I received the following via e-mail. It concerns the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in the Archdiocese of Lima, Peru.
Keep in mind that a battle must be waged in Latin America for the heart and soul of the Church in an environment of increasing indifferentism and secularism.
For the Spanish check the blog Secretum meum mihi.
What follows was approved by the Archbishop of Lima, His Eminence Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani. NOT my translation, but I corrected some of the errors of orthography and a few of style.
My emphases and comments.
Archdiocesan Commision for the Doctrine of the Faith
Archdiocese of Lima
About the Apostolic Letter of the Holy Father Benedict XVI in the form of Motu Proprio about the use of the roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970
The Holy See published on July 7 2007 the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI about the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of the II Vatican Council. With this modification, restrictions for the celebration of the Latin Mass according to the Missal prior to the 1969 one will be lifted.
The Latin Mass – also known as Tridentine – was never officially suspended, but fell into disuse as a consequence of the new norms imposed by the II Vatican Council, [Well… as a result of the Council] which gave more importance to the celebration of the Mass in modern languages, so that the eucharistic celebration could be closer to the faithful. [This is inaccurate. The Council said Latin was to be retained. Also, Mass was never "far" from the people.]
The II Vatican Council (1963-1965) introduced the Novus ordo missae, the new way of celebrating Mass, which allowed the use of different languages, and which supposed the ceasing of the celebration of Mass in Latin, according to the 1962 Missal. [I suspect the translation here is not clear. The norms NEVER supposed the end of Mass in Latin. They REQUIRED Latin!]
Answers to some questions about the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970.
1. What does the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7 2007 establish?
It establishes new rules about the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform made after the II Vatican Council.
2. Does the Pope, with this Motu Proprio, pretend to abolish the Mass in Spanish?
No. It is about celebrating in an extraordinary form “the Mass in Latin as it was celebrated before the II Vatican Council”.
3. Is it a return to the past?
In no way it is a return to the past, but a valoration [be patient… this translation was done by someone whose native tongue is not English.] of a ritual form used for many centuries in the Church and of special importance to some of the faithful.
What those generations before us considered sacred, continues to be sacred and important for us too, and cannot be suddenly totally forbidden, and much least be considered harmful.
4. What is the main disposition of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum?
It is the following: the Roman liturgy will have two forms of being celebrated (uses). It is a double use of the one and same rite.
5. What is the first form of celebrating the Roman Liturgy?
The ordinary form: it is the form that follows the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI after the II Vatican Council (1970), as it is in the liturgical books promulgated then. It is the form that practically all of us use in the Roman Catholic Church. There is an official edition in Latin, that can be used always and everywhere, [EXACTLY… "always and everywhere" and it cannot be prevented.] and translations in various modern languages, edited by the Episcopal Conferences of each place.
6. And what is the second form of celebrating the Roman Liturgy?
The extraordinary form: it is the one celebrated according to the liturgical books edited during the pontificate of Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962.
7. With the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum will the Mass be exclusively celebrated in Latin?
No. The Pope’s Motu Proprio does not eliminate the current liturgy emanated from the II Vatican Council. The Mass will still be celebrated in each region’s language.
8. What characteristics does the extraordinary form of celebrating the roman liturgy have?
Some of its characteristics are:
• It is a Missal totally in Latin, which does contain also the readings for the celebrations (it isn’t separated from the Lectionary, like the next Missal of 1970).
• It does contain only one Eucharistic Prayer, the “Roman Canon” (which corresponds to Eucharistic Prayer I of the next Missal, which has, otherwise, the option to choose among various eucharistic prayers.)
• Many prayers (including most part of the Roman Canon) are prayed in a low voice by the priest, in a way that is not audible for the people.
• Among other particularities it can be remembered the reading of the beginning of the Gospel of St. John at the end of the Mass.
• The 1962 Missal does not include concelebration. It doesn’t say anything about the orientation of the altar and the celebrant (towards the people or not). [Nor does the Novus Ordo. As a matter of fact, the rubrics presuppose that Mass is ad orientem.]
