal Gray, Edinburgh, that his dog accompanied him to Mass every day, sitting at th side of altar. Come, the NOM the dog ceased attendance at Mass.

  41. Sixupman says:

    robtbrown:

    Why do those priests (?) hate the Old Mass?

    Do they actually believe in that which they are (supposed to be)confection in the NOM? Possibly not, which will explain much.

  42. epsilonofGod says:

    Hello Fr Z – My first time daring to comment here! I love your podcazt 101 of 17th May 2010 – brilliant!

    As you mention Cardinal Heenan on this post, I though I might ask you to take note of what is happening at Cardinal Heenan High in Liverpool this week – obviously with the compliance of its Catholic headteacher and has/is about to happen in a couple of other Catholic secondary schools in England recently. I discovered this chain of events by accident really, but now feel compelled to speak out – please check out my blogpostings of the last couple of days on this topic and advise. starting with The sort of evangelisation Catholic Voices and other lay Catholics might be more usefully engaged in

    May God Bless your work

  43. asperges says:

    I am not sure we are interpreting Card Heenan’s words correctly in the context of someone who for years had been a Parish priest in the North West. In any case like–for-like cannot now apply (old v new rites) in the same context because most Catholics have been deprived of the old Mass for so long. The attachment of a typical Catholic in the 60s was light-years away from how things are now.

    What is worth noting, is that it was Cardinal Heenan’s own personal approach to Paul VI which allowed England and Wales alone (note) the “English Indult,” much resented abroad, from the earliest days (1970s) allowing the old Mass with episcopal permission. That lasted here until “Ecclesia Dei” under JP II applied something similar to the whole Church. So here, the Mass never stopped in the old rite, although it was often painfully difficult to get permission for it in some dioceses. Without that indult, the fate of the old rite could have taken a very different path.

  44. Henry Edwards says:

    Jon: This is why, last month a very famous priest, a man whose name virtually all of you would recognize, said to me, “The future of the Church is with the Traditional Mass. The Novus Ordo is a stump. A green shoot may spring up now and then, but the tree will never grow.”

    So let’s look to the future. Assume that at most 0.4% of Catholics currently attend the TLM (a generous estimate, I think). Assume also that the fraction of those attending the TLM increases by 5% annually – also a generous estimate, I suspect, for reasons indicated below. Then simple arithmetic indicates that the proportion of Catholics attending the TLM will finally reach 50% in the year 2109 AD, so the TLM will reach numerical par with the NO just under a century from now.

    Comments
    (1) An underlying assumption is that the traditional Mass remains in Latin (except perhaps for the readings) – as I hope it does, because a wholesale switch to the vernacular in the present climate will simply send the TLM down the same road we’ve already been down, remembering that the vernacular of 1965 led inevitably to the Novus Ordo of 1970. As Fr. Sotelo says, the majority of ordinary people born in recent decades will continue to prefer the vernacular, especially when it is beautiful and reverent.

    (2) From devoting major efforts to promoting the TLM, I know that that – while some are touched in heart and soul by their first TLM, as was I by mine in 1956, and never look back — most of those who “come over” from the Novus Ordo are motivated more by continuing irreverence and silliness they’ve experience in the OF. As a result of a combination of factors – the new vernacular translations, the reclamation of worthy sacred music now just beginning, Pope Benedict’s emphasis on more vertical ars celebranda, new generations of better prepared and more faithful priests (many of them affected by the TLM) – in the near future there will be less of a “repulsion” from the OF to the EF. Therefore, I see no reason to expect acceleration in the percentage shift to the EF/

  45. robtbrown says:

    Why do those priests (?) hate the Old Mass?
    Do they actually believe in that which they are (supposed to be)confection in the NOM? Possibly not, which will explain much.
    Comment by Sixupman

    I never said that they hated it. And I already wrote why I think they’re not interested in it.

    To those reasons add that these men were trained in the notion that the NO is the mass the Church wanted them to say. Many of those inclined toward the 1962 Missal (or Latin liturgy) were tossed out of priestly formation, never went in the first place, or opted for the SSPX. They also saw those priests who wanted to use the 1962 Missal stomped on by the hierarchy.

  46. robtbrown says:

    Also: Generally, those who have been priests for at least 10 years are the men who are comfortable in the current environment–or at least have survived it. Many of the priests who weren’t comfortable in the Montini Church left the priesthood.

  47. Agnes of Prague says:

    “In my deanery, there is not one Latin Mass because the members of the religious order are not allowed to offer it or say it in the churches were they serve.”
    Comment by Supertradmum

    They now have the right to say it. Unfortunately, some let themselves be intimidated (illegally) by superiors.

    Comment by robtbrown

    Robtbrown, I don’t think it’s so simple.

    Summorum Pontificum

    Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest whosoever of the Latin Rite, whether secular of religious, can use …the Missale Romanum issued in 1962 by Bl. John XXIII… For such a celebration…a priest does not need permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor from his Ordinary.

    So religious should theoretically, yes, have the legal right to say the TLM privately. But in parishes, it is up to the pastor of the parish; “in churches that are not either parishes or conventual,” (Art.5, § 5), “it is the role of the Rector of the church to grant the permission mentioned above.”

    If the religious mentioned who want to say the TLM publicly are pastors of parishes, it seems like as you say they do have the right. But maybe Supertradmum is talking about situations where religious are some sort of assistant priests? I am pretty sure that’s the status our local religious have when they help in parishes–they aren’t pastors, I think.

  48. Supertradmum says:

    Father Soleto, robtbrown, and Agnes,

    It is not so simple. Because of the status of the order and the liberality of the majority of the priests who are members, and because if their superior pulled them out, at least ten parishes would be without a priest, the bishop, an excellent one, has not insisted on the EF being said in that deanery. All the religious are pastors, as all the churches in the area only have one priest. In fact, in the three dioceses in the area around which I live, there have not been assistant priests for at least thirty years outside the large metropolitan areas.

