The future Archbishop of Westminster, His Hermeneuticalness Fr. Tim Finigan tipped me off about a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin every week in Glasgow, Scotland.
I am very happy to promote this on WDTPRS!
Here is the post from The Hermeneutic of Continuity.
My good friend Fr Gerard Byrne says a Latin (novus ordo) Mass every Sunday at 4pm in the beautiful late Victorian gothic Church of St Patrick’s, Anderston in Glasgow. The Mass is a model of good practice for the ordinary form of the Roman rite – celebrated ad orientem, with the parts of the Mass all properly sung in Latin.
A small schola sings the parts of the Mass. Once a month, they sing the full chants from the Graduale Romanum and on the other Sundays, they use the Graduale Simplex. New members for the schola would be warmly welcomed. This would be a good opportunity if you would like to learn to sing Gregorian chant. The practice each week is on Wednesday evening from 7.30-9.30pm. Contact email is: schola_glasguensis@hotmail.co.uk.
Excellent!
More Latin!
Loading ...
I wish we’d have more of these kinds of Masses here in the USA… specifically California. In parishes where they do exist, who started it all? The pastor? The “liturgy council” or whatever-it’s-called? How do we get more Masses of the Ordinary Form in Latin?
No offence intended–and sorry for the commercial reference–but why why why would anyone want the New Coke when Coke Classic is available?
Anyway, if you’d like to find out more about the N.O.M. in Latin, go to the webpage of the Latin Liturgy Association. If you are knowledgeable about episcopal resistance to the old Mass before 2007, you will notice that some of the anti-traditionalist bishops were promoting NewMass in Latin as a way to derail efforts of some to obtain the real thing. Detroit is a good example of this, where you will find several New Masses in Latin. There are some other excellent examples of it. I’d have to consult my file on this to comment further.
P.K.T.P.
Too bad I don’t live in Glasgow!
This mass in Glasgow has been going on for several months now, but I only found out about it last week. Why the secrecy about it? Anyhow tho it is the new rite, at least it’s very well done. Will go every week.
P.K.T.P: “No offence intended—and sorry for the commercial reference—but why why why would anyone want the New Coke when Coke Classic is available?”
Well, that was predictable, and it only took two comments.
PKTP- It’s very simple really, the Novus Ordo in Latin gets people used to the Latin. Once they are used to the Latin, adjusting the the original rubrics of the TLM is a very small step.
I always get a bit nervous when comments such as PKTP’s are made.
“why why why would anyone want the New Coke when Coke Classic is available?”
These sort of comments may lead to the suggestion that the Novus Ordo is invalid or somewhat “less” than the TLM. This is simply false. Each form of the one rite enriches the other. Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO. People are free to choose, which is what should happen.
Although PKTP probably didn’t mean to convey anything negative about the Novus Ordo, I am simply stating that one could get such a false impression from that statement.
More Latin is a good thing!
Honestly, if I had to choose, my preference would kind of be for the Ordinary Form in Latin with Gregorian Chant, according to the rubrics, etc. I love the Extraordinary Form, mind you, but I think the Ordinary Form does have potential.
Bill wrote: “Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO. People are free to choose, which is what should happen.”
Yes…”some” people prefer the NO.
Conversely, 80 to 85 percent of Catholics (at least in the U.S.) refuse each week to assist at the Novus Ordo.
The Latin Church is in dire need of a truly frank liturgical discussion.
Our Churchmen insist that “most” Latin Catholics prefer the Novus Ordo.
The reality is that “some” Latin Catholics prefer the Novus Ordo.
However, based upon the Pope’s Palm Sunday Mass, we have a long way to go before our Churchmen are ready for the much-needed frank liturgical discussion begins.
It is good that Glasgow has at least ‘one’ Mass in latin in the ordinary form, and best wishes to the priest and those responsible. It is a pity that the archbishop of Glasgow does not have an open heart to those who are attached to the extraordinary form. While I am delighted about the Latin Novus Ordo Mass in Glasgow, it is a pity that the archbishop still has the mentality of that there is a ‘war’ between both uses of the Roman rite. As Dom Gerard of Le Barroux once said ‘let the war of rites cease’.
Just last week, I had a woman tell me that, while the NO was valid, to go to it on weekdays would be like buying meat just because the butcher assures me that it won’t poison me. When I hear things like that, or like the comment above about “New Coke” and “Classic Coke” I feel queasy. Comments like that just reinforce what the Archbishop of Glasgow seems to think about people who want to go to the TLM.
