Posted on 03/10/2005 3:28:28 PM PST by siunevada
Well, there should be at least one indult in every diocese. We've had an indult since the issuance of Ecclesia Dei, and the congregation rarely goes above 200 people.
"Those who attend the Novus Ordo have no desire to attend the TLM, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise."
There are several folks in my small parish who would attend a TLM if it were available within an hours drive.
Some even get up well before daylight to make the half-day plus round trip to Portland nearly every Sunday, so they can attend the 8:00 A.M. Mass, which is the only Sunday indult Mass in this approximately 50,000 square mile diocese.
There should be as many NO Masses provided as needed for those who wish to attend, and the same should hold true for those who wish to worship according to the ancient Latin rite, 1962 Missal. As the Holy Father stated in Ecclesia Dei, "all respect must be shown for those who are attached" to the old rite and he urged, "a wide and generous application" of his previous directives to urge bishops to provide these Masses. Even with that papal directive there are as many as 40% of US dioceses which have not implemented a single indult TLM.
It never would have been predicted that Church leaders would have abandoned TLM either. Who knows what will happen.
Exactly...I have a hunch the TLM is the way of the future, and we will be "immature" youth like myself who will see to it, but anyway...
Let me clarify a few points:
1. I have been to the NO plenty of times and there is a huge gap in the age distribution. The pews are full of those over 45, with little representation of the 30-45 and the under 15 crowd. There is barely anyone between 15-30. You see how I would stand out at age 25.
2. Contrast the above with a typical TLM. The pews are loaded with people under the age of 45. Yes, there is the older generation there who we should thank for preserving the TLM and they have done their job of passing on tradition to the overwhelming numbers of youth who go to the TLM. So many young families producing many children. Do the math.
3. When I speak of the V2 generation, I am specifically talking about the over 45 crowd that dominates upwards of 80% of the pews at a typical NO. In 20 years most of these will be dead or out of "power". In any case, the under 45 crowd is not of any significant numbers to replenish those pews. They are either not going to church or are populating the TLM.
4. No Cardinal or bishop or even Pope John XXIII envisioned the NO Missae. 7 years after the start of V2, they all with few exceptions got on board with it. Why can't something similar happen in reverse? Or maybe more realistically, why can't a true reform of the 1962 Missal take place, and that new reform can displace the NO?
In any case, the liturgical nightmare of the last 40 years and counting cannot continue. The generation that brought us this crap is slowly loosing power. My generation will be left to pick up the pieces and enact true liturgical reforms. That's a memo. (As Bill O'Reilly would say).
This is anecdotal. Our 3000 family Church counts 50% of the membership under 40.
And, remember, your TLM Mass attendance constitutes less than 1/2 of 1% of total Mass attendance in the Church.
And, you neglect the hundreds of people who are coming into the Church every year, almost all at Novus Ordo Masses.
What about the vast majority of Catholics in 1965 who did not want the Mass to change? My own grandparents, great-aunts and uncles, etc. included. I am sure that these people would perhaps hesitate at first but would accept the TLM just as so many came to accept the NO.
And, I know of a few NO priests personally who would agree with most if not all of my propositions I stated before. These young priests and their like will be tomorrow's bishops. The clergy is still dominated by your generation, but that is going to change in 20 years (my point again), and with that change, attitudes about the TLM will become more positive and outright accepting.
You are simply not going to suppress the Novus Ordo, no matter how much you wish it would happen.
The number of Catholics who desire to worship at a Latin Mass, NO or TLM, is tiny and, if given a choice, will always go to the vernacular NO.
If you read my propositions carefully, you will see that I am advocating the free and wide access of the TLM independent of the NO establishment in addition to the TLM being present alongside the NO at all churches. I said the liturgical battle has to be fought on two fronts. If you think the NO as it is today is not in need of fixing, then I pity you. I also said I was open to a reform of the reform as Ratzinger advocates, although I personally would prefer the eventual suppression of the NO. Let's discuss my ideas and maybe yours too about the merits of the specific ideas themselves. I am not bashing anyone, but you seem to be bashing me and won't even consider anything I have had to say. Again, if you think the NO as it is now is just right, I pity you and I have nothing more to say to you.
Do I not get any credit for offering a more thoughtful and prudent course of action rather than an immediate suppression of all changes of the last 40 years? Will someone else here in this forum actually have a liturgical discussion with me as to the merits or shortcomings of the specific ideas I proposed?
There is no "liturgical battle." The Novus Ordo is the normative Mass, and it will remain so. The TLM is offered via indult, and should be widely available.
But the TLM will continue to be offered in pockets; there is simply no constituency for the TLM, for instance, in my parish, so it will never be offered here.
Again, if you think the NO as it is now is just right, I pity you and I have nothing more to say to you.
The NO is continually developing, as, for instance, in the new translations due out next year. Let's cut the condescension. You are in no position, at the age of 26, to look down your nose at anybody.
Do I not get any credit for offering a more thoughtful and prudent course of action rather than an immediate suppression of all changes of the last 40 years?
I don't consider advocating the suppression of the Novus Ordo to be either thoughtful or prudent, whether it's done now or 50 years in the future. It's wishful thinking and fantasy.
A more prudent approach would be a separate Rite in which the TLM is offered in its own churches, with a Patriarch who reports directly to the Pope and is not reliant on local bishops. Look at the structure of the Eastern Rites and model the TLM on those.
But your proposition to phase out the NO in 50 years is the same position taken by the SSPX, which is in schism. Not serious, IMO.
You are young, and you are under the mistaken impression that your TLM Mass community reflects the state of the entire Church.
It most assuredly does not.
No one at any age earns the right to condescend. With that you are I are done with this conversation. I am not interested in your flame war, even now as it is not yet heated up to high.
Please, does anyone else actually want to talk about the points of the original article or the specific proposals I mentioned?
The original article is about Cardinal Pell, who is reforming the Novus Ordo. There is not a single thing in the article about replacing the Novus Ordo with the TLM.
You seem to want to do what the reformers did in 1965: shove a particular Mass down people's throats.
It was a mistake to do that then, and it would be a mistake to do that now.
A Tridentine Rite would make everybody happy.
Well, almost everybody.
It's the rare person who hungers for something whose very existence has been concealed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.