    I still think there is a hatred of the EF, as many of these priests are pro-homosexual rights, pro-choice, and anti-”triumphalism”, which is what they call the EF. I know the majority personally, and they admit to disliking intensely the EF. It is not so simple. One cannot get into even a reasonable discussion about this. One of the priests, who is 81, told me that, as an obedient member of his order, although, as he states “everything was thrown out after Vatican II”, he must obey his superior. robtbrown, religious men make a vow of obedience. This is a serious thing which cannot be overruled in order to provide an EF. A younger member of the community blatantly stated that as long as the present superior is in charge, there will never be a Latin Mass in their community or in the deanery.

  49. Athelstan says:

    Hello gwscott,

    Thank you for sharing that moving Evelyn Waugh comment. It brings to mind similar dismayed observations made by Tolkien around the same time.

  50. Maltese says:

    In his book Nearer, My God William F. Buckley Jr. writes of Waugh: “I somewhere opined that Evelyn Waugh’s death on Easter Sunday in 1966, the Sunday before the reformers promulgated the Kiss of Peace, was evidence that the Holy Spirit was in fact behind it all, but merciful in His afflictions: no imagination is so vivid as to visualize Mr. Waugh yanked from prayerful thought to clasp the hand of the pilgrim to his right, to his left, ahead, and behind him.”

    Indeed, the fruits of Vatican II was not only a wholesale loss of faith among existing (and future) Catholics, but a brain-drain of English Literary Catholic converts like Waugh, who so enriched the Church. No highly-ordered mind would go to mamsy pamsy Novus Ordo shenanigans mass and be so struck by it as to want to convert (as they did with the Traditional Latin Mass, particularly a high mass singing, say, the Agnus Dei with Palestrina or some other great composer. Btw: why aren’t there any great musicians writing for the Novus Ordo? Or, why would you spend years and hard effort restoring a Ford Focus? Just asking.)

  51. robtbrown says:

    If the religious mentioned who want to say the TLM publicly are pastors of parishes, it seems like as you say they do have the right. But maybe Supertradmum is talking about situations where religious are some sort of assistant priests? I am pretty sure that’s the status our local religious have when they help in parishes—they aren’t pastors, I think.
    Comment by Agnes of Prague

    You should have read farther in SP. For situations you describe, the matter should be taken to the bishop. If that doesn’t bring satisfaction, then it should be referred to the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

  52. Scelata says:

    All due respect, Fr Sotelo, this statement:
    “as has been stated before, the vast majority of Catholic men, when given the option of a local traditional Latin Mass and a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo, are flocking to the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Latin Mass,”

    is ridiculously and tragically inaccurate.

    The “vast majority of Catholic men”, whatever options they are given, flock to television rooms, stadiums, brunch buffets, malls, golf links, their beds — in short, anyplace other than Mass of any rite.

    The vast majority of Catholic men do not attend Mass.

    I do not know whether if both rites were offered equally, after equal experience of both, what the preference would be to that minority which DOES attend Mass.

    Nor do I think anyone else does, as the opportunity to actually KNOW both equally, (and familiarity is a major component of human preferences,) has never been given.

    I am told that in France statistics for attendance at both Forms of the Mass are somewhat different than in the US, and that they tell a different story about who would or does flock to what.

    Can anyone point to some statistics?

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

  53. q7swallows says:

    I too think that Cardinal Heenan’s words were prophetic.  

    As a woman drawn first to the Byzantine rite for its reverence, richly-worded prayers, and its beauty in gesture & hymnody (*before* the American-Ruthenian revisions to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), I remember being utterly blown away by the realization that, for the first time in my life, I was literally surrounded by a congregation with a good percentage of men of all ages who not only attended and dressed up for but SANG the entire Liturgy.  In a dignified way but robustly!  That alone was inspiring to me.  

    Along with the Liturgy itself, this macrocosm of “noble striving manliness” gave me (and I think the other women in the parish) great courage and motivation.  Somehow more virtue and generosity flowered in us–perhaps because we were immersed in a community of men who obviously valued the higher, more noble things in life (beginning with the worship of God).  They not only announced and invested in this higher order but were willing to protect it.  It’s an atmosphere in which women (and children) can truly flourish.  Because the men were doing their job, we were freed up to do ours.  So refreshing!  Parish life was something we all came to relish.  We all lived for Sunday.

    That church–not 5 years ago!–had a parking lot filled with 15-seater vans full of large, young (homeschooling) families dressed in their (modest) Sunday best.  Older folks as well.  The whole thing functioned like a corporate family with the priest at its head.  Perfectly natural and healthy.  And I never observed more well-behaved children for such long periods of worship (1.5-2 hours easily on reg. Sundays).

    Like Dr. Eric, I have since observed more corresponding similarities between the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the EF than the NO.  Almost all the men we know who have experienced both the EF and the NO prefer the EF.  And we have observed them travelling the 40 miles on Sunday to *choose* the only Sunday EF in the area.  So availability of the EF IS a factor.  

    I may be more like a man than a woman in this respect but I too prefer meat and potatoes to gruel–physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.     

  54. robtbrown says:

    robtbrown, religious men make a vow of obedience.
    Comment by Supertradmum

    I think you have a false idea of obedience–although it varies from one religious institute to another. For example, the obedience of an OP differs from that of an SJ.

    That notwithstanding, no religious is bound to obey a superior who is actively denying a permission explicitly given by the pope. Any religious who invokes obedience as his reason for not using the 1962 Missal is simply saying that he doesn’t want trouble.

    And I realize that there are a lot of liberal priests who deny Catholic doctrine, but it’s not only liberal priests who don’t want to use the 1962 Missal.

  55. robtbrown says:

    All due respect, Fr Sotelo, this statement:
    “as has been stated before, the vast majority of Catholic men, when given the option of a local traditional Latin Mass and a reverently offered, simple Novus Ordo, are flocking to the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Latin Mass,”

    is ridiculously and tragically inaccurate.
    Comment by Scelata

    I don’t think he denies that. I think he is speaking of those who attend mass.

    And of course the catch phrase “reverently offered”, which excludes most of what in my experience usually accompanies NO mass.

  56. In our rural, backwoods oratory, we had the squeals of small children and a quorum of young families.
    We offer the EF each Sunday; sometimes there are a few, sometimes there is a crowd.
    But the regular attendees tend to be young; there are not a few young men, some fathers of families, some alone.
    In this neck of the woods, we have attracted some young families; but there are young men here, with or without families.
    That’s just an anecdote.
    I have no way to know what that means.