I don’t know how long the Latin OF Mass has been said at St. Patricks, but perhaps it will help the parish heal from the awful events of last year.
It’s in a very central location, and I’ve heard some good things about it. We already drive past it on Sunday morning to attend the EF at Sacred Heart. Someday, we’d like to check it out.
Sometimes, after reading the comments here, I wonder if certain people will ever find anything good to say about the NO. This is what irritates me about some so-called traditionalists. They, in their wisdom, have decided that the NO is inferior in all respects to the TLM. To them, it is to be avoided like the plague.
Personally, I can appreciate BOTH the TLM and the NO. I know others do as well. A truly reverent NO Mass can be “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” as can a truly reverent TLM. Each enriches the other.
Bill wrote: “Personally, I can appreciate BOTH the TLM and the NO. I know others do as well. A truly reverent NO Mass can be “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” as can a truly reverent TLM. Each enriches the other.”
Bill, I agree completely. In London we are very lucky that there are many churches where the Novus Ordo is celebrated in Latin, with beautiful music and reverent ceremonial: the Oratory, the Farm Street Jesuit church, Spanish Place, Westminster Cathedral — the list is fairly long. There are also a good number of celebrations of Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Visitors from many countries have told me that they find Mass in Latin, in either form, a sign of the Church’s true catholicity. Latin truly can be a common language for us!
Each form of the one rite enriches the other.
It depends on what you mean when you refer to the NO. If you mean mass in the vernacular facing the people, then I don’t think they enrich each other.
Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO.
Maybe it’s the liturgical version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Or maybe it’s Gresham’s Law applied to liturgy: Bad liturgy drives out good liturgy.
People are free to choose, which is what should happen.
Comment by Bill
You must have been on the moon for the last 40 years. People haven’t been free to choose: Vernacular Novus Ordo was crammed down their throats, and those who wanted Latin liturgy were persecuted.
Each form of the one rite enriches the other.
It depends on what you mean when you refer to the NO. If you mean mass in the vernacular facing the people, then I don’t think they enrich each other–simply because they are born from opposing approaches.
Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO.
Maybe it’s the liturgical version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Or maybe it’s Gresham’s Law applied to liturgy: Bad liturgy drives out good liturgy.
People are free to choose, which is what should happen.
Comment by Bill
You must have been on the moon for the last 35 years. People haven’t been free to choose: Vernacular Novus Ordo has been forced on everyone (including priests), and those who wanted Latin liturgy were persecuted.
“Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO.
Maybe it’s the liturgical version of the Stockholm Syndrome.”
And maybe those who prefer the EF are merely nostalgic. Or maybe not. Maybe there are people who, while deploring any abuses, legitmately and thoughtfully prefer the Mass in the Ordinary Form.
I suppose it’s easier to mock, or even dismiss the possibility of legitimate arguments for or against either form. But let’s presume the honesty of those whose preferences aren’t ours instead of implying brainwashing on the one hand or nostalgia on the other.
Here in the Washington, DC-area I’ve been to 2 Latin Novus Ordo Masses. The one at St. Catherine of Siena in Great Falls, VA, is “ad orientem” and very reverent. The one at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in DC, however, is another matter. Although the priest conducts himself reverently, they have female acolytes dressed in albs, lectors dressed in protestant-style choir robes, as well as female eucharistic ministers. I haven’t returned to that Mass ever since.
I guess we all need to keep the emotions in check when we start these
discussions. For me, I always have the same questions, namely, what does
“The Reform of the Reform” really mean, and can it really happen?
Before the MP, we never spoke of “two forms of one rite.” So, much of the
reading available to “so-called traditionalists” was based upon the apparent
destruction of the Traditional Mass, which the Holy Father even wrote about
on more than one occasion. See Michael Davies and Msgr. Gamber’s writing.
These are men our current Holy Father respected and sympathized with.
But if in the end, it will come down to “two forms of the same rite” than
I really can’t see it ever changing from Bill’s comment above, that we all
just choose our own liturgical preferences. I like the TLM, you like the
N.O. in Latin and ad orientem, another likes the community feel of a good
Charismatic Mass, etc…How do we see a “Reform of the Reform” if everyone
is allowed to simply keep doing what they are doing, and going where they
are going?
