I have been writing more about Summorum Pontificum lately than I have for a while.
We have to remind people that Summorum Pontificum gave us some provisions that have the force of law. They are not merely part of the vision of this Pope, which means a lot especially when it comes to liturgy. They are the law of the Latin Church.
It may be that priests and bishops you deal with don’t personally like the provisions of the Motu Proprio. So long as they follow them, they are within the bounds of the law whatever their personal preferences may be.
This comes from Rorate:
You Report: Nearly 1 in 5 Diocese of Arlington Churches offer TLM …
“A newly added Mass will begin this Sunday in the Diocese of Arlington (Va.). Saint Anthony (mission church of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary) in King George, Va., will have Mass each Sunday at 12:45 p.m. This brings the total to 12 churches (plus Christendom College’s chapel) with regularly scheduled TLMs in the Diocese of Arlington, which has a total of 68 parishes, or nearly 20 percent of diocesan parishes.”
This example proves that, even under the thumb of a bishop historically hostile to tradition, holy priests determined to bring about true restoration of the Mass and Faith can be successful.
I give the credit to the lay faithful, especially, and also the priests.
20% of parishes in the diocese. Arlington is a small diocese, with only 68 parishes.
What would that look like in your diocese?
Keeping in mind that 20% is still only 1-in-5, a small minority….
… if you live in say the …
Archdiocese of New York: 96 parishes
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis: 44 parishes
Archdiocese of Los Angeles: 66 parishes
Diocese of …. ?
In the Diocese of Monterey in California (46 parishes), that would be nine. We have three, so a bit more work and prayer to do.
1) Mission San Juan Bautista
2) St. Paul, Pismo Beach
3) Sacred Heart, Salinas (Monday Daily)
Correct me if I’m wrong (please!!) but Galveston-Houston has ONE (1) parish that offers TLM: Annunciation. (St Theresa Sugar Land used to for a bit.)
1/150 = 0.66%
Diocese of Davenport, 84 parishes, only 3 with the Latin Mass, which includes only 2 where the Parish Priest says the Latin Mass, rather than visiting priests.
Status in Portugal: 1 diocese with 1 Sunday per week EF. No more, no less. And we’re very lucky to have even that! :-(
sorry, I should have clarified that the statistic above is for one Mass per Sunday only and not daily Masses. Percentage is about 3.5%
Diocese of Columbus 112 churches (not parishes), 1 TLM (to my knowledge) from the pre-SP, “indult” days
Archdiocese of Saint Louis (where I grew up) 200 churches (not parishes), ~3 TLMs (to my knowledge)
1 weekly Mass in the EF out of 35 or so parishes (spread out over A LOT of geography) Our bishop is very supportive of the EF Mass. We are very blessed to have a retired priest who offers to celebrate the EF Mass.
I’m a little put out by the rather infelicitous language used in the post quoted by Rorate. The original post implies that the well-loved (and in this diocese, often well-executed) ordinary form of the Mass is not a true Mass. God forbid that anyone who loves the Church would hold to such heresy! Also, the implication that our dear bishop Paul here in Arlington,VA is somehow “hostile to tradition!” absurd! It is precisely because our dear bishop holds fast to tradition that we have so many EF Masses here. The original poster seems to live in an alternate universe with only passing relationship to the one the rest ofus inhabit. I can only hope that somehow his words were unintentionally taken out of context by Rorate to generate such a bad impression.
This is my diocese! In fact, I was at a parish wherein our pastor kept excitedly announcing the “immanent” motu proprio in the bulletin (for 6 months), until it finally arrived. He noted that “soon” must mean something else in Italy. My wife and I have been blessed to have two of our children baptized in the EF (as well as another supplying of the rites in that Rite, if you well . . . but that is story for another time) here as well. Praised be God!
“This example proves that, even under the thumb of a bishop historically hostile to tradition, holy priests determined to bring about true restoration of the Mass and Faith can be successful.”
I hope the ‘Bishop historically hostile to tradition’ is not meant to refer to our Bishop here, whom I have not found hostile.
As far as I’m aware, there are no parishes in Pittsburgh that currently offer the TLM—only the diocesan-approved Latin Mass Community, which is not a parish of its own but only a community within Holy Wisdom Parish. The PLMC is very large, however; it seems to have sopped up all the would-be Latin Mass petitioners from around the diocese, effectively isolating them. This is a good thing but also a bad thing, I think.
Archdiocese of Miami: 118 parishes, one regularly scheduled weekly TLM every Sunday.
Grand Rapids has one EF Mass (Latin Mass Community) for 103 parishes & missions ~0.97% (by parishes, I’d guess 0.7% based on Sunday Masses).
The single large EF is generally a bad thing, because it becomes the excuse to not offer it more accessibly (I live ~45 min from the one here and haven’t been able to get there since mid summer).
As far as I know there are ZERO parishes in the Pueblo Colorado diocese that have the TLM. I think, from the other comments, that the implementation of SP is pretty disappointing. I think for the most part it is being suppressed as much as possible and allowed grudgingly where it is allowed at all.
I think there is 3 churches in the DC diocese that offer the EF on a regular basis with a another couple offering every once in a while.
In Baltimore(where I am) there 1 that I know of, but it is not easy(for me) to get to. What I wouldn’t kill for a EF in Ellicott City…
In the Archdiocese of Toronto there are three Sunday EF masses and two weekday EF masses. Of the Sunday masses, two are said by the same priest.
There are no erected personal parishes for the EF.
There are 224 parishes of which 181 are regular english language territorial parishes.
We had the FSSP for a while, but they gave up after getting the run-around from the archdiocese: repeated delays and broken promises over getting a building, being told they didnt have a sufficient number of regular participants. Meanwhile, the masses they were able to offer were at an akward time, in a run-down church out in the suburbs with no subway access. Weekday masses were offered at yet another church, and the pastor was housed at a third church. From what I hear they were still pulling in about 100 and had a number of eager seminarians involved. Too bad.
Diocese of Rochester, NY has a little over 100 parishes and over 170 locations at which Mass is offered on any given Sunday. One Mass is a TLM. ONE. This is more than 2 hours away from some places in the Diocese. Bishop Clark’s HATRED of the TLM has been noted for decades.
Said Clark in 1991 (7 years! after the indult),
“The Mass as we have it today is Christ’s sacrifice celebrated with and for the community of faith. Its form and development have invited a new sense of dignity for all baptized persons who gather together. The Mass of the 1962 Roman Missal does not reflect this dignity nor this theology; it reflects a theology where the people were pious and quiet as the priest prayed for them … I cannot see any positive purpose that such a celebration would serve, except the nostalgia of past days”
It took a canon lawsuit to get the one TLM established in, I believe, 1994. To date, he has never once promoted it, never once pastorally visited it, and our seminarians must keep their love of the EF Mass a secret, as dozens of would-be priests were turned away for their orthodoxy. Meanwhile, liberation theology is a common creed of seminarians and priests, and Bp. Clark visits certain heterodox parishes 3 or 4 times a year. (His book signing tour recently took him, for the 3rd time this year, to a parish run by a lay woman who advocated for women’s ordination, and a parish that used a transgendered processional crucifix.) This Brick-By-Brick thing might be happening throughout the world, but rest assured Rochester is still near the deepest annals of hell.