  57. Henry Edwards says:

    Nazareth Priest: I have no way to know what that means.

    Probably about the same thing it means at the TLM everywhere else.

  58. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Scelata:
    I don’t know if you realize that more and more diocesan priests have begun offering the EF Mass since Summorum Pontificum was promulgated. These men are pastors, which gives them the authority from SumPont. to offer the EF Mass along with the OF Mass within the same parish community. This is a radically different pastoral situation from just a few years ago, when as you say “the opportunity to actually KNOW both equally” had never been given.

    Thus, in these Catholic parishes post S.P., the same priest is offering the EF Mass, and at the same time offering the OF Mass according to the rubrics and without clowning around, with the result being that the people are given, so to speak, “an equal sampling” of the Roman Rite menu.

    They not only have access to both Masses, but they have access to both of them within the very same parish community. What I am finding out from speaking to such priests, is that the majority of parishioners, the practing men of the community included, do not cross over to the EF Mass.

    What happens? The OF Mass keeps its numbers from the people within that parish, while the EF Mass is propped up from the traditionalists within the parish *relying on outsiders* to compete number wise with the Novus Ordo. Even with imported trads, the Novus Ordo still wins the majority of faithful Catholics, including the men who are faithful to Sunday Mass.

    I am not trying to be ridiculous, nor am I trying to insult or put down the EF Mass. But I am a pastor who has inquired of other EF/OF pastors and this is simply the reality that is out there. Even St. John Cantius in Chicago has four Sunday Masses. Two are EF, and two are OF. If there was supposed to be this great attraction over to the EF Mass from OF “defectors” it has yet to happen.

    You would think by now at St. John Cantius, after some years, there would be three EF Masses vs. one OF Mass, or even better, the OF Masses would have been driven from existence by the EF Mass, causing the schedule to be printed as “four EF Masses, there happily being no more need or requests for a Novus Ordo in the parish.” Again, this is taking into account that the parish pulls in trads from all around Chicago.

    Those of us priests who actually have pastoral experience in “both worlds” are seeing that with practing Catholic men, the guys who get up on Sunday and want to go to Mass and stay Catholic, the majority are not turning to the EF Mass, even if it is easily available with the same parish that also offers Novus Ordo.

  59. Fr_Sotelo says:

    For those who may not understand where I am coming from, I should state emphatically that nothing makes me happier than seeing the traditional Latin Mass return, parish by parish, to the liturgical life of the Church. With the return of the Extraordinary Form, there is the return inevitably of the tabernacle to the middle; there is the return of Communion rails; there is the return of Latin and the treasury of chant; there is a diminishing of Communion in the hand and an increase of veils on the heads of women.

    Eventually, the ancient liturgy brings back a return as well of orthodoxy, Eucharistic devotion, love of Our Lady, processions, and loyalty to the Holy Father. Even if the EF Mass does not overtake the OF Mass in numbers, its influence makes the OF Mass more Catholic and reverent at the end of the day.

    As history marches on, however, I do not believe it is helpful, constructive, or realistic to believe that the OF Mass will some how shrivel up and die. Even if one wishes that this would happen, it is better, I believe, for the prayer life and Christian spirit of optimism to face that fact that the Novus Ordo is here to stay. But with the return of the EF Mass, it will not be, thanks be to God, the same Novus Ordo.

  60. joan ellen says:

    Card. Heenan and the above postings lead me to these thoughts:
    1. Eve came from Adam’s rib, not vice versa. She, Eve, was just a rib to begin with, showing the hierarchy of man, as well as women’s need for men. 2. An SSPX priest says that men form men. Our Lord, The Fathers, the parish priests, and dads, etc. demonstrate this men’s need for men.
    3. These needs are natural and Supernatural.
    4. The NO, with valid and licit Rubrics, and recognized by SP, often, in practice, can blur, confuse and de-naturalize the above natural and Supernatural needs.

    Perhaps Card. Heenan sensed this unnaturalness “…in the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday…”, and when it occurs, so do some men (and women, and children), so that Holy Mother Church is left with less men and women and children.

    Is it the form of Mass or the ‘girlyness of the Mass’ that makes the difference?

  61. Jerry says:

    re: Fr. Sotelo – “They not only have access to both Masses, but they have access to both of them within the very same parish community. What I am finding out from speaking to such priests, is that the majority of parishioners, the practing men of the community included, do not cross over to the EF Mass.

    What happens? The OF Mass keeps its numbers from the people within that parish, while the EF Mass is propped up from the traditionalists within the parish relying on outsiders to compete number wise with the Novus Ordo. Even with imported trads, the Novus Ordo still wins the majority of faithful Catholics, including the men who are faithful to Sunday Mass.”

    Father, when doing your survey, did you compare the time of day when each Mass is offered? I know of several parishes that have situations similar to what you described above. In those cases the EF Masses were added at inconvenient times (e.g. Sunday afternoons) to avoid disrupting the existing Mass schedule. One can only wonder how the attendance patterns ight change if the EF mass were offered at a more convenient time.

  62. Andrew says:

    Fr. Sotelo:

    I don’t know the future, but I wonder if the NO will not become extinct at some point, not because the majority of catholics don’t support it, but because the majority of those who support it will push the Church’s magisterium so far to the corner with their “innovations” that imposing liturgical orthodoxy will be their only choice. At some point all the ambiguity will have to stop. The NO, not in theory but in practive, is just not able to controll itself.

  63. Jerry says:

    re: robtbrown – “That notwithstanding, no religious is bound to obey a superior who is actively denying a permission explicitly given by the pope.”

    For the sake of discussion, I assume the order given by the superior is not sinful.

    I can’t speak as to how the vow of obedience binds a religious under such circumstances, Jesus’ expectations are clear:

    St. Faustina’s obedience was put to the test many times. Her superiors did not always agree with what Jesus asked her to do; once, when Faustina went to Mother Jane to ask for permission to make a certain sacrifice which Jesus had requested, the Mother scolded her and told her she was not allowed to make the sacrifice. As St. Faustina turned away, she saw Jesus standing in the doorway. He told her that He was been present during the interview, and that simple obedience was much more pleasing to Him than all the sacrifices and prayers possible. Throughout her life, her Divine Spouse always encouraged her to obey completely.