I appreciate Melody’s comment and others’ comments that Latin can be good for the N.O. and can prepare for the T.L.M. Nevertheless, I have been watching the statistics very carefully for many years now. In the past, some bishops used the Latin N.O.s as a way to dissuade adhesion to the the old Mass. I could discuss several excellent examples of this, the case of Detroit, U.S.A., being one of them. Still, the pre-2007 conditions no longer apply, and I can see how a Latin N.O. can be a good thing, although I worry that it might become a substitute for ‘the real thing’ in some places, or that some priests may offer it for the sole purpose of precluding any rallying for the 1962 Missal.
Bill wrote of my first post:
“These sort of comments may lead to the suggestion that the Novus Ordo is invalid or somewhat ‘less’ than the TLM. This is simply false. Each form of the one rite enriches the other. Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO. People are free to choose, which is what should happen.”
I wish to make it crystal clear that I accept the validity of the N.O.M. Also, I really don’t see how my comment could even remotely question that.
Is the New Mass ‘less’ than the T.L.M.? I have argued elsewhere that it most certainly is less in certain very important respects. Nevertheless, both Masses are valid and both fulfil the four ends of prayer. I would suggest that Holy Mass is the very first catechism of the Church and that, in its catechetical end, the old Mass is considerably better than the New. The reason is that the New Mass is, in several important places, open to erroneous and even heretical meanings (e.g. in reference to the nature of the Sacrifice). Now, obviously, there is no heretical meaning in the New Mass, but it fails adequately to make that clear in some places. This has, in fact, led to misconceptions among faithful about the very nature of the Eternal Sacrifice. It needs to be made much clearer that Mass is an unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice at Calvary and not merely a sacrifice of ourselves or of thanksgiving and praise.
This business about each Rite of Mass enriching the other is very noble-sounding and you are free to believe it. But others are free to think that such a notion is simply false–even ridiculous. I can see how more propers (the new three-year cycle) can be more enriching to more intellectual massgoers, but I really do not see how the ordinary of the New Mass can enrich the old Mass in the least. Tradition is not enriched at all by the compositions and concoctions of Msgr. Bugnini and his Consilium, with its six heretical Protestant advisors.
Let’s not get carried away here. These opinions about enrichment may sound good but we are not bound to believe them in the least. We are quite free to hold the exact opposite view.
P.K.T.P.
Mr. Perkins, while I accept at face value your statement that you believe the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite to be valid, I have to then challenge you to the accuracy of your statement in the first paragraph, that a “Latin N.O. can be a good thing, although I worry that it might become a substitute for ‘the real thing’ in some places.”
Words do mean things, and I think calling the Extraordinary Form the “real thing” leads many to the logical conclusion that you think the Ordinary Form is somehow not the real thing.
As you bring up the Archdiocese of Detroit, which is, in the interest of full disclosure, both my my residence and employer, it is indeed true that for many years there was a noticeable reluctance to permit an Indult Mass. Instead, a number of parishes had regular celebrations of the Novus Ordo in Latin. In fact, I would daresay that Detroit probably had more regularly scheduled Novus Ordo Sunday Masses than most other dioceses in the country (at least six parishes, I believe). Now that we’re past the Indult days, there has been a veritable flowering of Extraordinary Form Masses, and a number of the Novus Ordo Masses continue in stable existence. The EF Mass I attend weekly, at the parish which had been granted the indult prior to Summorum pontificum, has noticed a steady growth in numbers over the last several years. A number of other parishes have begun Extraordinary Form Masses on a regular basis, and yet many of the parishes that offered the Novus Ordo before, are continuing to do so. Only one parish, that I am aware of, Assumption Grotto, has replaced a previous regular celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin with an Extraordinary Form celebration.
So, it could be said that the promotion of the Latin Novus Ordo during the days of the indult, may have provided a fertile seedbed for the flowering of the Extraordinary Form in this current time period (I’m hesitant to adhere to that claim, since it could simply be a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc). The fact that the Ordinary Form Latin Masses continue apace in this post-SP world also seems to say that, for some people at least, the Ordinary Form in Latin is just as much “the real thing” as the Extraordinary Form.
Bill wrote:
“Sometimes, after reading the comments here, I wonder if certain people will ever find anything good to say about the NO. This is what irritates me about some so-called traditionalists. They, in their wisdom, have decided that the NO is inferior in all respects to the TLM. To them, it is to be avoided like the plague.”