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum mentions the possibility of future enrichments of the 1962 Missal (inclusion of new saints and prefaces).
9. What characteristics has also the Roman Missal approved by Blessed John XXIII?
• The rite of St. Pius V can be used on any day of the year, except during the Paschal Triduum (Holy Week). [Unless at a "personal parish".]
• When it is a Mass without faithful, the priest doesn’t need any permision to celebrate it.
• It can be celebrated on any day of the week and “personal parishes” can be created. [See above.]
• Also, with this rite can be celebrated matrimonies, baptism, annointing of the sick, penance, etc., in other words all the sacraments.
If a Pastor puts difficulties to the celebration of Mass in its extraordinary form, the faithful can go to the Bishop.
10. With this extraordinary form of celebrating Mass will the faithful stop asisting at the eucharistic celebration?
No. Actually there is no reason for this, because the Mass will continue to be celebrated like it is done nowadays.
11. From what date will be allowed to celebrate Mass in Latin according to the dispositions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum?
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum will be ruling from September 14 2007, feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
Approved by the Archbishop of Lima and Primate of Perú, Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani Thorne on August 18 2007.
While there are some obvious biases in the statement, it isn’t all that bad. It seems clearly to be directed to simple people who are not well versed in liturgical matters.
Some translation notes:
by the II Vatican Council, which gave more importance to the celebration of the Mass in modern languages
The word “prioridad” may be fairly translated as its cognate: which gave priority to the celebration of the Mass in modern languages
which allowed the use of different languages, and which supposed the ceasing of the celebration of Mass in Latin, according to the 1962 Missal. [I suspect the translation here is not clear. The norms NEVER supposed the end of Mass in Latin. They REQUIRED Latin!]
This passage as a whole is as ambiguous in Spanish as in English, in part due to the extra comma before “according.” That particular phrase: supposed no celebration of the Mass in Latin.
One comment: judging from experience in Mexico and correspondence with a colleague in Argentina, this may be about the most positive statement that one might expect from Latin America. The lead will have to be taken by Spain, as soon as it stops exporting “Latin American” translations and guitar music to the colonies.
“Latin American” translations
I should have said: “Latin American” scriptural translations. I was referring to the Biblia Latinoamericana.
Recently I recieved a similar note by an Argentinian bishop. Maybe I will send it to Fr. Z or something. In general, Latin America is not exactly rushing to traditional liturgical forms.
Daniel makes quite the understatement. Argentina has ONE, that’s right one and only one, regular public extraordinary form Mass not celebrated by SSPX. They, though, seem to be growing.
It is better than nothing to have an Ordinary comment somewhat favorably upon Summorum Pontificum. But the reality is that 99 percent of “Latin” Catholics don’t have any desire to assist at Mass (in either form) celebrated in Latin.
Despite the claims of certain Traditionalists, it’s obvious that few seminarians (outside TLM-only seminaries)are interested in the TLM or Latin Mass in whatever form.
The Latin Mass (ordinary and extraordinary) will not make a comeback within the Church. To 99 percent of Catholics, assist at a “foreign” language doesn’t make sense.
Despite the claims throughout the John Paul II Papacy, that waves and waves of seminarians were supposedly conservative and traditional, interest in the Latin Mass remains, for all practical purposes, does not exist.
I am not being pessimistic. I am realistic.
Since the release of Summorum Pontificum, one Cardinal and bishop after another has declared that little interest within their respective dioceses exists for the TLM.
They have told the truth…from Argentina to Australia…to (name the place).
Comment by Tom: “Since the release of Summorum Pontificum, one Cardinal and bishop after another has declared that little interest within their respective dioceses exists for the TLM.
They have told the truth…from Argentina to Australia…to (name the place).”
You might be confusing classic propaganda techniques with truth-telling.
From BK: “You might be confusing classic propaganda techniques with truth-telling.”
I wish that it were propaganda. But I’ve come to grips with that which I’ve been told repeatedly, in person or via writings, by Cardinals, bishops, priests and Catholic commentators…and frankly, that which I’ve observed wherever I’ve travelled throughout the Church.