  64. Athelstan says:

    I think there is some truth in both what Scelata and Fr. Sotelo say.

    Above all it is hard to argue with Scelata when he says “The “vast majority of Catholic men”, whatever options they are given, flock to television rooms, stadiums, brunch buffets, malls, golf links, their beds — in short, anyplace other than Mass of any rite.” And it’s true that this was a problem long before Vatican II – men tend to be a harder draw. One thinks of the old takes of Irish village masses where many of the men would simply lounge about outside the front doors to smoke for much of the liturgy. Unfortunately modern life in the consumerist West has supercharged this resistance capacity on the part of (many) men.

    The EF/TLM is certainly growing prodigiously in the U.S., but there is no tidal wave yet. For many, I think, it’s just the reality that modern brain almost requires some rewiring to adapt to the quiet reverence of the EF. I also think, however, that some minor tweaks could address some of the barriers that inhibit some sympathetic Catholics – let us say doing the readings and some or most of the non-fixed prayers in the (properly translated) vernacular, more use of dialogue, employment of well sung traditional chant and polyphony when possible, this might make it easier for many to adjust to. Which is the kind of limited reform many of the Council Fathers had in mind, I think. I have a few lay Catholic friends who are fed up with the antics at their N.O. parish but are still daunted by the Latin. That can be overcome, perhaps, in time; but they’re the sort of people who would likely flock to an Anglican ordinariate if one opened up near them.

  65. Henry Edwards says:

    Rarely is a crucial insight set forth so incisively as here by Fr. Sotelo:

    With the return of the Extraordinary Form, there is the return inevitably of the tabernacle to the middle; there is the return of Communion rails; there is the return of Latin and the treasury of chant; there is a diminishing of Communion in the hand and an increase of veils on the heads of women.

    Eventually, the ancient liturgy brings back a return as well of orthodoxy, Eucharistic devotion, love of Our Lady, processions, and loyalty to the Holy Father. Even if the EF Mass does not overtake the OF Mass in numbers, its influence makes the OF Mass more Catholic and reverent at the end of the day.

    Obviously, the restoration of the Church now underway is not visible to everyone. There are parishes and even whole dioceses that it has not yet touched, where few have heard of Summorum Pontificum, or the new English translation of the OF missal, or of Pope Benedict’s many steps to reconnect the Novus Ordo with tradition. (I recall the lament of teenagers growing up in the mountains of East Tennessee, that everything happening in the outside world was 10 years late reaching us.)

    But fine young men are flocking to the best seminaries, and most of them are interested in both the EF and the OF. The generations born since 1980 are unencumbered by the baggage that so encumbers older generations. More young priests are learning the TLM – if only behind closed doors in some places – and this is affecting profoundly the way they celebrate the OF also. As a long time TLMer, the difference is obvious (and important) to me, but I regularly attend OF Masses that most ordinary Catholics would not distinguish from the EF in precision, reverence, and solemnity.

    My insight is mathematical rather than pastoral, but I believe the future projects pretty much as outlined above at 11 July 2010 @ 8:33 am. The normative Mass a century now will still be called the OF, but it will (Deo gratias) be a lot less “ordinary” than ordinarily seen now, and the present strife and contention will seem utterly irrelevant (and hopefully long forgotten).

  66. Supertradmum says:

    Times of Mass are a problem. In the Davenport Diocese, the EF in Davenport is offered either at 1:30 or at 4:00 at St. Anthony’s. Many people with families cannot come at those times. The reason is that the priests who take turns saying the Mass also have other parishes and are doing extra-time, as the Bishop designated where the Masses could be said. I think in the entire diocese there is one other in Iowa City at 3:00. These are not times for building up an EF community, and the one at St. Anthony’s is said by visiting priests, not the pastor. Basically, in Iowa and to a certain extent in Kansas and Missouri, the EF is only found in large metro areas.

    Henry Edwards, just curious, where are the young men flocking to the seminaries? One local diocese has only three young men in all the years put together, and one much older man. That means in the next ten years, there will only be four ordinations, if they all continue. In my son’s diocese, he is the only one in his year, and there is only one above him in the year before him. Perhaps the new, traditional religious orders are getting more vocations, but I do not see this trend in the secular clergy in all areas. I think the Diocese of Wichita has forty-six, so that fits your trend. The Sioux City Diocese has only eight in all years, and the Des Moines Diocese has several, but I do not know the exact number. The replacement rate for retiring priests is dire.

  67. Supertradmum says:

    And, may I add, that out of those in Davenport, Sioux City, and Des Moines, as I personally know some of those young men, not one is a “traddie” that I know of…

  68. robtbrown says:

    re: robtbrown – “That notwithstanding, no religious is bound to obey a superior who is actively denying a permission explicitly given by the pope.”

    For the sake of discussion, I assume the order given by the superior is not sinful.

    I would not assume that. The pope has explicitly given nearly universal permission to use the 1962 Missal. Any superior contradicting that is himself disobedient. Thus, anyone obeying the order of the superior is participating in–and encouraging–that disobedience to the pope.

    I can’t speak as to how the vow of obedience binds a religious under such circumstances, Jesus’ expectations are clear:

    St. Faustina’s obedience was put to the test many times. Her superiors did not always agree with what Jesus asked her to do; once, when Faustina went to Mother Jane to ask for permission to make a certain sacrifice which Jesus had requested, the Mother scolded her and told her she was not allowed to make the sacrifice. As St. Faustina turned away, she saw Jesus standing in the doorway. He told her that He was been present during the interview, and that simple obedience was much more pleasing to Him than all the sacrifices and prayers possible. Throughout her life, her Divine Spouse always encouraged her to obey completely.
    Comment by Jerry

    First, nothing St Faustina said is Revelation, so no one can assume it is “Jesus’ expectations”. On the other hand:

    Granting what she said, it is nonetheless a different case because her superior doesn’t know the the will of Christ in these matters, only what Faustina said. The superior denying a priest the right to use the 1962 Missal either knows the will of the pope–or can be easily informed of it.