The Church does not require that we say anything good–or anything at all–about the N.O.M. Perhaps the N.O. is inferior in every respect. I certainly think so. This expression “in their wisdom” implies that there is a greater wisdom accessible to all according to which the New Mass *must* be an improvement in at least some respects. This is simply not the case. The Church did indeed promulgate the New Mass but not on the grounds that it must be an improvement. As best as I can determine, the idea was that it was more suitable for a particular time. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that however greater the wisdom of the Church is in general, this was a case in which a mistake was made, for the Church is not infallible in such things. What has followed promulgation of the New Mass has not been renewed vigour in Mass attendance or anything else measurable. Quite the reverse.
As for the plague, traditionalists differ in their attitude toward avoiding the N.O. I attend it very rarely when there are simply no other ways of fulfilling the obligation, or when insisting on attendance elsewhere would impose an unreasonable burden on others. Given the local choices, I have to go home and listen to some Hayden or Bach for an hour to get that horrible N.O. noise out of my head. Mass should never be the thing which ruined your entire week.
Some traditionalists argue that it is ‘morally impossible’ for them to attend the N.O. because they find that it undermines their faith. This is a valid excuse in law for not fulfilling the obligation so as to avoid a greater evil, for the salvation of souls is the highest law. This argument is plausible in law. However, I think that people must ask themselves if they are being honest in this assessment and not merely using it as an excuse for avoiding the N.O. Everyone will have a different answer on that one.
In my case, I simply cannot see how attending the N.O. will threaten my faith. If I am wrong in that assessment, it is at least an honest mistake.
P.K.T.P.
Jeremy wrote:
“Too bad I don’t live in Glasgow”.
Indeed it is, since the T.L.M. is also available every Saturday afternoon (fulfilling the obligation) at Glasgow. Still, Sunday morning is better.
P.K.T.P.
I am happy to report that at St Clare’s parish in O’Fallon actually prays (no sings!) the Angus Dei in Latin!! I was blown away with joy when I first heard it…
‘course, the liturgical dancers led father out during the recessional…
…small steps…
P.K.T.P.:
The reason to prefer the OF chanted in Latin is that it is the optimal implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which called for the reform of the liturgy, which resulted in the OF, and the promotion of Gregorian Chant, preserved today almost only in the EF.
It’s not that the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium have been tried and found wanting; it’s that they have not been tried.
“It’s not that the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium have been tried and found wanting; it’s that they have not been tried.”
I’d like to point out that the above statement is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It has been tried in some (very few) places, and in those places it has not been found wanting.
The Mass in St Patrick’s is badly in need of support. The congregation is sometimes in single figures and it is consequently under ‘review’ by the diocese.
So a good show from Glasgow-based WDTPRS readers would really help. It will be one of the few afternoon/evening Masses taking place in Glasgow on Easter Sunday.
See the discussion under the previous entry on Apb. Conti for more
Where is Glasgow is TLM celebrated on a Saturday afternoon?
The reason for such poor attendance at St.Patricks is due to lack of publicity. No one seems to know about it. I only found out by chance, yet could’ve been going there every Sunday for months. However, the powers that be seem to begrudge us this new rite mass sung in Latin. The only regular one in Scotland outside Pluscarden Abbey in Moray. I mean, why on earth do they have to remove the 6 candlesticks from the old high alter and use 6 smaller ones of their own? That to me is an insult. As to the above debate about the old & new rites. I would much prefer the old mass, but the one at Sacred Heart in the morning is low mass and there is no real connection with the parish. The one at Anderston (St. Patrick) has the feel of a parish liturgy. I rarely ever go to the new mass because what on offer is quite appalling.(They seem to have a woman sacristan at the cathedral in Glasgow who was doing the ablutions for the chalices after mass with the cardinal of Edinburgh and the Papal Nuncio.)Holy Mass should not be like that. So, this one on Sunday afternoons is an absolute blessing from God and is worthy of our support, as it is easy walking distance from me, I have no excuses for not going!!
“Also, like it or not, some people prefer the NO.
Maybe it’s the liturgical version of the Stockholm Syndrome.”
And maybe those who prefer the EF are merely nostalgic. Or maybe not. Maybe there are people who, while deploring any abuses, legitmately and thoughtfully prefer the Mass in the Ordinary Form.
I suppose it’s easier to mock, or even dismiss the possibility of legitimate arguments for or against either form. But let’s presume the honesty of those whose preferences aren’t ours instead of implying brainwashing on the one hand or nostalgia on the other.
Comment by Mike Williams
The Stockholm Syndrome has nothing to do with brainwashing, and even if it were a matter of nostalgia, it would still be one’s choice.