Priests will not add an EF Mass to their parishes for fear of the Diocese…for instance, two of our most-tradition friendly priests (in their 60s) have never been appointed pastors, and instead act as “administrators” (thereby stripping them of the canonical rights of a pastor). Thus, zero Latin NO Masses exist, ZERO ad orientem NO Masses exist, and the one TLM is at 1:30PM in a bad section of the city.
Diocese of Lubbock: 62 Parishes
1 TLM, but at a sedevacantist church. So, -100%
I live in Stuebenville now for school, and there are two churches that offer it here: Christ the King Chapel on campus (Low Mass every Saturday, Missa Cantata once a month on Sunday) and St. Peter’s Church (Missa Cantata one Sunday per month)
Steubenville: 62 Parishes, 2 TLMs: 3.23%
Diocese of Joliet has about 132 parishes and a Latin Mass Community FSSP. The Mass is advertised at 5:30 PM & weekday Masses at Ss Peter & Paul in their bulletin, and there is a 11:30 PM Mass on Sunday at St. Bernard which is not advertised in their bulletin. There is a also a website http://www.jolietlatin.org We continue to pray for our own parish.
In the Archdiocese of Hartford, there are 216 parishes and 6 TLMs. I am happy to say I live near Waterbury which has TWO of those six. We are quite blessed. I feel bad for those who have to drive hours for the TLM.
There used to be one EF Mass in the Archdiocese of Montreal, but that AFAIK is no longer the case. In the diocese of Valleyfield (southwest of Montreal), there are (also AFAIK) no EF Masses. Disappointing, but the attitude seems to be (as said by my pastor) “whenever anything comes from Rome, we close our eyes”. Please pray for the Church in Quebec!
Archdiocese of Atlanta, 99 parishes by my count (from the archatl.org site). No TLM, except at one parish, which is FSSP and is all TLM, all the time. Nice as it is to have that one, it would be nicer still to have some additional TLMs offered at less distance.
Are you sure about 96 parishes (out of about 400) in the Archdiocese of New York with a TLM? I think that sounds a little high. “Catholic New York” carries a regular list of them, but I don’t think their count is anywhere near 96. I know of only three here in Orange County, where I live, and none in Rockland County, next door, where I grew up (18 parishes).
This is worse than I thought.
Technically the PLMC is a part of Holy Wisdom and thus one parish in the Diocese of Pittsburgh offers the EF on a weekly basis. That is 1/211 parishes or < .5%. If we were to have 20% of our parishes with a TLM there would be 42 parishes with a TLM!
p mcgrath: he’s noting how many would have it if each diocese had 20 percent, not how many there are now!
There are over 260 parishes and missions in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Four have weekly TLMs. Only one of these is sung.
There is another parish with a monthly TLM and another with First Friday and First Saturday TLMs. No daily TLMs (unless some priests here and there are offering it privately).
Yeah, since when has Arlington been “hostile to tradition”? Weren’t they one of the last holdouts against girl servers? I’m trying to think of a good way to describe my sense of this but the best I can come up with is: 80% of what I learned about Catholic Tradition before I went to college and discovered blogs came from schools, homilies, parish activities, and youth groups in the Arlington Diocese.
Diocese of Rochester: 1 EF Mass out of more than 100 churches. This Mass was granted to us after people appealed to the Vatican following the bishop’s refusal to permit the EF in the early 1990s. No new Sunday EF Masses have appeared since then.
I have to add my voice to the chorus of those questioning the remark about the bishop of Arlington being “hostile to tradition.” Everything I’ve ever read about Arlington suggests otherwise, as other posters in this discussion have noted. That merited at least some red correction before quoting– it says more about the writer than it does about Arlington. Allowing the extraordinary form in twenty percent of parishes in a diocese is certainly a strange form of hostility to me.
That said, Rockville Centre has three weekly Masses in the extraordinary form of about 132 parishes, though they are reasonably spread geographically. No one should be more than an hour or so from one of them. I drive far more than that many weeks for Sunday Mass, so it seems reasonable to me under normal circumstances. I know that I don’t have anything more important to do on an ordinary Sunday.
The more telling statistic, of course, not only in this diocese but in practically any diocese except perhaps for Detroit, is the percentage of ordinary form Masses in Latin, the language of the Roman Rite, which doesn’t even merit a lowly decimal point following a big zero. When I see that statistic start to rise, I will know that things are really starting to improve.
All the Latin NOs I have ever attended were either in Great Britain or Canada. I have never been in a diocese in America, and I have lived in twelve American dioceses, where the Latin NO has been offered.
Diocese of Knoxville:
47 Parishes in the Diocese (plus several Missions, including a Byzantine rite and an Ukranian rite)
There is a weekly TLM at Holy Ghost in Knoxville (on Sundays), and a weekday early morning (6 am) in Maryville. Also there are two other parishes that offer the TLM with a somewhat regular schedule, one on the 2nd and 4th Sundays, and one that announces the schedule when they will say the TLM. See the website: http://www.knoxlatinmass.net/
It would be completely foreign at this moment to see it in our Cathedral–not because the bishop wouldn’t be open to it, but because the parish there (from what I’ve seen) would not be very welcoming towards the TLM.
Supertradmum: St. Bridget’s in Las Vegas has a Latin NO. (And one EF per month.)
Yeah, for Arlington. I have fully expected wide acceptance of the EF in this diocese. I echo the comments questioning the writer’s assertion that the bishop is hostile to tradition. That’s wrong. St Mary’s in Alex, VA, has been offering a Latin NO (chant) for 7-8+ years. They did not concede to females at the altar when Bp. Loverde permitted it. They have had a monthly EF as well for a couple years.
Supertradmum: Our Lady of the Atonement (Anglican Use) in San Antonio, TX has a Latin NO every Sunday at 6 p.m. Nice schola, too. :)
Diocese of Springfield (Massachusetts): 85 parishes, zero Extraordinary Form Masses. Only one “traditionalesque” Mass–Novus Ordo with ample use of Latin and plainchant in an unwreckovated Polish parish. No sign of such happening soon either, if most of the priests I know here are any examples. Please pray for us in this dark place.
Thanks for the info. Las Vegas is not in one of the twelve American dioceses I have experienced. Nice to know, however…
Diocese of Toronto: about 200 parishes. Valid regular TLMs offered: 2 One at St. Vincent De Paul Church on Sun in Sung Latin (might be the Indult Mass), the other regular is Holy Family Church. A third is offered at a Shrine of St. Therese at 1pm Sun but it’s hard to get to and at the East end of the city. The only other option is the illicit masses offered by SSPX as there’s a Church run by them about a short distance by transit from where I live. I won’t name the church here.