Interest in the Latin Mass (either form) does not, speaking realistically, exist.
The bishops don’t want the Latin Mass. Seminarians, laymen…”nobody” wants the Latin Mass.
The best that we will ever experience again within the “Latin” Church is that a diocese may have one parish…with a few hundered Catholics at most…set aside for the Latin Mass.
That is it.
25+ years Pope John Paul II reigned…and we read and heard constantly that seminaries were filled with “John Paul II” men…”traditional” men who were interested in traditional liturgy.
Where are the priests in question?
They don’t exist. The reason is that yesterday and today, seminarians don’t care for the Latin Mass and refuse to learn the Latin Mass (in either form).
They don’t care. The bishops don’t care. The laity don’t care.
Other than perhaps one TLM-only parish within a diocese, the Latin mass is finished within the Church.
That isn’t negative thought. That is reality.
The Cardinals, bishops and priests have told the truth regarding the Motu Proprio.
With few exceptions, “Latin” Catholics have moved light years beyond the Latin Mass and said Mass will not return to parishes throughout the “Latin” Church.
don’t be so pessimistic, please.
Things may change. Slowly, gradually, they will change. They’ve already begun to change.
Let’s be confident in the Holy Ghost, who has given the Church this wise and great pope. And let us pray.
I don’t seem to remember where the Pope said that the EF
must be universally attended every Sunday or even that it must
have popular appeal.
It really makes no difference whether one thinks there will be
enough interest in the Latin Mass. The Pope has rightly
concluded that it has never been abrogated and that’s that.
Unlike 1970, all priests are given the choice of which Mass to say,
though things may eventually play out where all priests have to
study both. Not a bad thing, I would think, if the Church wants
to prevent any more slides into total indifference of/from the faith.
Comment by Tom: “Other than perhaps one TLM-only parish within a diocese, the Latin mass is finished within the Church.
That isn’t negative thought. That is reality.
The Cardinals, bishops and priests have told the truth regarding the Motu Proprio.”
No they have not. Neither are they able to accurately gauge the demand itself.
I’m a doctor in private practice in a geriatric specialty in a predominantly Catholic region. I’ve treated about 7,000 people over the past decade. The majority of these patients, probably 65 to 70%, are practicing Catholics. The average age is 70.
I have crucifixes in every room. And I have had signs asking for donations of old Latin-English missals for several years. (Over the last several years, I’ve received about 100 Latin-English missals.)
These things combine to make my Catholic patients comfortable talking about the Traditional Latin Mass.
Here’s the facts, at least among my several thousand Catholic geriatric patients.
About 25% don’t ever want the Latin Mass to return. They never understood it and like it better now.
About 50% don’t care enough to even offer an opinion either way.
About 15% would like at least the opportunity to have access to the Traditional Latin Mass.
About 10% mourn the loss of the Traditional Latin Mass immensely. They get teary eyed when they talk about it. They spontaneously break into snippets of the Latin they recall off the top of their heads.
And they look over their shoulders. They are paranoid. They have been conditioned by subtle persecution to NEVER discuss this subject. they’ve been conditioned to never bring it up with their priests, and definitely never with a bishop or cardinal. If the subject was ever broached, they were bullied and mocked into silence for 40 years now.
But guess what?
The supply of old Latin-English missal donations have dried up. Those who thought to dig them up, now say, “I’m going to keep it. I can’t give it away. I know there’s a chance now that some day I’ll get to use it again.”
So take courage: those Cardinals, bishops and priests are wrong. The people were browbeaten into silence on this issue, but now that there is a glimmer of hope, they are asking, yearning, and learning to speak up again. Yes, the Cardinals, bishops and priests can “honestly” claim there is no demand. They succeeded in forcing the desire for it to be silenced for a long time.
But now the Pope himself told them its OK. Glares and mockery from local priests and hierarchs will no longer succeed in suppressing this yearning and longing for sacred, holy, Latin liturgies.