Who’s mocking? I’m speaking from experience. Here at a few examples:
1. A priest with whom I studied Latin in Rome was posted to a suburban DC parish. He wanted to say a Latin Novus Ordo ON HIS DAY OFF (i.e., privately), and the pastor forbid it. So every week the priest would have to drive into DC to the Opus Dei center where he could say mass in Latin.
2. When Dominicae Cenae was promulgated, I asked an asst pastor (OCarm) in my hometown for a Latin mass. He was a good guy and quondam Latin teacher. He told me that the ordinary, Archbishop Strecker (rhymes with wrecker) would not permit it–then we went for a hamburger.
So out of my request for a Latin mass, I got a definite No and a hamburger that I could have purchased myself.
3. When I was a student at KU c. 1971, a few of us asked the pastor for a Latin Mass. He said yes, but it had to be a high mass. A chemistry prof who had taken a course in Greg Chant when he was at Notre Dame he led the choir (about 8 of us). The pastor put the mass at the least popular mass time. The church was packed, not only were people in the choir loft (we were just outside the sanctuary) but they crowded (not just standing) the aisles. We had the mass once a month, always well attended, for about 3 months. Then the pastor told us that the aforementioned archbishop said there would be no more Latin masses.
4. I assume you have no idea how many young men were chased out of formation in seminaries and religious orders just because they said they liked Latin liturgy.
I could go on and on with other stories about how the vernacular was force on people.
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
First of all, my reference to “the real thing” was not meant to be taken literally but to refer back to the comparison between Coke Classic and the New Coke. I believe that the company calls its product “the real thing”. I do think that the New Mass can be celebrated in a very devout and moving way. However, there are certain aspects of it I simply cannot stand, that horrible Offertory being one of them. The old Offertory is so beautiful and so fitting, and the Latin is much better than that of the Roman Canon (for reasons I am well aware of). Why on earth did those barbarians replace it with that thingy?
I know a good deal about the situation in Detroit before S.P. and was in regular contact with some of those who travelled to Lansing and others who travelled to Windsor to get around Cardinal Maida. My feeling on it is that the Cardinal finally allowed the first Indult, the one at the Assumpion Grotto, simply because the T.L.M. in Windsor, Canada was literally right across the Canadian border, and he couldn’t stop people from going there. There was also pressure on him from Rome. I’m not sure how the traditionalists on my side of the border managed to convince the Bishop of London to allow a T.L.M. right on the line with Detroit. It was obviously put there to defy Cardinal Maida. (I know about the earlier locations in Windsor, by the way).
I admit that the situation is different now, under S.P., but I would not say that the Cardinal’s several N.O.s in Latin were meant to promote tradition: they were meant to dissuade people from becoming attached to the T.L.M. There are a few other places where this was done by offering more than one N.O. in Latin, such as at Arlington, Madison, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. In every case, it was clearly an attempt of anti-traditionalist bishops either to dissuade tradition or, perhaps, even to anger traditionalists.
I have been following the situation with the New Mass in Latin since S.P. Already, in several cases, New Masses in Latin are quietly being replaced with ‘the real thing’. The latest example is the one at Wilmington, Delaware. The Bishop there decided many years ago that he would teach traditionalists a lesson and make them drink deep draughts of the sweetness and light that is supposedly NewMass. He wanted them to come to a realisation that the old Mass and everything it stands for is wrong. So the priest there offeresd the New Mass in Latin on second and fourth Sundays and the T.L.M. on the other Sundays. It didn’t really work. It just angered people. Some put up with it; others drove to Philadelphia every Sunday. But now the New Masses are all cancelled and replaced with the 1962 Missal.
In Toronto, where I grew up, the Oratorians had charge of two churches. They tried to lure people into the New Mass but having it in Latin with Chant and all the smells and bells. They had the a Low recited Mass at their other church. I’m not sure what the sitaution is there now. I do know that one of the two churches burnt down, but that they have two churches again now. There are other examples in which a bishop had the New Mass in Latin celebrated with all pomp and the old Mass allowed as a recited Low Mass. Clearly, the idea was to convince people that the New Mass was an improvement.
In the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, La., the priest is getting ready to celebrate the old Mass every Sunday. Currently, he says the New Mass every Sunday in Latin. I expect that he will simply replace the New with the true (there I go again!).