However, I paid membership to be a part of the Toronto Traditional Mass Society. Search them on Google. They’re part of Una Voce and were trying to negotiate with our bishop a permanent home for the TLM. They were even able to get an FSSP priest up for a time for the Little Flower Shrine, however they couldn’t get a 2nd priest up (it’s part of the FSSP’s arrangements, and understandably so. It can be lonely at times) and the first had to transfer to an area of greater need and more secure setup. Hopefully in future we’ll be able to try again. Any help would be appreciated. The more members, the better the chance well have at any concrete effort so any Torontonians on here, sign up.
I am a parishioner at St. John’s in Warrenton and I can tell you we have it every Sunday at 12:00. A quick search reveals that 8 of the 12 churches have it every Sunday according to the Arlington Diocese advance search tool for Mass, confession, and adoration times.
Here are the parishes with Mass every Sunday
1. St. John the Evangelist – Warrenton, VA
2. Holy Trinity – Gainesville, VA
3. St. John the Baptist – Front Royal, VA
4. St. Lawrence – Alexandria, VA
5. St. Michael – Annandale, VA
6. St. Patrick – Fredericksburg, VA
7. St. Anthony Padua Mission – King George, VA
Two Sundays a month:
8. St. John the Apostle – Leesburg, VA
Weekly (not Sundays)
9. St. John the Beloved – Mclean, VA
10. St. Rita – Alexandria, VA
11. St. Louis – Alexandria, VA
12. Holy Spirit, Annandale, VA
Also I find it very intersting and perhaps there is a strong correlation that of the 15 parishes in the diocese offering Eucharistic Adoration times this includes all 12 of those parishes that have the Mass in the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
So if you do not have the Extra Ordinary Form offered at your parish, perhaps the first step is starting Eucharistic Adoration in your parish.
Diocese of Owensboro (Kentucky, USA) has zero regularly scheduled Latin masses.
There is one parish each in Louisville and Lexington and Dayton (Covington) offering regular Latin masses including Sundays and holy days.
The TN dioceses seem to be doing a bit better.
In the Diocese of Evansville, IN, there is one Latin mass per month.
Actually, Stephen, the Diocese of Owensboro has one regularly scheduled EF Mass. St Michael the Archangel parish in Oak Grove, next to the Ft Campbell military reservation, has an EF Mass every Sunday at 12:30pm, and on Holy Days of Obligation (according to the traditional calendar) at noon.
82 parishes and missions, 1 parish w/ EF Mass. 1.2%
Just a thought…
Not all regularly scheduled EF Masses are Sunday Masses. I was looking at the statistics for Westminster and Southwark (England) and that thought came to mind. Many of the parishes in both of these diocese which have a regular EF Mass, don’t actually have one which covers the Sunday obligation. Other parishes, such as Clapham Park (St. Bede’s), have daily EF Masses and there are several Southwark churches which seem to have a ‘rotating’ Sunday Mass (one on first Sundays, one on second Sundays etc.). Also, the parishes which do have regular EF Masses tend to be in the population centres (i.e. for Westminster they would be in ‘central’ London) which ough to be taken into account because it means a higher proportion of the faithful would have access.
Anyway, if you count all the parishes which have a regular EF Mass, you get double the number of those which have an EF Mass covering Sunday obligation. Which is worth taking into account.
Diocese of Helena, Montana 1 TLM per month
Are you sure about 96 parishes (out of about 400) in the Archdiocese of New York with a TLM? I think that sounds a little high. “Catholic New York” carries a regular list of them, but I don’t think their count is anywhere near 96. I know of only three here in Orange County, where I live, and none in Rockland County, next door, where I grew up (18 parishes).
To P McGrath, far be it for me to speak for Fr. Z — but I think he means the 96 parishes in Archdiocese of NY would be the number of parishes with the EF mass if 20% of the parishes in the diocese offered it—– 96 is not the current number of parishes who offer the EF , it’s closer to 14 if that.
Yes, for all its flaws, Arlington is in much better shape than most – just about any – diocese on the continent in this regard. Arlington has more traditional masses than…some entire states. In addition to its diocesan TLM’s, there is also the Melkite community, which uses the Divine Liturgy, and a, ah, independent chapel. All that is lacking is a Fraternity or Institute oratory to anchor it all (though some might argue this would actually weaken some of the diocesan masses by drawing people away from them).
Certainly far better than the situation across the river in Washington, where there are only two small, longstanding TLM’s and resistance appears to remain strong to offering anything more.
Summorum Pontificum has “freed” the traditional mass, canonically. Some ordinaries treat it as if it were still an indult situation, and priests desiring to offer it cannot easily disregard their ordinary’s position. But it is nice to see one diocese where both the spirit and the letter of the motu proprio are being observed.
Ah, yes, I had forgotten about Oak Grove. Thank you for the reminder. I had learned of it while staying briefly in Hopkinsville, but it had slipped my mind. I suppose that is probably the closest EF mass to Ft. Campbell, which would be appropriate given the dedication to St. Michael. I do recall there was for a while another one, perhaps in Grand Rivers on an occasional basis, but no longer. In any case, things here seem to be moving rather slowly regarding S.P., but that is I think largely due to the conservative nature of those around these parts (here I mean conserving the status quo), the degree to which Catholic are spread so thin making a concentration of EF Catholics unlikely in most of the diocese, and the lack of any spare priests to say any extra masses on Sundays. Clearly the EF community does not have a very high profile in the diocese.
I consider obstructionist bishops to be auxiliary bishops of the SSPX.
The Diocese of Richmond, VA has 150 parishes and 2 TLMs. We attend St. Benedict’s in Chesapeake which, with only 175 families, has raised over $1 million to erect a new chuch building to handle the overflow crowds during the 2 Sunday Masses. The bishop will dedicate the new church (staffed by the FSSP) next month.
The Diocese of Portland, ME (our summer home) has 61 parishes (which it can’t fully staff because there are almost no vocations in this uber-liberal diocese) and 2 TLMs. Both are in the south, Portland and Lewiston (30 min away) so the majority of Maine Catholics have no access to the TLM. It would take us 3 hours to drive to the nearest TLM and we are only located 1/2 way up the coast of Maine. to say that the Bishop has a distain for the TLM is the understatement of the year.
Diocese of Memphis: 47 parishes; 2 Masses in the Extraordinary Form.
One is in a parish in the city, and the other in a suburban town just outside the city. I believe that would be .043%.
Oh, my… I just checked out the stats on the Diocese of Ft. Worth, TX.
89 parishes 2 missions… only one EF. Sad sad sad. The diocese of FT. Worth covers 23 counties and 23,950 sq miles. There is no way the whole diocese only has a handfull of faithfull who want the EF.
I am going to have to look into this.