It will take a little while, but this is a tidal wave that will build and never be turned back.
Has anyone considered actually commissioning a public opinion poll to get accurate data on the present desire/demand for the TLM in any given diocese, state or country?
Does anyone know how to organize or commission such a poll, what polling organizations are trustworthy, and the cost of such a poll?
In the Church of England when the Book of Common Prayer was replaced by the Alternative Service Book in many parishes, the Prayer Book Society, then headed by a sociologist, Professor David Martin of the London School of Economics commissioned the Gallup Organisation to conduct an opinion poll among Anglicans to provide some hard facts on popular preferences rather than trendy episcopal propaganda. Perhaps some Catholic organisation such as the Latin Mass Society should consider doing likewise for Catholics.
I respecfully disagree with your position on the desire of the people for Latin in the liturgy. I know there are left-wing loon bishops and priests that don’t want it, but they are largely geriatrics. If you follow liturgical news in the US you would discover that over 25 bishops (most under the age of 55) have already celebrated the TLM since Summorum Pontificum. One bishop who did was so amazed at the attendence that he stated “if this is what it takes to fill the pews, so be it.” In the Archdiocese of Chicago 10 parishes now offer the TLM and the number is growing. At my favorite parish in Chicago, St. John Cantius, they offer both the TLM and Novus Ordo in Latin. The Church is very large and the Mass is always packed. 75% of the worshippers are under the age of 50 with large families. So you must live in a very select world of anti-Catholic Catholics. I feel for you.
Those traditionally inclined young “John Paul II priests” are found in every diocese that’s successfully fostered vocations in the last 5 or 10 years, and by common observation are a solid majority of all priests ordained in this period.
Direct or indirect contact with a number of seminaries — both ones with orthodox and ones with progressive faculties — informs me that a majority of current young seminarians are interested in the Latin Mass (ordinary and/or extraordinary form).
Anyone who asks “Where are these orthodox young priests and seminarians?” reveals himself to be out of contact with the contemporary Catholic Church. You may be correct only about those bishops and older clergy who are similarly out of contact with their Church.
BK’s 25%-50%-25% distribution is probably about right. But I am very sorry for anyone who considers himself Catholic and doesn’t even know that the long-awaited restoration of the Church is now underway — though led not so much by those young priests and seminarians — indispensable as they obviously are — but by the young Catholic adults who with their large families point to our future, Deo gratias.
“Tom,don’t be so pessimistic, please.”
I am not pessimistic. I simply based my comments upon what Cardinals, bishops and priests.
Example: Cardinal DiNardo, who is relatively open to the TLM…he isn’t a TLM-hater…stated that within his vast diocese, little interest exists regarding the TLM….he added that he doesn’t envision even the granting of a church to the TLM community.
You would think that his diocese would be perfect for the TLM…particularly as the Church in Houston is divided as the result of the vernacular.
But His Emminence stated that little interest exists in the TLM…the people don’t want any part of the TLM…or Latin in either form of Mass.
When one Cardinal and bishop after another states that “nobody” is interested in the TLM or Novus Ordo in Latin, then at some point we are compelled to stop and pay attention.
I know from my own experience that I cannot find more than a few people who are interested in assisting at any Mass in Latin.
I am not pessimistic. I am realistic.
With few exceptions, Cardinals and bishops are not interested in promoting the study of Latin, let alone the Mass in Latin in either form.
That is reality and it’s undeniable.
You know that. I know that.
Bishop Rifan and the SSPX bishops are the only bishops on earth who are willing to promote the TLM exclusively.
Archbishop Burke and a few bishops of his ilk are friends of the TLM.
The remainder of bishops — in other words, virtually the entire hierarchy — are not particularly interested in promoting the restoration of Latin…they don’t want Latin and 99 percent of the laity are uninterested in Mass in Latin.
That is reality.
Error: Please enter the anti-spam word.
Copy your comment in case this site forces a page reload whenever you press the Back button:
\”I respecfully disagree with your position on the desire of the people for Latin in the liturgy.I feel for you.\”
Then you disagree respectfully and feel for the majority of bishops and priests upon whom I based ny remarks.