I have a file on the various cases on the U.S.A. My sense is that the N.O. in Latin is receding, although at a very slow rate. Incidentally, when I contacted the celebrant of one of these New Masses in Latin (to encourage him to replace it with the old Mass), he e-mailed back that, yes, indeed, the Mass he was celebrating was not the ‘real thing’. He himself used that expression, without any suggestion by me. And he is the one celebrating the New Mass in Latin!
P.K.T.P.
There’s no Saturday afternoon TLM in Glasgow. Occasionally (indeed, every quarter) there’s a Saturday Mass, but that’s just the Mass of the day. The TLM is celebrated ever Sunday morning at 10.15 in Sacred Heart, Bridgeton.
RBRown: I could add my stories to yours. The Church’s liturgy in Latin is effective, whether the TLM or NO. I believe that when we simply do what the Church asks, when we just Say The Black and Do The Red, when we get ourselves out of the way and seek instead to underscore the encounter with mystery, the whole Church resonates with the words and deeds of the High Priest.
Actually, Assumption Grotto in Detroit never received an indult for the TLM, and they have only begun offering it since the MP. St. Josaphat, my parish, is the one which began offering the TLM with an indult in 2004.
I’m certain that, in some places, the Latin N.O. was offered as a means of pulling people away from the TLM, and possibly done so with bad motives. I don’t think vicious motives need to be attributed all around however. I think in many places the N.O. was offered in Latin for no other reason than the Council called for it. I think of many conversations with the inimitable Msgr. Schuler precisely to that effect. And I’m certain that many people, myself included, find the Novus Ordo, validly celebrated, is most certainly the real thing, wherein Our Lord becomes present to feed His people.
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
Are you sure? I have records that Assumption Grotto had the old Mass in Latin long before S.P. It could have been a case of misreportage but, certainly, several weblists were reporting the Mass there as the T.L.M. long before S.P. was published.
As to your second point, the numbers do suggest very strongly that the Latin N.O.M. was used to draw people away from the T.L.M. Detroit is one example of this. It had several Latin N.O. Masses but no T.L.M., even though there had been constant petitioning for a T.L.M. and very resolute opposition from Cardinal Maida. The Diocese of Madison is a similar example. Also very good examples are Arlington (under that Bishop who died suddenly of a heart attack), Los Angeles and San Francisco. In the latter case, the T.L.M. has been approved every Sunday only since S.P. and then not near the City but in Marin County. The case of L.A. is notorious. In both cases, there were beautful N.O. Masses in Latin, often with all the smells and bells, but no T.L.M.
My contention is that, if you consider those U.S. dioceses where there was more than one Latin N.O. celebrated, these were often places where the T.L.M. was forbidden or else discouraged strongly. Here are the records of those numbers from about a year ago. These are numbers of N.O. Latin Masses by U.S. & Canadian see:
Worcester, Mass. 3;
Hartford, Conn. 2;
Washington, D.C. 2;
Arlington, Va. 6;
Detroit, Mich. 5;
La Crosse, Wisc. 2
St. Paul – Minneapolis, 2;
Galveston-Houston, Texas, 2;
Dallas, Texas, 2;
Las Vegas, Nevada, 2;
Los Angeles, Calif., 3;
San Francisco, Calif., 3;
Orange, Calif., 2;
Québec, P.Q., 2
There are also cases of just one Latin N.O. in a see in which the Indult was long denied or else obstructed. Here are examples of this:
Burlington, Vt. (not a good example, since the Mass is for monks only);
Greensburg, Penn.;
Pensacola-Tallahassee, Florida;
Lafayette, La.;
Brownsville, Texas;
San José, California.
Today, the number of N.O. Masses in Latin in the U.S.A. has declined slightly since July. There are now 58 every-Sunday Latin N.O. Masses in 35 sees. As at last July, there were 188 every-Sunday T.L.M.s in 105 sees. Since then, that number has increased to about 245 every-Sunday Masses (an educated guess) in 136 sees (an exact number).
I agree with you that there were certainly good examples of bishops who allowed both Masses. But, in a number of interesting cases, the New one was promoted, usually by being a High Mass with Chant next to a Low recited T.L.M.
There certainly are examples in which the Latin N.O.M. was not used to discourage attendance at a T.L.M. I admit this entirely.
At present, there is reasonable (although not substantial) evidence that the N.O.M. in Latin is receding and being replaced by the T.L.M. This is difficult to track because the Latin Liturgy Association has not updated its statistics in a long time.