Athelstan gets it right about the Arlington diocese–we are truly blessed to have an increasing number of priests who offer the TLM on a regular basis. The struggles, it seems, have to do more with making the 1960s and 1970s-built churches work for the TLM, especially since some (in violation of the GIRM, if I’m not mistaken) built their altars to be able to be stood behind (versus populum), but without any room for the celebrant to stand on the other side.
The wide application of Summorum Pontificum has brought on some other, perhaps unexpected, issues. I help serve and set up for a regular Thursday evening TLM in my home parish (in the Arlington Diocese), which has in the past been scheduled for Friday nights as well. Aside from this year’s Missa Cantata for the Ephiphany, we have never had more than 20 people in atttendance, and the usual number is less than ten. Our priest (the parochial vicar) is committed to the TLM, but I’m really worried that the numbers aren’t going to support its continuation in the parish after he’s gone. One of the reasons for the numbers, perhaps, is that there is another Thursday evening TLM fifteen minutes away, and a Friday night TLM ten minutes away. I really hoped, when Father started this, that it would catch on in the parish and in the surrounding area. It’s a bit discouraging when more parishoners show up for the parish council meeting than for Holy Mass.
On the other hand, the parish (also ten minutes from my house, Deo Gratias) that offers the TLM on Sundays has, over the four or so years it has been offered, made an imporant transition. There is a core of about 50 regulars who attend the Sunday 12:30 TLM, but it has become a normal Mass for the entire parish–an additional 50 or more people other than the regulars come in a given week, just because it’s the 12:30 Mass. As the TLM becomes more and more a normal part of parish life, it truly becomes more vibrant, and pastors become more and more willing to offer the TLM on Holy Days, etc.
As to Washington, DC–it may have only two regular TLMs, but it’s difficult to underestimate the importance of Old St Mary’s. That parish has offered the TLM for years, and sets the standard for litugical excellence in the area with its once-a-month Solemn High Mass. The schola is amazing, the choir director brings in tremendous polyphonic choirs, and the servers have it down. Oh, and the usual celebrant does his job very well and is a good, holy priest.
Thank goodness that my long anticipated move to the diocese of Arlington will soon become a reality. I have longed for a regular TLM for years!
Katherine Collins: God bless you! I’m thrilled you found St Benedict’s. I lived in the diocese of Richmond back in the days of priests driving a mini bike down the aisle for Palm Sunday and ad libbed offertories calling the Mass a “simple meal” and the campus gay group meeting in the church basement. It was a real penance then, and it warms my heart to know that St Bendict’s and St Joseph’s in Richmond are havens for the Faithful.
Agreed that bashing Loverde is simply not fair. He has gotten out of the way, and let a conservative diocese be conservative. Would that we could say the same on the other side of the Potomac.
A. J. D. S. says:
“As far as I’m aware, there are no parishes in Pittsburgh that currently offer the TLM—only the diocesan-approved Latin Mass Community, which is not a parish of its own but only a community within Holy Wisdom Parish. The PLMC is very large, however; it seems to have sopped up all the would-be Latin Mass petitioners from around the diocese, effectively isolating them.”
This is correct and it is going to stay that way unless Rome does something.
When SP came out I gathered a group of people and petitioned a local priest in Butler, PA who was willing to say the the Mass, but was hesitant because of a memo which was sent to all the priests in the diocese telling them that they are not to say the TLM until further directives were given by the diocese – which have not, to my knowledge, ever materialized. I worked with the local priest for almost 2 years and we were very patient and waited for directives on the SP. After two years I gave up playing this game and wrote Bishop Zubik on my own initiative. My letter was forwarded to the judicial vicar (who always seems to be in charge of anything TLM related) who wrote me a terse letter which more or less said that the bishop controls all public celebrations of the TLM and that a priest on his own cannot decide to add a TLM to the public schedule of a parish (i.e. Ecclesia Dei rules). He said further that a TLM can only be established where there is a “stable group” and there was only one place in the diocese that fit that description (i.e. St. Boniface). I was told that if I/we wanted the TLM I would have to travel to Pittsburgh (45 miles away) because there would be no TLM in Butler (which has 5 parishes within a few minutes drive of each other).
I have some good ideas as to what is causing this road-blocking of SP, but this isn’t the time or place to get into that.
So to answer Fr. Z’s question “what is possible?”, in the Pittsburgh diocese NOTHING is possible unless Rome forces the issue. I am eagerly waiting to see what the supposed “clarification” says, which will hopefully be out in March from my understanding.
If I were a Bishop, which I can never be because I am a woman…I would poll my diocese and find out just where the people are who would like the EF. If you can not look at it as a spritual help for your sheep, you should look at monatarily. A stable parish will support itself and also will support the diocese. What’s so hard about this.?
In some areas, the TLM is (thankfully) growing too rapidly for published schedules to keep up. For instance, in addition to the parishes in the Diocese of Knoxville with Sunday TLM schedules mentioned above, there is another local parish with daily and Sunday TLM. For instance, early this morning it had a beautiful high Mass with the traditional ritual for Candlemas.
To balance the report: An hour later the same priest celebrated an OF Mass with Candlemas procession, all chanted including the Gospel—except the Roman Canon said very quietly—with beautiful homily linking the OT and NT aspects of purification and presentation, and incense at the four usual places including the elevation of Host and Chalice.
Perhaps the Rorate poster was thinking of the late Bishop Keating who did not allow the TLM?
In the Archdiocese of Boston, there are four Sunday TLMs in parishes every week and one
monthly Sunday Mass. Of those parishes, one has the TLM daily. There are also three other
parishes which have weekly TLMs though not of Sunday obligation. A high percentage of parishes? No. However, the situation here has greatly improved over the last four years.
I should add that one of the four weekly Sunday Masses is offered in the Cathedral.
Pray for those of us who are housebound today because of the blizzard. We cannot get out at all for Candlemas. Thank you.
Your post is very interesting and disappointing. After growing up in Pittsburgh, I was away for a number of years and returned last fall. Given the seeming strength of Catholicism in Pittsburgh, I hoped to find widespread availability of the EF. I now see why there is not.
I live in the South Hills, where I know of two new parochial vicars who seem like they might be inclined to offer the EF. I was thinking of talking to them about it, but your post gave me pause: I would hate to get these promising new men in trouble with the Diocese.
Diocese of Des Moines Iowa, 82 parishes
One Mass in the EF every Sunday in the crypt church of St. Anthony’s in Des Moines. To my knowledge there is no other parish in the entire diocese that offers the TLM.
Archdiocese of Denver: a FSSP parish in Littleton. One EF a month in Boulder. And I think I have heard of one other place where a monthly EF is offered. But none of this is very close for me.
Some priests say they are open to learning but want the bishop to ask. The bishop says he wants the priests to ask. Nobody seems to be asking???
In Pittsburgh, when Summorum Pontificum came out I thought we were awaiting a new bishop after Wuerl had been moved to D.C.? I thought Bishop Zubik celebrated confirmations for the LMC at Holy Wisdom, so I don’t understand the hostility coming from some quarters in the diocese. Unless, Bishop Zubik doesn’t see these types of letters and the responses are being given out without his authorization.