    Second, both the Baptized and priests have rights set down in canon Law and in this case the Motu Proprio.

  69. robtbrown says:

    I don’t know the future, but I wonder if the NO will not become extinct at some point, not because the majority of catholics don’t support it, but because the majority of those who support it will push the Church’s magisterium so far to the corner with their “innovations” that imposing liturgical orthodoxy will be their only choice. At some point all the ambiguity will have to stop. The NO, not in theory but in practive, is just not able to controll itself.
    Comment by Andrew

    Once prospective priests have begun to be been trained in the 1962 Missal, it is likely that their MO of saying the Novus Ordo will be more controlled.

  70. JosephMary says:

    As of yesterday we have lost 2 or the 4 EF Masses the FSSP priests drive over 150 miles round trip to offer for us in our town. Our EF community had been doing well and there was talk of purchasing an old Episcopal Church that is for sale and for the establishing of a Latin Mass community here if the FSSP could supply a priest for us. They can’t. The demand is too great and we will not have another priest in our state for some years. And the attendance began to falter after that news. Yes, there are men and young families at the EF.

    However there are also many men and families at my faithful OF parish. And we just got a good new pastor who is orthodox (and also indicates he is open to the TLM) and loves being a priest and loves his people. He is unafraid to speak the Truth. We will bloom and grow. He also is interested in perpetual adoration. Our parish is not just old ladies in the majority (except among the EMHC).

    In my former ‘peace and justice’ parish filled with liturgical abuses, women were by far the majority and ran the parish office too. They did everything.

    I think faithfulness has a lot to do with the drawing of souls for holiness is attractive. And a manly priest is also a draw for men to be active in parish life.

    WE need holy, manly, orthodox shepherds.

  71. Jerry says:

    re: robtbrown – “For the sake of discussion, I assume the order given by the superior is not sinful.

    I would not assume that. The pope has explicitly given nearly universal permission to use the 1962 Missal. Any superior contradicting that is himself disobedient. Thus, anyone obeying the order of the superior is participating in—and encouraging—that disobedience to the pope.”

    The pope gave permission for priest to use the 1962 Missal; he did not require they do so: thus, while the bishops _may_ sin in prohibiting (or strongly discouraging) priests from celebrating Mass in the EF, it is not sinful for priests to obey the order. To the contrary, it would seem to be a sin against the 4th commandment for them not to obey it.

    “First, nothing St Faustina said is Revelation, so no one can assume it is “Jesus’ expectations”. On the other hand:”

    On the other hand… what St. Faustina relates corresponds exactly to one of Christ’s principle messages in Scripture: obedience.

    “Granting what she said, it is nonetheless a different case because her superior doesn’t know the the will of Christ in these matters, only what Faustina said. The superior denying a priest the right to use the 1962 Missal either knows the will of the pope—or can be easily informed of it.”

    A good point, but, again, one that speaks to the culpability of the superior who issues the order, not of those following it. Had the pope mandated that every priest celebrate a public Mass in the EF periodically, your reasoning would be valid.

  72. Henry Edwards says:

    Supertradmum,

    Mine is the Diocese of Knoxville (TN), with a Catholic population about half that of the Diocese of Davenport. Statistically, ours is the “least Catholic” per capita of the country’s 195 Catholic dioceses

    We’ve probably averaged a couple of ordinations annually in recent years. The diocese currently has 10 seminarians, with another 6 expected to enter seminaries this fall.

    I know several of them, and their orthodoxy and zeal knocks your socks off. They’re committed to right liturgy, whether EF or OF (both in most cases).

    In our little diocese, we have 6 priests — all but one ordained since 2000 — who have learned and are celebrating the TLM at least occasionally,. (Assuming our good bishop is not reading this, I’ll confide that they have to take turns because there’s not enough EF attenders for that many EF Masses every Sunday.)

    Obviously, the vocations in a diocese reflect its past leadership. Be assured that our diocese has the same “diversity” of clerical ecclesiologies and liturgical practices as most. But, thanks be to God, the young will outlive the old. (Sure wish I were one of the young, because I’ve lived through the worst, and would just love to see the “new springtime” that awaits us in the coming decades.)

  73. Supertradmum says:

    Thanks for the clarification, Henry Edwards, and I am happy to see changes in your area. I, too, have lived through the worst and am frankly fatigued and have to go out of duty, love for Christ, and obedience to our vapid NO every Sunday. Yesterday, the priest changed the words of the Preface and a few of the prayers right before the Consecration, which, thankfully, he does not mess with….

  74. robtbrown says:

    The pope gave permission for priest to use the 1962 Missal; he did not require they do so: thus, while the bishops may sin in prohibiting (or strongly discouraging) priests from celebrating Mass in the EF, it is not sinful for priests to obey the order.

    I never said it was. I said that it participated in the disobedience of the superior and encouraged it. I made no judgment about its sinfulness, but I would say that is material cooperation. See below, re SP provisions.

    To the contrary, it would seem to be a sin against the 4th commandment for them not to obey it.

    No, it would be a sin against the 4th commandment to follow it, simply because it places the will of the superior above that of the pope. See below, re provisions.

    On the other hand… what St. Faustina relates corresponds exactly to one of Christ’s principle messages in Scripture: obedience.

    Yes, and that means obedience to the pope.

    Re Provisions: I made reference above to the matter being referred to the bishop, then to Ecclesia Dei. My comments were responses to someone who said priests didn’t say it because their superiors would not permit it. I noted that SP has provisions for such situations, which it seems the priests in question decided not to pursue.

    I think it very important that the obligation to obedience not be used as an excuse for acedia.

    A good point, but, again, one that speaks to the culpability of the superior who issues the order, not of those following it. Had the pope mandated that every priest celebrate a public Mass in the EF periodically, your reasoning would be valid.
    Comment by Jerry

    No, it is valid because the pope required that superiors not prohibit the use of the 1962 Missal. Further, SP explicitly says what a priest can do in that situation.

    For some reason you seem to think that the authority of a superior trumps that of the pope.