I inagine that you also feel for the Holy Father, who wrote the following:
\”The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.\”
The TLM will, at best, occupy a microscopic portion of the Church.
That is the reality of the situation as indicated by Pope Benedict XVI and the majority of bishops.
Neither you nor I can change the fact that few…very few…Catholics are interested in the TLM.
Read what Cardinal DiNardo stated regarding the TLM…interest is not there…and His Emminence is not an anti-Trad.
He and his brother Cardinals/bishops have simply told the truth.
“But I am very sorry for anyone who considers himself Catholic and doesn’t even know that the long-awaited restoration of the Church is now underway—though led not so much by those young priests and seminarians—indispensable as they obviously are—but by the young Catholic adults who with their large families point to our future, Deo gratias.”
What “long-awaited restoration” is underway? The restoration that Popes Pual VI and John Paul II declared had arrived decades ago during and immediately following Vatican II?
The “new springtime” is just about the only “long-awaited restoration” of which I’m aware.
Are you talking about Pope John Paul II’s “Purification of Memory” “restoration,” — the constant “apologies” — which His Holiness declared are necessary to renew the Church?
What “restoration” are you talking about?
“Direct or indirect contact with a number of seminaries— both ones with orthodox and ones with progressive faculties—informs me that a majority of current young seminarians are interested in the Latin Mass (ordinary and/or extraordinary form).”
The you know more than a great many bishops who say otherwise.
Also…Father Zuhlsdorf has asked seminarians to report on the level of TLM interest…and based upon the replies posted to this blog that I have read, few seminarians are interested in the TLM.
I’m beginning to think you’re here to pick a fight rather than participate in a dialogue. “Archbishop Burke and his ilk” suggests hostility. Look you can ignore reality if you want but more than 25 American Catholic bishops have offered the TLM recently and Chicago now has 10 parishes that offer it. Before the Motu Proprio there were only 3. In most dioceses in this country TLM’s are being celebrated now. There are rapidly growing religious orders of men, The Institute of Christ, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, both of which are dedicated to celebrating the TLM. These orders are taking over parishes because there are not
enough order priests to staff them. A new order in Chicago, The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, celebrates both forms in Latin, they are now staffing 2 parishes and will end up
staffing more as their ranks grow. Mother Angelica is now televising the TLM in Latin which reaches millions of believing (not fake Catholics). Seminaries are now beginning to train seminarians in Latin, so they can do either form. At the University of Notre Dame, there is now a weekly TLM and the Basilica is using Latin chants and polyphonies every day. Lastly, in Europe, the Latin language liturgies (I’ve been there buddy) are the only Masses with any appreciable numbers. THe Novus Ordo masses in Europe are lucky to have a couple of dozen folks in the pews. But keep denying this growing trend if it makes you happy. Tom
TJM wrote (quoting me): “Archbishop Burke and his ilk” suggests hostility. I’m beginning to think you’re here to pick a fight rather than participate in a dialogue.”
That is a bizarre statement.
I wrote the following regarding Archbishop Burke: “Archbishop Burke and a few bishops of his ilk are friends of the TLM.”
I stated that Archbishop Burke is a friend of the TLM…same with bishops of his ilk.
That is, in your opinion, a sign of “hostility” on my part?
Complimenting Archbishop Burke and bishops of his ilk as friends of the TLM is an act of “hostility,” according to you.
Are you serious?
Dear Doctor BK,
You believe that about 25 percent of Catholics wish to assist at the Traditional Latin Mass.
Is that correct?
If that’s correct, does that percentage apply to the Church in the United States? Does that percentage apply the Western Church as a whole?
“Chicago now has 10 parishes that offer it. Before the Motu Proprio there were only 3.”
Incorrect. There were six (for some years) before the MP and this is due to Cardinal George. There is one additional parish (on the South side) that is doing it on trial). I assume you are also including the parish out in Volo, Illinois where one priest from STJ was just assigned as pastor (I think he was ordained four years ago and now he is pastor of a parish!)–I think there may have been associations between SJC and that parish anyway. Again, I have no idea what other locations you are talking about because your #s are HIGHER than that given by the AOC.