Right now I live one tunnel and one bridge away from Holy Wisdom but I’ve never been. I would definitely like to experience the Extraordinary Form some time.
Here is Wisconsin’s breakdown
Diocese of La Crosse – 8 parishes with TLM – out of 165 parishes
Diocese of Madison – 6 parishes with TLM – out of 131 parishes
Archdiocese of Milwaukee – 3 parishes with TLM – out of 210 parishes
Diocese of Green Bay – 1 parish with TLM – out of 169 parishes
Diocese of Superior – 0 parishes with TLM – out of 110 parishes
This is my Diocese too – and our beloved Bishop Loverde is NOT, NOT, NOT hostile to tradition. Just the opposite!!!!
The Diocese of Buffalo, New York (an overwhelmingly Catholic city: the Mayor’s license plate is ‘BF2’…the Bishop’s is ‘BF1’!) offers two regularly scheduled Sunday Masses using the 1962 Missal. One is downtown at a prominent historic church, the other is located at a church in a populous residential area of an outlying suburb. The faithful have no reason to complain that the diocese hasn’t accomodated those who have to travel.
If there were a demand for another, I don’t get the impression that the diocese wouldn’t allow another. Alas, there does not seem to exist a demand. There was, in fact, a third Sunday Mass scheduled at a suburburban location on the other side of the city from the current suburban site, but there weren’t enough faithful in attendance to sustain it. There was even a fourth, at the cathedral, itself. Again, not enough faithful in attendance to sustain it (and also, the lay organizers were inclined to be somewhat combative in their dealings with the cathedral staff).
The two venues remaining are churches of average size, and they more than comfortably accomodate all those who attend. I sense no diocesan hostility, at all, towards the “old Latin Mass”, in the case of my own diocese, at any rate; just a lack of overwhelming interest in it in these parts. The “EF” just isn’t on the radar screen of too many Catholics around here (and there are alot of Catholics around here).
In addition to the regularly scheduled Sunday Masses, an additional Tridentine Mass is from time to time held at some notable church or other, albeit more or less as the backdrop for a choral performance of some great Mass or other. Such a Mass will be sung this March, in fact, at one of the city’s most celebrated gothic churches (it will be Palestrina’s “Pope Marcellus Mass”).
It’s interesting to me to note that these performance groups always turn to the “old” Mass when they want to do this sort of thing, rather than perform their selected work in the context of the current Missal. I suppose they imagine that the current ordinary form of Mass cannot actually be celebrated with the sort of solemnity one encounters in the former rite…or even in Latin, for that matter. We “traditional” Catholics seem, in fact, to make the same mistake made by such more or less secularly-minded performers.
Mass according to the current Missal certainly can be celebrated in Latin, of course, and with no less solemnity than we attach to the former one, although I think many of us are under the impression that less dignity, less formality, less reverence, less beauty, and less mystery and majesty, actually DEFINES the current form of Mass, and that’s really unfortunate.
If sacred music performers, ordinary Catholics, and even clergy are under the mistaken impression that reverence and mystery and majesty and beauty belong soley to a bygone day and a bygone Missal, then the current Mass is doomed, unnecessarily, to forever languish in banality. Would that some parish in this (or any) diocese would set an example of a Mass according to the current Missal celebrated with the same level of dignity and splendour that we typically associate with celebrations according to the 1962 Missal (and all previous editions).
I would so much rather see a general sense develop that Mass celebrated according to any authorized text should be an occasion of genuinely-Catholic worship in the traditional sense, than see more opportunities arise for traditionally-minded Catholics to separate themselves from the present day and from the main table, as it were, having to sit at something akin to a diocesan “kiddie table” because the only alternative to liturgical banality and disappointment means a Mass celebrated according to its so-called “extraordinary expression” sung from a superseded Missal that follows a superseded liturgical calendar.
I think that if we continue to say, or even insist that “traditional” = “1962 Missal”, we run the risk of ensuring that what we know and cherish as Catholic “tradition” will only ever be found at the few and far between public celebrations of Mass according to the 1962 Missal. All other public worship, then, will continue to be as it tends to be as a result: something quite other than traditionally Catholic in spirit, meaning, and atmosphere. Should we not rather foster a sense that the Catholic liturgy, no matter which texts are used, is a thing inherently traditional and therefore deserving of proper celebration in every case?
I don’t see the 1962 Missal emerging over time as the restored ordinary form of Mass, replacing the post-Conciliar Missal. I’m sorry to say it, and I’m ducking from the rocks that are being thrown at me now, in spirit, by many followers of this blog (and perhaps even by its good and reverend creator).
There are pockets of demand for such an outcome, yes, but only pockets. It isn’t the general sense of the Church, however, that the 1962 Missal should return to the center stage, so to speak, of Catholic worship. And so I think that hopes and petitions that local bishops offer more and more opportunities for Catholics (who aren’t interested) to worship according to the previous norm are, with all due respect, futile…and, unltimately, counterproductive.
I also think misguided the imagination (fantasy) many seem to harbor that with Summorum Pontificum, the current Pope has linked arms with those of you who want literally to turn back time. He has not; that’s just your imaginations gone wild, I believe.
The motu proprio in question represents a wider permission to use the ’62 Missal, not a papal command that it be used more often. Summorum Pontificum means greater freedom to encounter the Tridentine Mass, not a mandate that bishops begin to restore ordinary use of the former Missal. The Pope’s expressed will is that red tape be sliced whenever possible in favor of Catholics yearning for the 1962 Missal’s celebration; it isn’t that Catholics who aren’t yearning for it begin to come face-to-face with it regularly, regardless. Summorum Pontificum doesn’t overhaul the chassis or even change the tires. It oils the squeaky wheel.
What I really hope that Summorum Pontificum does not come to mean is that a sort of parallel Church ends up being established: one for “traditional” Catholics, and another for all the rest, with separate parishes for the 1962 Missal crowd.
I hope that we may, as traditional Catholics, reject this notion that only in the context of the 1962 Typical Edition of the Missale Romanum can traditional Catholic liturgical worship obtain. I hope we might, rather, recognize that traditional Catholic worship ought always obtain in every Catholic setting, no matter which text is used.
Look at the Anglicans coming into the Church these days. The liturgy approved for the use of congregations that have “swum the Tiber” is no less “traditionally Catholic” in flavor than the liturgy found in the 1962 Missal. It’s in the vernacular, it isn’t necessarily always ad orientam, but it is both “traditional” and Catholic. The same is true of the current ordinary form of Mass, the only problem is that we won’t allow it to be the “traditional Mass” that it is meant to be. Only the 1962 Mass can be the “traditional Mass”. The other must be…something else.
I’d love to see traditional Catholics resist the present day’s temptation to hoarde, as it were, Catholic tradition off to one corner of the Church. Instead, might we not do better to somehow foster a greater general sense within the broader context of the Church that Catholic tradition is something for the whole Church to embrace. Don’t demand separate parishes. Perhaps let us stop even demanding a separate Missal. Instead, might we renew our focus upon demanding that every liturgy be a Catholic liturgy.