  75. Cricket says:

    Just a little something, anecdotally speaking. My parish church has a longstanding reputation for the reverence & dignity of its NO Masses. For unknown reasons the era of “Kumbaya liturgy” completely passed us by. (Some have speculated our parish has an exceptionally vigilant guardian angel…) Anyway, I once brought a friend from a less orthodox church to Mass. Looking all around the congregation, then at the un-wreckovated Sanctuary, she whispered to me, “There are so many MEN here!”

  76. Andrew says:

    robtbrown:

    “Once prospective priests have begun to be trained in the 1962 Missal, it is likely that their MO of saying the Novus Ordo will be more controlled.”

    The patient needs a heart transplant and you’re suggesting a small dose of tylenol.

  77. Jerry says:

    re: robtbrown

    “For some reason you seem to think that the authority of a superior trumps that of the pope.”

    You seem to be under the not-uncommon misconception the _Summorum Pontificum_ gives priests an unrestricted right to celebrate the EF of the Mass in public (i.e., prevents ordinaries from restricting the celebration of the EF). This is not true: the Holy Father makes it quite clear in both the MP and the letter to the bishops.

    The following is from _Summorum Pontificum_:

    Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

    And from the accompanying letter to the bishops:

    Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

    In short, SP removes the requirement for priests to obtain permission to celebrate the EF; it does not prevent an ordinary from restricting celebration of the EF by a positive act (as opposed to by the lack of a positive act), much less give priests the authority to ignore their ordinary should he issue such an order. If the priest feels the restriction is unwarranted, he must appeal the decision up the chain of command.

  78. robtbrown says:

    You seem to be under the not-uncommon misconception the Summorum Pontificum gives priests an unrestricted right to celebrate the EF of the Mass in public (i.e., prevents ordinaries from restricting the celebration of the EF). This is not true: the Holy Father makes it quite clear in both the MP and the letter to the bishops.

    For the second time you’ve done a poor job reading what I wrote. Once again (copying from above): “The pope has explicitly given NEARLY universal permission to use the 1962 Missal.”

    And once again I refer you to SP, which prescribes a way for priests to appeal to the bishop and, if that doesn’t work, to Rome on decisions denying their right to the 1962 Missal.

    Re the pope and diocesan bishops: The authority (potestas iurisdictionis) possessed by ordinarii loci in no way diminishes the authority of the pope, which is supreme, full, immediate, and universal.

    I also refer you to Vat II, which says that the Apostolic See is the final authority on liturgy.

  79. Jerry says:

    “For the second time you’ve done a poor job reading what I wrote. Once again (copying from above): “The pope has explicitly given NEARLY universal permission to use the 1962 Missal.”

    I read what you wrote. I disagree with the accuracy — or, more precisely, the completeness — of your statement. SP provides permission to celebrate the EF; it and the letter to the bishops both make it clear the ordinaries still have the authority to restrict that permission. While a priori restrictions of the EF (e.g. a general declaration that it is not to be celebrated or the imposition of unreasonable requirements to be met prior to celebration) are almost certainly contrary to the Holy Father’s intentions, SP does not grant priests permission to act in disobedience to their superiors.

    Even if you reject my interpretation, there is still a fundamental flaw in your position.

    The question is whether a priest, when faced with an order his superior is not authorized to make, is obligated to obey that order.

    If the order is directing the priest to commit an immoral act, the answer is clearly no, there is no obligation to obey.

    This, however, is not the situation under discussion: we consider a situation where the superior orders a priest not to celebrate the EF of the Mass (or, if you wish, to celebrate the OF exclusively). Is what the priest is being directed to do immoral?

    (a) There is no obligation for a priest to celebrate the EF of the Mass, so to not do so is not immoral.

    (b) Celebrating the OF of the Mass, which is the normative liturgy of the Church, is obviously not immoral.

    The worst case is that the superior is restricting the priest from performing an act which he is rightfully entitled to perform. In such circumstances the superior is in error, but this error does not relieve the priest of his responsibility to submit to authority. Rather, it is a cross he must bear, at least until the error is reversed.

  80. Jerry says:

    re: robtbrown – “And once again I refer you to SP, which prescribes a way for priests to appeal to the bishop and, if that doesn’t work, to Rome on decisions denying their right to the 1962 Missal.”

    Agreed. I have noted several times that the priest can _appeal_ an order he feels in inappropriate. This is not the same as not being bound to obey the order pending resolution of the appeal process, which is what you appeared to be suggesting in the statement below:

    “That notwithstanding, no religious is bound to obey a superior who is actively denying a permission explicitly given by the pope.”

  81. Malachy says:

    We seem to have gotten away from Cardinal Heenan. The point he was making was that if there was now to be singing at all masses, then men would no longer come to church. For readers who never knew the time before Vatican II, here are two examples of the beautiful liturgical spirituality of the time.

    I knew a man — in a large urban parish — who regularly went to the 6 a.m. mass on Sundays — there were 6 a.m. masses in those days — while the rest of his family went to a later mass. Why? Because it was the shortest mass: even with a sermon, you were sure to be out of there in 35 minutes. I suspect there were many others like him.

    I also knew a small rural parish where there was only one Sunday mass. When families arrived at church, the women and children went in, while the menfolk stayed on the church steps talking and smoking. When mass began — and sometimes even later (since in those days you fulfilled your Sunday obligation if you arrived before the offertory) — the menfolk would enter and all stand at the back of the church during mass. Real men didn’t sit and kneel with the women and children in the pews. They slipped out at communion — real men didn’t go to communion either — and waited for mass to finish. I’m sure there were many other rural parishes just like that one.

    Ah! the good old days when men were men. And masses were boring.

  82. Henry Edwards says:

    Malachy,

    I did know the time before Vatican II and, indeed, the liturgical spirituality of the time was far more beautiful then than now.

    Of course, nothing is easier than to set up straw men to demolish. Of course, then as now it was far from true that everyone was deeply spiritual in their participation at Mass, though from going to Mass day in and day out all these years, I know that more were then than now.

    But as for the men you describe as hardly spiritual at all, today they (and many others in addition) are not at Mass at all, never darkening the doors of a church on Sunday. Who’s to say whether it’s better to be on the fringes of Holy Sacrifice on the Day of the Lord, or still at home in bed? At any rate, that’s about the only issue your post raises.