TJM wrote: “I respecfully disagree with your position on the desire of the people for Latin in the liturgy.So you must live in a very select world of anti-Catholic Catholics. I feel for you. I know there are left-wing loon bishops and priests that don’t want it, but they are largely geriatrics.”
Wow! What strange replies that I have received.
By the way, do anti-Catholics refer to Catholic bishops and priests as “left-wing loons?”
To believe Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops when they say that the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass (replete with altar girls, laity distributing Holy Communion…typical Novus Ordo Mass) will remain far and away the Mass that the majority of Catholics will encounter is to live among very select anti-Catholic Catholics?
Cardinal DiNardo stated that little interest exists for the TLM.
Do you also lump Cardinal DiNardo, for example, with so-called “left-wing loon bishops?”
I can quote any number of fine Cardinals/bishops who insist that little interest in the TLM exists among Catholics.
They are wrong, but you are correct?
Just about the entire body of Latin Church bishops is wrong when it comes to discerning TLM interest among their flock?
To believe that widespread desire throughout the Western Church does not exist among priests and laymen to offer/assist at the TLM is to be anti-Catholic?
To be a “good” Catholic, one must accept your opinion regarding interest in the TLM?
Is that what Holy Mother Church teaches?
I believe that a few of my brothers and sisters here have misunderstand my stance regarding the TLM.
I love the TLM. I prefer the TLM over the Novus Ordo. I wish that the TLM would be restored to its former place (as the ordinary form of Mass) within the Latin Church.
But based upon what Pope Benedict XVI and the Latin bishops have declared, what you and I…yes…I…desire is not that which the Holy Father and bishops desire.
Unless or until the Pope and bishops alter their collective mindset, the Novus Ordo in the vernacular, with altar girls, “EMs” (predominately women), lay readers, etc…will remain the Mass that 99 percent of Latin Catholics will encounter today, tomorrow and decades from now.
I am on your side, brothers and sisters. But reality is reality.
Comment by Tom: “You believe that about 25 percent of Catholics wish to assist at the Traditional Latin Mass. Is that correct?”
Actually, I should have been more clear. I think 15% would like to have access to a TLM, even if they do not personally plan to attend weekly.
In my area, about 10% of my Catholic patients, who average around 70 years old, truly yearn for a return of the TLM. I cannot claim any hard data for any other demographic group in my immediate area.
“If that’s correct, does that percentage apply to the Church in the United States?”
I have no hard data to make such a claim. That is why, in a subsequent post, I recommended the commissioning of a public opinion poll.
I suspect that a polling of those who grew up with the TLM will consistently find that 5 to 15% desire a return to it.
I suspect that a polling of the Catholic population at large (not just self-professed Catholics, but those who actually attend mass weekly) will find that 2 to 5% of the general Catholic population desires access to the TLM.
I suspect that these numbers will grow with time, not shrink. Practicing Catholics try to be obedient and do not usually resist their pastors and bishops. Their pastors and bishops have told them for 40 years that they were being “bad” or “disobedient” Catholics if they openly expressed a desire for a return of the TLM.
Now that they can no longer be coerced into believing they are being “bad” or “disobedient” Catholics if they openly express a desire for the TLM, they will start expressing that desire. But it will take a little while longer yet before the stigma of that desire (rightfully) fades, so the demand for the TLM will build slowly.
The Cardinals, bishops, and priests held that stigma over the heads of Catholics for 40 years, and it has only been lifted for 3 months. You cannot expect the laity to know they have this right when Cardinals, bishops, and priests openly continue to try to undermine Summorum Pontificum, and you cannot accept at face value these claims, by the same Cardinals, bishops, and priests, that there is no demand for the TLM and none to be forthcoming.
But word is getting out, the Holy Spirit is in charge, and this movement will not be turned back.
It is unstoppable.