Every Mass celebrated according to every Missal should be a “Traditional Catholic Mass”. And I think that notion, and not the notion of turning back time or creating more “pockets” of tradition, is the notion that motivates Summorum Pontificum, specifically, and indeed the broader liturgical hopes and expectations of Pope Benedict XVI, generally .
Father the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has 44 parishes that celebrate the TLM???? Is there a list somewhere? If that’s right, I’m going to have to move there!
That EF Mass was at St John’s in Lone Oak… just outside of Paducah. Every month there was a 5th Sunday, Fr Kennedy from St Michael’s would journey up to do an EF Mass. Unfortunately, it was usually offered at 5:00pm on Sunday evening, and seldom had more than 15 of us attending. It went by the wayside.
But it was very nice, for a while at least, to have an occasional EF Mass, and only have to drive an hour and a bit to get to it. Nearest one to me now is St Michael’s (2 hours and a bit), followed by Memphis, TN (2 1/2 hours).
People who calculate percentages should consider the following example:
Where I live, there are 118 parishes and 1 TLM. What is the percentage of TLM to all Masses? 1 divided by 118 which is 0.008?
Not at all.
There is only one TLM Mass per week but each parish provides usually at least 3 Masses per Sunday plus generally 2 Masses on weekdays, which would amount to approx. 1,770 Masses per week.
The percentage therefore is 1 to 1770 or 0.0005
Having lived in the Arlington Diocese since I converted to Catholicism in 1996 — thus having been here for the entire time of his excellency’s reign (I believe Bishop Loverde arrived in 1999) — I think it is fair to say that he is “historically hostile to tradition.”
I am not in any way trying to imply that Bishop Loverde is a “bad” bishop. He might even be considered conservative by some, but it has been clear in the past — “historically” — that he is not enthusiastic or particularly supportive about things traditional. At best, he seems to tolerate instances of it, and has done so more now, after the motu proprio, than a decade ago.
His opposition to kneeling to receive communion (there was a letter by his excellency in our diocesan newspaper on this subject that stated that kneeling was disobedient, and there has never been any clarification on that) and to altar rails being put in Churches would be examples of instances where he has not been overly traditional.
This diocese benefits from the scores of splendid and faithful priests, many of whom are quite traditional, rather than from a strongly traditional bishop.
The jab at Bp. Loverde at Rorate and repeated here is pretty distasteful. The only folks I’ve ever heard complain about him are the same that refuse to go to Mass on Sunday if the only option is N.O.
Father, is there a reason that jab made it into your repost without comment? Is there something you know that we don’t? To me, this just seems more of making the perfect the enemy of the good and the sort of bile and snark of which the tradition-loving Catholic blogs are so frequently labeled.
Diocese of Dallas, TX
71 parishes – only 1 which offers the TLM (personal parish supported by two FSSP priests)
1/71 = 1.41% (not the mark of a tradition-friendly Bishop)
Not quite sure what Fr Z means by the statement, “Archdiocese of Los Angeles: 66 parishes”, but since no one has commented on The City of Angels yet-
From the official website of the Arch of LA ( http://www.archdiocese.la/about/index.php ) :
“The Archdiocese of Los Angeles comprises three counties in the southern part of the State of California: Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. The area extends from the northern county line of Santa Barbara County, near the city of Santa Maria, to the southern county line of Los Angeles County.
It covers 8,762 square miles (22,430 square kilometers) of territory. The total Roman Catholic population, as of 2005, stands at 4,349,267 people living among a total population of 11,258,600.
There are 288 parishes located in 120 cities throughout the Archdiocese in the three counties. There are seven missions and chapels and nine Eastern Catholic churches.”
The Arch of LA is so big it was divided by Roger Cardinal Mahony into five “pastoral regions”, each having its own auxiliary bishop. Per the Una Voce Ventura website ( http://unavoceventura.org/index.html ), the only regularly scheduled parochial EF in the northwestern-most Santa Barbara PR is at Mission San Buenaventura, at 1:30 Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula ( http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/ )offers the EF daily in their splendid new Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity campus chapel, and all OF Masses offered there are normally in Latin. There have been a few “experimental” EF Masses said at St Paschal Baylon in Newbury Park, but not on a regular basis. There is a growing interest in the EF amongst the local presbyterate, which Una Voce Ventura is working hard to encourage and support.
According to the website of Una Voce of Los Angeles ( http://www.unavocela.org/ms.htm ), there are only six locations where the EF is offered in the Arch of LA, four parish churches, a retirement home and Thomas Aquinas College. If we throw in the two non-parochial venues, that is 288/6 ~= 2.1%. Notably absent are any EFs at the Archdiocesan Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.
Prior to Summorum Pontificum, Cdl Mahony permitted 4-5 indult EFs at various places around the Archdiocese over his 25 year tenure. The current parochial EF and its “stable community” at Mission San Buenaventura is essentially a continuation of the original indult Mass. Cdl Mahony steps down as Archbishop this month; it remains to be seen what stance Archbishop Gomez will take toward SP and the EF. I understand he established a parish for the FSSP in San Antonio, and permitted an Anglican Use parish there, so we have hope he will foster the expansion and increased availability of the EF in Los Angeles.
Lacrossecath: There are 44 parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, total. Only three of them offer the TLM regularly. In fact, outside of these three, I know of no other parishes that ever offer the TLM. The parishes are: St. Augustine, in South St. Paul (on mass on each of Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday); Holy Trinity, also in South St. Paul (Sunday and weekdays); St. Agnes in St. Paul (one mass every odd Sunday of the month). Alas, St. Augustine and Holy Trinity parishes will be combined this summer, under the new archdiocesan reorganization plan, with Holy Trinity being the succeeding parish. Both churches will remain open, though, with St. Augustine church becoming, probably, St. Augustine Oratory. I should point out that at both parishes, the church interiors are intact with one exception: Holy Trinity lost its communion rail to the innovators in the early 1970’s. Two years ago, the communion rail was re-installed (Deo Gratias!), through the work of the new pastor, Fr. Echert.
Lacrossecath: OOPS! That can’t be right. 44 parishes must be the 20% target Fr Z was alluding to. That would mean that there are 220 parishes, total, in the archdiocese. That makes MUCH more sense!
The Archdiocese of Chicago has 357 parishes, out of which 5 churches celebrate the EF. So, that would be 1.40% of parishes. Pretty pathetic when you look at it that way. I guess it’s better than the one parish in the whole of the Archdiocese in Atlanta that celebrates the EF. Then again, that’s a Catholic population of 900,000 versus Chicago’s 2.3 million.
Regarding the comments on Bishop Loverde, I would gently suggest that there is some misunderstanding going around from all directions. While I don’t have an inside track on anything, here’s some context that (I hope) may help sort out the comment at Rorate.