As a very firm traditionalist, I much prefer the T.L.M. to a properly-celebrated N.O.M. One listmember referred to S.C. and the way things should have been. The problem there is that, even if one would follow the spirit of S.C. (which I reject anyway in spirit), the text of the New Mass includes reforms which it did not recommend, such as the intrusion of that horrid new Offertory and the abolition of all soto voce parts. I find that there are real problems with the text of the New Mass and that it is too open to mistaken interpretations. The Church has the duty not only to state the truth but to state it clearly and univocally so that souls be not led astray. The T.L.M. is a superior Mass by far and, if the two were both celebrated in Latin and properly, I am sure that the N.O.M. would disappear, which is what ought to happen.
But this is hardly the issue today. Today, the problem is not a good N.O.M. in Latin but the bad N.O.M.s miscelebrated with horrible abuses everywhere; and I do not think that it is humanly possible to abolish the N.O.M. in the foreseeable future. What I think the Pope would prefer to see in the long term is a merging of the T.L.M. and N.O.M. But I think that he realises that such an outcome can only be achieved not only after this pontificate but long after it. In the shorter term, I think that he wants (a) to preserve the 1962 Missal but with a few small changes, mostly in the propers, not to *make* it ‘living’ (a silly notion) but to *demonstrate* to the whole Church that, after forty years, it continues to live and; (b) to reform and re-translate the N.O.M. in order to deliver a more dignified Mass which is normally celebrated in the vernacular.
If you look very carefully at the text of Abp. Ranjiths’ recent statement, he is NOT denying that there are ‘projects’ afoot to reform the New Mass and tighten its rubrics. What he has denied is that the curia is ‘planning’ a re-write. But that is not how the curia works in any event. Various authorities advise that projects be undertaken. Most of these are developed, considered, and then shelved. For example, I have it on good authority that a structure such as that for the Campos was planned and developed in detail for all of France. But it was vetoed by various prelates, given especially the reaction of some bishops in France.
Most of such projects are vetoed because they encounter opposition from powerful prelates. Most popes like to have a consensus on something before proceeding. An exception, however, is a case in which the Pontiff has a strong personal interest in an outcome. This Pope is likely, I think, to approve a uniate church for the TAC people, to approve a structure for the S.S.P.X (if only the S.S.P.X will take one!) and to reform the New Mass. These were ‘projects’ supported by this Pope when he was a cardinal.
In the case of the N.O., we must be realistic. Only a wild-eyed ‘archtraditionalist’ would brazenly suggest that the Pope simply suppress the N.O. in favour of the T.L.M. Get real! The ‘market’ for the T.L.M. obviously depends largely on its availability: hardliners will drive to the next diocese but most people will not drive to the next parish for what they prefer. But given a reasonable scenario of between one and ten every-Sunday T.L.M.s in about 90% of dioceses (in the case of the U.S.A., France, Germany, the U.K., Australia, N.Z., Northern Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium), I figure that we could still attract no more than ten per cent of the faithful. Right now, in those countries, we attract considerably less than 1%. In fact, I put the present number in the U.S.A. at, perhaps, one-fifth of one per cent.
I can imagine this Pope reforming the N.O. in many ways, including the following:
(a) much more restrictive rubrics;
(b) enormous differences in musical settings;
(c) the abolition of that truly nauseating new Offertory and complete restoration of the old one;
(d) a change in the new Confiteor but probabaly a compromise with the old one; however, not a return to alternating Confiteors, but there should be a restoration of the Indulgentiam;
(e) restoration of the ninefold alternating Kyrie;
(f) eventual (but not immediate) abolition of some of the Eucharistic Prayers, especially No. 2, and of national Eucharistic Prayers, such as the popular one in Brazil;
(g) a restoration of the Placeat Tibi at the end of Mass;
(h) a restoration of the Nicene Creed and its genuflexion as a required part of every Mass;
(i) formalisation of the Bidding Prayer (added in 1968) as an Ektenia following the pattern of litanies in the Eastern churches, and with space for additional petitons for prayers which the faithful may add *only* in advance of Mass so that they are recited by the priest or other minister at the Altar;
(j) restoration of all the gestures and signs of the Cross of the priest;
(k) abolition (eventually) of Communion standing and Communion in the hand (the Rituale will also need reform).
(l) restoration of traditional vestments, handbells, and so on.
I do not think that the Pope can manage to restore Mass versus solem orientem completely, but he could insist that at least one N.O. per diocese be celebrated ad orientem every Sunday. Some listmembers here might want to add that there also be on N.O. in Latin per diocese. I don’t favour that, since I think that this could draw some away from more distant T.L.M.s.