By the way, if only 2 to 5% of American Catholics desire the TLM at present, that is still between 1 and 3 million of the most committed Catholics in the Church. And everywhere the TLM sprouts, it attracts the youth. And now, its OK to express the desire for the TLM, and the Pope is on our side in this regard. Almost everyone today that is a “conservative Catholic” will be a traditional Catholic within a few short years; that is the natural progression of searching for Truth and Holiness and the Sacred.
Again, not to overstate the obvious, but this is a force that will only grow, fast. It cannot be stopped or rolled back.
I think must folks would agree that “ilk” is a prejorative term.
In terms of Cardinal DiNardo, I don’t think he’s a left-wing loon, but there are a lot of aging American bishops who fit that term, i.e. Mahony, Trautman, etc. Also, I seem to recall that DiNardo celebrates Mass in Latin publicly, probably, the Novus Ordo. Also, I think many prelates are simply in denial because the TLM makes more work for them. If they had done their jobs and implemented Sacrosanctum Concilium properly in the first place we wouldn’t have the mess we have today in the liturgy which requires the TLM to help fix it. So I’m not buying into silly arguments against the TLM any longer. I think Bishop Cordileone, Archbishop Burke, Bishop Perry, Bishop Moreno, Bishop Rhoades (and I could go on and name all 25)are the future and they support the TLM.
Maybe because you love the TLM you are being overly cautious in your assessment. When you have 400 students at the University of Notre Dame attending the TLM every Sunday that is huge news, particularly when most college students don’t even attend Sunday Mass. And Notre Dame is mainstream Catholicism in most folks views. When you have 800 plus people at St. John Cantius in Chicago at just ONE of their Sunday Latin liturgies, that’s huge news, particularly when you see these Masses packed with young kids.
When you have religious orders and seminaries reviving the TLM and Latin for the Novus Ordo that’s huge news.
The new reality in Catholicism is that the religious vitality is on the traditionalist side. Kumbaya is dead, over, and no longer attracts the young.
I got my calculation by gleaning several websites, the number is up to 10. I’ll look up the parishes and get back to you.
Comment by TJM: “I think must folks would agree that “ilk” is a prejorative term.”
“Ilk” did not always carry the negative connotation that it does at present. On a quick search, no dictionary definitions of “ilk” carry a negative or a prejorative connotation either.
“I got my calculation by gleaning several websites, the number is up to 10. I’ll look up the parishes and get back to you.”
Go the the Archdiocese of Chicago website and click on (1) Directories (2)Find a parish (3)Sunday Masses… other than English (4) Latin. There are only five listed there. The sixth parish is in Highwood (Lake County). Other than that, there is a parish in Bridgeport that is using the EF on a trial basis. BTW, the Cardinal used the #6 recently.
TJM wrote: “I think must folks would agree that “ilk” is a prejorative term.”
They would? People would think that “ilk”, meaning type or kind, is a perjorative term?
Returning to your comment…you stated that the following declaration from me was hostile.
I wrote: “Archbishop Burke and a few bishops of his ilk are friends of the TLM.”
I remain at a loss as to why you believe that my having said that Archbishop Burke and his “ilk”…his kind…are TLM-friendly is a sing of hostility on my part.
I would think that labeling Archbishop Burke and bishops of his kind as friends of the TLM is positive rather than hostile.
TJM wrote: “Also, I seem to recall that DiNardo celebrates Mass in Latin publicly, probably, the Novus Ordo.”
I don’t about that.
All I know is that Cardinal DiNardo had made it clear that he didn’t have a church in his diocese to set aside for “traditionalists.”
He also stated that he doesn’t anticipate much expansion of the TLM as little interest in the TLM exists, at least among his 1,300,000 subjects.
1,300,000 Catholics…and little interest at best exists for the TLM.
Again…why should we doubt Cardinal DiNardo’s knowledge of his flock?
“There is one additional parish (on the South side) that is doing it on trial).”