First, I think we have to carefully consider what the person who posted the comment said. He said that the bishop was “historically hostile to tradition.” In the combox, he clarifies by saying he bases that statement on a private conversation he had with the bishop some years ago. Based on my experience in “traditionally-minded” blogs, often times a phrase like that has a very, very narrow meaning–“hostile to tradition” means “not a fan of the TLM.” In that usage, someone can promote Adoration, Confession, and liturgical sanity, and still be “hostile to tradition.” Ascribing that to this posting on Rorate, though, is pure speculation on my part.
I also think it is clear in Bishop Loverde’s public statements and actions, that he, personally, is not a big fan of the TLM. I don’t expect to hear of a Solemn Pontifical Mass at the cathedral anytime in the near future. To his credit, however, he has, as a good shepherd, abided by the both the letter and the spirit of Summorum Pontificum and has demonstrated clear obedience to the will of the Vicar of Christ in not, as some prelates have, trying to undercut the authority of priests and pastors to implement the TLM. I think you can argue, as well, that in the context of the Ordinary Form, he has been reasonably friendly to the traditional liturgical practices that are common in the Arlington Diocese, and has done nothing to innovate outside of what is licit in the OF, whether or not I personally like it.
As a lay member of Bishop Loverde’s flock in the Arlington Diocese, I really don’t think I could ask for much more. We have the TLM flourishing in the diocese, I am able to attend the TLM at least twice weekly, and I see real attempts to teach the fullness of the Catholic faith on the part of just about all the priests and parishes I have run across in the diocese.
Centristian @ 12:01 pm today,
I think you’ve got it exactly right, in your last several paragraphs regarding the intent of Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum. No one should expect a general restoration of the EF as the normative form of the Roman rite. But surely everyone has a right to expect that every Mass he attends be recognizable as a traditional Roman Mass. And this is surely the intent of the Benedictine reform—of which Summorum Pontificum is one part, the corrected translation another, his reform of papal liturgy still another, and so forth.
How can someone be in favour simultaneously of “liturgical sanity” and of the NOM (“not a fan of the TLM”)? The NOM is the embodiment of the revolution in the Church.
So, because Bishop Loverde is not a zealous advocate for having the Extraordinary Form said at every parish (he’s “not a big fan”), but those who do prefer the EF are quite free to go to one — even though reports are, even here, that many EF Masses are sparsely attended, indicating that there is not a great demand for it — he is somehow “hostile to tradition”??
And, please, let’s not add the late Bishop Keating to this exercise in smear and detraction.
It sounds to me like there are too many advocates of tradition who are hostile to charity and truth.
Centristian. Let me compliment you for a magnificent post.
A few thoughts.
Some post are making reference to a mass in Latin. Others are more specific as to the mass of Trent.
Two different issues. The mass of Trent is Latin, while a mass in Latin may or may not be a mass of Trent.
A bishop is “THE” bishop of his diocese. He is one of many bishops who collectively shepherd the church. The pope is the Bishop of Rome. There is of course a primacy inherent in that office. However, I think it is important to keep intact the “collective” aspect of the catholic church. To further the collectivity of the bishops, conferences of bishops such as the USCCB meet regularly. I am not a big fan of the idea of a super micro-manager implementing the imposition of mandates upon the dioceses that collectively form the catholic church. I am not a historian so I may be wrong, but I don’t think that is the tradition of the church. Certainly, I imagine, there have been periods of a “strong” papacy as well as periods of a less imposing style of papacy. I prefer an independent bishop as long as he remains loyal to authentic church doctrine and teaching.
Having said that, I am not a fan of anyone telling a bishop what he should do, unless of course the bishop is in error.
The “saying” of the mass of Trent is a very complex procedure and requires much skill. Movements of the hands, certain gestures, vestments, and so forth have important symbolic meanings. A great deal of training is required before one is competent. There is the old saying which I do not recall correctly that there are over a hundred ways to commit mortal sin when saying the mass of Trent. There is much wisdom in that.
Depending upon the mass, solemn and so forth, a “sub-deacon” may be needed. We no longer have sub-deacons in the Latin church (except in specific priestly societies/orders). So do we ask a priest or a deacon to pretend to be a sub-deacon and vest as such? That’s as bad as having priest vest as deacons, but participate in the consecration!
There are specific priestly societies devoted to the mass of Trent. If I am not mistaken, these priests are not ordered to a diocese, but have a unique relationship to the Vatican. They offer the mass of Trent. Of course they must receive permission from the bishop of a diocese in order to minister in his diocese. There is a very good reason for that, just as there is a reason why religious orders request permission and submit to the authority to a bishop in his diocese!
The issue I have with many, if not all of those societies is that they will offer no other form of celebration……. even reconciliation in other than the format of Trent.
My issue is that first and always a priest should be a priest. The Holy Spirit guided the Fathers of Vatican II and ALL catholics MUST honor that reality! It is one thing to preserve a part of our tradition by keeping it alive, but to refuse to honor any other part of our tradition is in my opinion just plain wrong. And sadly, there have been some groups who denied the reality of the authority of the council.
And on a practical level bishops are struggling to provide pastors for parishes. Very often pastors are stretched to limitations of their being human all while there are priests and priestly orders clinging to nostalgia.
There is a very good reason while the mass of Trent is the “extraordinary” form. Don’t try to make it the “ordinary”.
As for kneeling in receiving Holy Communion, there is hardly any oppression going on in Arlington over this. It is not an issue. In fact, the first I’ve heard of Bishop Loverde saying anything on the matter is here in this combox today.
Now, after googling, it does appear that Bishop Loverde did give a homily SEVERAL YEARS AGO that mentioned the subject, but like I said, it is not something that has been made an issue since.
And in that homily, published in the diocesan newspaper, in giving those remarks, all that Bishop Loverde says is, effectively, rather than everyone doing their own thing, SAY THE BLACK and DO THE RED. Sound familiar??
From his column/homily —
“If members of the community do not act in union but instead make the liturgy an expression of personal piety, then unity is turned into confusion, rhythm becomes chaos and the assembly is hindered from entering into the prayer of the liturgy, and must rather focus on what is coming next.
“It is for this reason that the liturgical texts have rubrics. Rubrics are the authoritative rules and directions given to create order and harmony in the liturgy so that the People of God may enter into the prayer of the Mass. Because we are creatures of body and soul, our prayer is not confined to our minds, hearts and voices, but is expressed by our bodies as well. During Mass we assume various postures: standing, sitting, kneeling, and we are invited to make a variety of gestures. These postures and gestures that have profound meaning, and when done with reverence, can enhance our personal participation in the Mass. . . .
“The posture of kneeling signifies penance and the awareness of our sins, homage and reverence to Our Lord, and adoration of the One God. . . .
“During the Communion Rite, the bishops of the United States have determined that the norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. However, communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. . . .