I do not think it realistic to suppose that the old Consecration Formula could be restored in the near future, but I think that that very distracting Memorial Acclamation could at least be made optional.
I would appreciate others’ contributions on this subject, if Fr. Z. approves. I think that it would be interesting to consider what changes could be made to the N.O.M. to improve it. I do not oppose a reform of the reform in the least (nor do I oppose the Adoremus Movememt) PROVIDED that such movements in no way threaten the Mass which I am attached to. I do oppose any ‘merging’ of the New Rite of Mass with the Traditional Rite of Mass. After all, despite what this Pope says to the contrary, they are forms, yes, but not forms of one Rite. They are two separate Rites of Mass.
P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.
To Aumgn:
I have not checked my older files on this. My impression is that Glasgow had Saturday everning Masses but that these were recently moved to Sunday mornings. At any rate, it is good that Glasgow has the T.L.M. every Sunday, making it a good place to be in!
P.K.T.P.
Mr. Perkins: A massive post with lots of interesting info. But it’s my impression from afar that they have never (in modern indult times) had the TLM at Assumption Grotto in Detroit, “only” the ad orientem Latin Novus Ordo. Frequent contributor and Assumption parishioner Diane can tell us for sure.
Dear Mr. Perkins, I can assure you that Mr. Ferguson is correct. Assumption Grotto did not have the Indult, but had twice requested this permission of Cardinal Maida and was denied. In his bulletin column, he explained that he would not dare to question why Grotto would be denied. When Summorum Pontificum went into effect, it was our greatest joy to have the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Our Latin Novus Ordo was the next best thing we could have in light of not being granted the Indult. It is still done on weeknights and all Masses are still celebrated ad orientem.
I covered the first Traditional Latin Mass at Assumption Grotto in over 40 years in photos on September 14, 2007.
You may also read Fr. Perrone’s sermon of September 14, 2007 – from his own words you will see that it is the first such Mass at Grotto.
I also covered the first “tridentine” wedding Mass at Grotto in photos.
When I spoke with people about why we were not granted an Indult, one theory going around was that Cardinal Maida wanted to give St. Josaphat’s TLM a chance to take off. With two parishes so close offering the Mass it was thought that this parish might struggle to retain people at a time that it was trying to grow. By the time Summorum Pontificum came, I don’t that was a concern any more. Both communities enjoy good attendance from what I have seen. Interest is only going to go up with time. The more offering, the more exposed, the better.
Henry is correct, as well.
Just a point of clarification. It was Fr. Perrone who spoke in his bulletin column about twice requesting and twice being denied the Indult.
His point about not judging the motives of Cardinal Maida were also a good example of how to give someone the benefit of the doubt and not rashly judge. If the theory had an ounce of truth to it, about the Cardinal denying Grotto in order to allow St. Josaphat to grow, then even if I or anyone else were to disagree, it would not take away the thought that the Cardinal acted on his conscience (for this, or some other reason).
Thank you for the clarification, Diane. I can assure you that the mistake was not mine alone. Certainly, some websites which list Masses were listing the Assumption Grotto as a T.L.M. before S.P.
I also had contacts from Detroit who used to travel to Windsor (Canada) or to a Mass in the Diocese of Lansing in order to get the T.L.M. They blamed Cardinal Maida for not allowing the T.L.M. I know that Detroit did not have an every-Sunday T.L.M. for year after year after year from 1988. This was especially surprising given its huge population. The every-Sunday Masses in the Diocese of Grand Rapids and Lansing seem to be much older than any in Detroit.
P.K.T.P.
I understand that Detroit has
RBrown, like you and Father Z, I well know the hostility that those in favor of Latin (at least) have faced. But you seem to have responded to something Mike Williams didn’t say.
I read it as if his comment was on your dismissal (which yes, sounds mocking) of those who prefer the Novus Ordo as victims of Stockholm Syndrome. How is that attitude productive? While we may think them wrong or misguided, there are those who legitimately, honestly, thoughtfully favor the Novus Ordo in the vernacular. If we are to persuade them that other options have greater merit, how is it helpful to suggest that they’re deluded victims? If we can’t argue our point rationally we don’t deserve to win the argument.
Wrong is not the same as delusional; misguided is not the same as stupid; error is not the same as dishonesty. (And you didn’t imply stupidity or dishonesty on the part of those who prefer the vernacular OF, but I’ve heard people do it.) By citing a list of wrongs, are you saying that we should treat them the way we were treated?