    For on a purely numerical basis, that’s the most observable difference. Unlike then, a majority of Catholics today do not attend Mass at all, reverently or otherwise.

  83. Supertradmum says:

    Maybe Germanic and Luxembourgian men were different, but in my hometown parish, and indeed in many parishes in the city, the Church was full of men with their families, all who sat in the same pew week after week and were early, at least 15 minutes, for Sunday Mass. This was in rural America. The Masses were packed and at one time our parish had six Masses for a community of Catholics which was no more than 15% of the overall population. Most parishes had multiple Masses.

    All the men in our neighborhood went to Church on Sunday-the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, as well as our family. We would all greet each other on the way out and way back from the perspective churches.

    As a child, I sang in the school choir at 6:30 Mass, which was attended mostly by men on their way to work. Moms stayed at home with the children during the early morning hours. These Masses were where the new altar boys learned how to serve, and dads were there to see this happen. The only time I have seen men stand in the back of church was in The Gesu in Rome, and the Pope was there!!!!!

  84. Supertradmum says:

    PS I think what I have just described means Heenan was correct!

  85. ndmom says:

    “Thus, in these Catholic parishes post S.P., the same priest is offering the EF Mass, and at the same time offering the OF Mass according to the rubrics and without clowning around, with the result being that the people are given, so to speak, “an equal sampling” of the Roman Rite menu.

    They not only have access to both Masses, but they have access to both of them within the very same parish community. What I am finding out from speaking to such priests, is that the majority of parishioners, the practing men of the community included, do not cross over to the EF Mass.

    What happens? The OF Mass keeps its numbers from the people within that parish, while the EF Mass is propped up from the traditionalists within the parish relying on outsiders to compete number wise with the Novus Ordo. Even with imported trads, the Novus Ordo still wins the majority of faithful Catholics, including the men who are faithful to Sunday Mass.”

    This has definitely been the case at St. John the Beloved in McLean. Many, perhaps most, of those who regularly attend the EF Mass are not actually living within the parish boundaries. Some of them travel quite a distance every Sunday.
    Here at Our Lady’s University, there are many options for Sunday Masses. What we have found, consistently, is that the reverent and “by-the-book” Masses tend to attract considerably more men (of all ages, but especially students) than the masses that feature contemporary music or lots of sharing.

  86. Mitchell NY says:

    Andrew, well stated on both comments. I agree its’ inherent flaw is not the liturgy itself(NO), but the widespread if not overall disrespect for its’ rubrics and the myriad of options that are just so confusing from parish to parish. There is almost no unity there. I am sure I speak for many who feel disoriented when going to another parish. This is what may eventually lead to its’ suppression. And after reading the post, the anguish that fighting for the liturgy, even with one hand tied behind your back, disguised as obedinece, it is no wonder most have simply given up and just go with the flow. That being the NO liturgy. With so much in the world today going awry not many a man will start up with a new liturgy re-education. And with all the bruising and battering the last 40 years the Faithful and Priests have taken I am not surprised at all if most people stick with the status quo. But it is not a true rendering of what may be best for the Fatihful or Holy Church. In fact we have all heard from the Holy Father himself that the disintegration of the liturgy remains at the heart of the troubles with the Church. That however did not stop the NO liturgy from being introduced or the continued abuses in its’ name being heaped upon the Faithful. And it may not stop a future Pontiff deciding that the EF liturgy or a liturgy true to the Councils’ wishes finally coming to fruition. Not because the NO holds “numbers” but because it may be better for souls and in a few generations it will be yesterdays’ news. It has been often said the Church thinks in centuries and it may have been already decided what will best save as many souls as possible and best expresses the Holy Sacrifice, even if we will not live to see it in our lifetimes. And it may, to the surprise of many, turn out to be something that is not known as the Pauline Mass.

  87. joan ellen says:

    Comment by Henry Edwards — 11 July 2010 @ 8:33 am – RE: 4% current Catholic population at TLM Mass, 5% yearly increase = 50% of the NO population by 2109 at TLM Mass…REASONABLE, BUT NOT SO ENCOURAGING.

    Comment by Henry Edwards — 12 July 2010 @ 9:02 am – “The normative Mass a century now will still be called the OF, but it will (Deo gratias) be a lot less “ordinary” than ordinarily seen now, and the present strife and contention will seem utterly irrelevant (and hopefully long forgotten).” REASONABLE AND ENCOURAGING. Perhaps the
    NO will be the Pope Paul VI Mass…i.e., the NO with Latin as it was intended.

    Comment by Fr_Sotelo — 11 July 2010 @ 5:04 pm Re: St. John Cantius…NOT SO ENCOURAGING, however, I believe one of the two NO Masses is the Pope Paul VI Mass, which makes your comment A LITTLE MORE ENCOURAGING.

    Comment by Fr_Sotelo — 11 July 2010 @ 5:26 pm
    “…But with the return of the EF Mass, it will not be, thanks be to God, the same Novus Ordo.” MOST ENCOURAGING.

    These comments seem to me to support SP, and yet be in some sort of agreement with Our Lady of Roses (Bayside, New York – which does not yet enjoy Church approval, and yet helps when sorting and separating are needed.)http://www.tldm.org/directives/d01.htm.

    Trusting our Good God RE: the Mass is probably the most important, at least for my peanut brain.

  88. Malachy says:

    Henry Edwards: “But as for the men you describe as hardly spiritual at all, today they (and many others in addition) are not at Mass at all, never darkening the doors of a church on Sunday.”

    Many of the people who went to mass on a regular basis fifty years ago did so out of social pressure. I well remember being told by a man from a fairly close-knit ethnic community: “Once I realized that I could stop going to mass and not be treated as an outcast, I stopped going”. Nowadays, those who go to mass do so because they choose to go; public pressure, far from pushing people through the church door, is more likely to keep them away. The overflowing churches of yesteryear are nothing to be admired if most of the people who filled them were there because of social pressure. Today’s churchgoers, though fewer in number, are true believers.