“The General Instruction states that certain postures or gestures should be determined by the Conference of Bishops. Unity in posture and gesture is a primary principle in formulating liturgical directives. . . . Although no one would be denied communion if he or she knelt, the proper norm is standing and any other posture is really an act of disobedience to what the liturgical discipline is providing. . . .
“We must take great care that the celebration of the Eucharist, which by its very nature signifies unity and charity, never becomes a sign of division through our failure to follow humbly and obediently the liturgical norms given us by the Church.”
Again, kneeling for Holy Communion has NOT been an issue at all in Arlington. Beyond this statement, given in the context of teaching on the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal several years ago, I’ve not heard of Bishop Loverde or others in the Diocese bringing up the matter. But even to the extent that the Bishop does address it here, it is abundantly clear that, far from exhibiting some “hostility to tradition,” Bishop Loverde instead is saying — the bishops of the United States have made the rules. The rules (norms) say stand, ergo, in the interests of liturgical unity, we should follow the rules. SAY THE BLACK and DO THE RED. You got a problem with that, take it up with the bishops’ conference. That said, no one is going to come down on you for kneeling in Arlington (unless, I suppose, you are intentionally trying to be a troublemaker, openly expressing obstinant defiance and purposely formenting division).
That, to me, seems to be a pretty traditional-minded way of approaching the matter.
These statistics are saddening. All the more reason why something should more should be done to respect the Holy Father’s wishes. Not only through Summorum Pontificum, but from the mouth of Cardianl Hoyos himself who said the Holy Father wishes for this Mass to be said in ALL parishes. That is the only real way to accomplish implementation and promulgation of the MP. TO have both forms of Mass on equal footing in most if not all parishes will allow people who may not regularly seek it out to float between both forms. If will also speed up that mutual enrichement that is so often mentioned. You have to be exposed to both forms in order to have an opinion on the matter. Putting it “here” and stating that people don’t go, or there is no interest, is not the real gauge of what is going on. And that isn’t the point anyway. The CHurch is supposed to do what is best for souls. And it seems that it has been determined by the Holy Father that exposure to both forms of Mass is just that. Thay must do more to make that possible.
It’s regrettable that you resort to accusing priests who love the TLM as being motivated by mere “nostalgia”.
And to characterise the NOM as being a “tradition” – that’s ridiculous!
Benedict XVI has written much that will maybe start to set you straight on both the above. E.g. he wants to see the NOM enriched by the TLM … doesn’t really say much for the NOM as a tradition does it? (Not that I would want anyone literally to adopt the HF’s “mutual enrichment” agenda – “NOM delenda est” I say.)
JBuntin, the Sunday evening EF Mass in Fort Worth is celebrated by one of the priests from the FSSP parish in Dallas (actually Irving). This is probably too far to be convenient, but might be worth trying once in a while. Three years ago, when some genius in Dallas decided that Summorum Pontificum forbade the use of the EF during the Triduum, the Good Friday service was held in Fort Worth instead.
I suppose that we are really doing a bit of squabbling over what is meant by “hostile.” I don’t think anyone would say that Bishop Loverde is “hostile” in the way that the Ordinary of Erie, Pennsylvania is hostile. At same time, historically, I think it is fair to say that he has not been supportive of traditional Catholicism (I am not simply speaking of the Tridentine Mass).
I also don’t think there is any lack of charity coming from those that have said so. It is rather clear from his own liturgical practices and directions in the past that such things as the use of Latin (in either form), and such Church furnishing as altar rails, are not his cup of tea, and that he doesn’t like them.
Until the clarification that came from the Vatican that noted that the faithful are not to be accused of being disobedient if they kneel to receive communion — at which time the issue seemed to go silent — there was actually some issue in some places in the Arlington Diocese, for what it’s worth, and not merely involving “troublemakers.” Again, since the Motu Proprio, the climate in Arlington has changed, and, to his credit, Bishop Loverde has allowed the implementation of the Holy Father’s wishes.
All of this is to say, I am not attacking his excellency, but merely pointing out that the author of the original report had some grounds for his statements. This is not a diocese with a bishop like Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, a diocese where the bishop promotes and clearly likes traditional things, and yet the Tridentine Mass is flourishing. May God bless our many fine priests!
I’ll second my friend Steve B’s comments regarding the Diocese of Dallas – only one parish with TLM. This parish provides priest’s for TLMs celebrated in the Fort Worth Diocese on Sunday and two weekdays, I believe. In the entire state of Texas, with an estimated 12 million Catholics, there are only 5 or 6 TLMs (1 each in Dallas, Ft. Worth (partly), Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, and Tyler). Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Tyler only have TLMs due to FSSP. Without that, I know that Dallas would have none.
There is a strong hostility to the TLM at the chancery in Dallas. I am aware of several requests to the Bishop asking for more TLMs, but they have all been ignored or rebuffed. [For Pete’s sake. Don’t ask the bishop unless the parish priest has refused. Ask the PRIESTS… PRIESTS… get it?] Some folks think these requests get “filtered” before they get to the Bishop – but Bishop Farrell stated himself, publicly, in 2007 immediately after the release of SP, that he would go into Ecclesia Dei mode – he, and only he, would assess the “need” for EF Mass.
Bishop Keating did not allow the TLM while he was bishop. That is not a smear simply a fact.
Just two more points about the Arlington Diocese, where I live.
First, before Summorum Pontificum, Bishop Loverde authorized indult TLM Masses at two parishes in the diocese.
Second, besides the other parishes in Arlington at which the TLM is said, the chaplain at the University of Mary Washington Catholic Campus Ministry celebrates a TLM Mass twice monthly.
quoting Frank Doyle above…”In the Archdiocese of Boston, there are four Sunday TLMs in parishes every week and one monthly Sunday Mass. Of those parishes, one has the TLM daily. There are also three other parishes which have weekly TLMs though not of Sunday obligation. A high percentage of parishes? No. However, the situation here has greatly improved over the last four years.
I should add that one of the four weekly Sunday Masses is offered in the Cathedral.”
That’s out of approx 300 parishes… And the one in the Cathedral was relocated from the beautiful church, Holy Trinity, the archdiocese closed. The TLM is now offered in the basement of the Cathedral.
My home archdiocese there are 5 listed locations for the TLM (6 if you count the SSPX parish). I hope that this increases when our new Bishop takes over later this month. At present there aren’t any diocesan clergy that offer the TLM, solely religious. That said, there are several diocesan clergy that are interested in offering the TLM in my home archdiocese,
Here in the San Angelo TX diocese to us laity, pastors, and Bishop Michael Pfeifers everlasting disgrace zer0, zilch, n0ne, nada parishes have positively responded to SP– the law of the Latin Church. We are all illegals here. A tiny SSPX once a month TLM is all we have which his excellency’s has slapped a prohibition on his flock attending. Come quickly Lord Jesus, but in the event of Him delaying much longer we are eagerly anticipating May 18, 2012 and are praying that HH’s B16 and the Cong. of Bishops do us right, so we can end the obstruction of the ancient rite or form as the case may be.