In a strange way, the Moto Proprio seems to be working
against the TLM in Chicago. That ICR parish at St. Gelasius
needs funding to rebuilt the church, yet that is placed
into jeopardy because of concerns this “trial” (and maybe
others) may in fact be taking away its potential parishioners.
The MP was intended to fluorish the TLM. That may be in time
but not before it dilutes its existing base. And guess what
they’ll conclude about the interest of the TLM when that
Having said this, why weren’t the congregations asked about
their Novus Ordo interest back in 1970 before they were
forced to accept it?
“That ICR parish at St. Gelasius”
This parish is not in Bridgeport, but in Hyde Park. The Church I was referring to is: St. Mary of Perpetual Help.
BobP asked: “Having said this, why weren’t the congregations asked about
their Novus Ordo interest back in 1970 before they were
forced to accept it?”
Pope Paul VI was determined to replace the TLM with the Mass that the Consilium pieced together and used his great Papal powers to accomplished said task.
Interestingly, an opinion poll of sorts regarding the Novus Ordo was conducted by the Holy Father.
The following information is found in Monsignor Bugnini’s book The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975.
During the 1967 Synod of Bishops, Pope Paul VI ordered that the Novus Ordo be celebrated for the assembled bishops to guage their reaction to the Novus Ordo.
The majority of bishops were shocked at what they experienced and rejected the Novus Ordo.
Various bishops warned that churches in their dioceses would empty should they be forced to implement the Novus Ordo Mass.
The liturgical revolutionaries feared that their Novus Ordo Mass would be rejected by Pope Paul VI.
The Pope met with a few Churchmen who were determined to replace the TLM with the Novus Ordo.
Father Rembert Weakland, later Archbishop Weakland, was one of the Churchmen who comprised a pro-Novus Ordo group who had met with Pope Paul VI.
The Pope listened…then agreed that the Traditional Latin Mass would give way to the Novus Ordo Mass.
The majority of bishops had rejected the Novus Ordo…but the Pope used his power to implement the Novus Ordo.
“This parish is not in Bridgeport, but in Hyde Park. The Church I was referring to is: St. Mary of Perpetual Help.”
Yes, I know that. It’s by Sox Park. But the point is that now there are three parishes within relatively close proximity, St. Gelasius, St. Thomas More and now St. Mary of Perpetual Help. St. Thomas More has its Mass at noon so it really shouldn’t take away from St. Gelasius but my fear is that SMPH may take away those that would have come in from the north.
Of course if all the SMPH TLM attendees came in from its other NO Masses then we’d have no big problem. :) But I have no way of knowing exactly why they decided to drop the 8:30 Novus Ordo. Lack of attendance?
“Go the the Archdiocese of Chicago website and click on (1) Directories (2)Find a parish (3)Sunday Masses… other than English (4) Latin. There are only five listed there.”
Yes, but now with the issuance of the Motu Proprio, does one need to register his EF Masses with the Archdiocese at all? Did you know Fr. Brankin is also saying the EF at his Berwyn Church?
BobP: These parishes are not IMO in close proximity and they are in culturally very different areas of the city…in any case, six EF Masses have been available for a while and this number has been adequate. I agree with another poster that there is no demand for the EF. In the situation of Chicago which has many immigrant groups, I cannot see them giving up Mass in their own language for a Mass in Latin.
BTW, St. Gelasius is no more. The parish was given to the religious order of Christ the King Sovereign and the parish now goes by the same name.
Henry Edwards wrote: “Direct or indirect contact with a number of seminaries— both ones with orthodox and ones with progressive faculties—informs me that a majority of current young seminarians are interested in the Latin Mass (ordinary and/or extraordinary form).”
Father Z asked seminarians to report on the situation regarding interest in the TLM at seminaries.
With one or two exceptions, the posts to this blog from seminarians have been discouraging. Scant interest in the TLM among seminarians has been reported.
“in any case, six EF Masses have been available for a while and this number has been adequate. I agree with another poster that there is no demand for the EF.”
If this is the case, there would be no reason for the SSPX
and other “unapproved” Masses to operate within the diocese.
Unfortunately this is not the case as these are flourishing.