    The men from the rural parish I mentioned above well illustrate the attitude of those times. They went to church because it was expected of them, and not because they really wanted to. Their behavior — staying out on the church steps as long as possible, standing at the back of the church during mass, not going to communion — shows us quite clearly what they thought: you can lead us to water but you can’t make us drink.

    In those days, there was a tacit pact between clergy and laity: “Father, we’ll go to mass if you keep it really short”. So most masses were low masses: on a weekday, 30 minutes max, and 40 on Sunday. The secret to full churches was to ask very little of people: to satisfy your Sunday obligation, all you had to do was show up. You didn’t even have to pay attention, as long as you were there. (And best of all: you could miss everything until the offertory and you still had fulfilled your Sunday obligation.) No wonder Cardinal Heenan was worried: if you actually require them to participate, they’ll stay away in droves.

    People who romanticize the past have no idea how conformist, how barren, it was.

  89. Maltese says:

    “Andrew, well stated on both comments. I agree its’ inherent flaw is not the liturgy itself(NO), but the widespread if not overall disrespect for its’ rubrics and the myriad of options that are just so confusing from parish to parish.”

    Dear sir, I must respectfully, and highly, disagree with you. The Novus Ordo (doesn’t that sound similar to something on the back of a $1 bill) is seriously deficient. It’s a man-oriented rite, whereas the old rite is a God-oriented rite!

    Well, we can spend five weeks arguing about semantics, but the original mass is heads-and-feet above the improvised one (shoved-down our throats by one very sinister and selfish fellow: Bugnini.)

    But, here’s proof-positive that the old things will start to return (because, since this was printed within the Vatican, surely (hopefully) this much needed book is being read by prelates:

    <A HREF=”http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2010/06/ecumenical-vatican-council-ii-much.html

  90. Maltese says:

    Sorry, the link didn’t appear. Honest to God, I admire this man (Gheraridini) for being so brutally honest, instead of towing-the-paty line, and appeasement. These are amazing words; and, really, a slap down to those who think Vatican II said anything significant…

    http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2010/06/ecumenical-vatican-council-ii-much.html

  91. Henry Edwards says:

    Joan Ellen: <50% of the NO population by 2109 at TLM Mass…REASONABLE, BUT NOT SO ENCOURAGING.

    Actually, my figures would predict TLM attendance at 50% of the total Mass attendance in 2109, so the EF will finally have reached parity in attendance with the OF.

    Of course, I will no longer be around to check the accuracy of this prediction. However, the way things are beginning to look with then new priests in the pipeline and with the best and brightest young Catholics who will be our leaders in the foreseeable future, I’d expect that by then there would be little difference in reverence and holiness between the two forms. If so, I’d think that very encouraging (for our great-grandchildren, if not for us ourselves).

  92. robtbrown says:

    “Once prospective priests have begun to be trained in the 1962 Missal, it is likely that their MO of saying the Novus Ordo will be more controlled.”

    The patient needs a heart transplant and you’re suggesting a small dose of tylenol.
    Comment by Andrew

    Unfortunately, the patient is too weak for surgery.

    You seem not to understand that we have a huge group of priests who have been poorly trained–the poor liturgy is just a reflection of that. Further, as stories above indicate, there are superiors and bishops who are resisting any use of the 1962 Missal.

    As I’ve noted before, what we’re seeing right now is Rome trying to regain control of the liturgy, which Paul VI and JPII left in the hands of dioceses and religious orders.

  93. Andrew says:

    robtbrown:

    Overall, I don’t understand what is happening. And I am skeptical of any improvement based on mere “goodwill”. I believe that some things will have to be mandated and firmly demanded. Off course, how that is going to happen I don’t know. We already have canon laws ignored (such as the canon – I think it’s 299 – mandating that priests must know Latin well). In the current environment to hope for some incremental improvement seems silly to me. People generally do not choose what’s good for them: it has to be enforced. You can’t replace the police with benevolent counselors or sweet-talking educators. The hammer needs to come down hard. I think it will happen at some point and I pray that I’ll be able to absorbe the shock.

  94. robtbrown says:

    Andrew,

    It’s not a question of just hoping for improvement but rather implementing the formation that actually produces it.

    I agree about mandates, but that’s not really possible now. Rome now has all it can handle just trying to ensure that those who want mass acc to the 1962 Missal (incl priests) have it available.

  95. joan ellen says:

    Mr. Edwards:
    “Actually, my figures would predict TLM attendance at 50% of the total Mass attendance in 2109, so the EF will finally have reached parity in attendance with the OF.”

    Your words convey my understanding much more clearly than mine. Thanks. The above words are most encouraging and help me to want to persist in prayer and example.

    Perhaps with such helps: as your clear direction of where the TLM is/is going, the pamphlet as suggested at:
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/quaeritur-pamphlets-about-tlm-for-parishes/, and the Anglican move to Rome, etc., things could move more quickly towards the critical mass needed to establish parity. Not to get hopes up…and in God’s good time.

    Fr. Sotelo: I am so sorry, I did not mean to discount your fine mention of the experience of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius nor St. John Cantius Parish. Comment by joan ellen — 12 July 2010 @ 9:57 pm
    I love those priests dearly, and hope they are so successful for Our Dear Lord. And any priest(s)who does(do) what He and the Church, esp. His Holiness, want.

    Fr. Z…Thank you, again, for this blog which sorts and separates all things Catholic! The Truth just seems to emerge. What a grace and blessing for those of us who come to this blog.

  96. jm says:

    Please tell us anywhere men are “flocking” to any mass?!

  97. Jon says:

    JM,

    “Please tell us anywhere men are “flocking” to any mass?!”

    Have you ever been to an EF Mass?

    The very first thing my wife noticed when we began attending the EF six years ago was the overwhelming numbers of men compared to our Novus Ordo experience.

    I’ve attended my FSSP parish exclusively since then, and I’ve been involved in counting the numbers each Sunday. I can tell you that on an average Sunday the ratio of men to women is 6 or 7 out of ten.

    That ratio is consistent at both Sunday Masses, attendance at which together during the non-vacation months often well exceeds 300.

    My mathematical take on things isn’t as profound as my friend Henry’s, but for me at least, it’s clear to which Mass the “men are flocking.”