Missa LAETARE
ROSE Vestments, Semi-Double Observation

Just as the Sunday of Gaudete or "Rejoice" comes in the middle of Advent to excite us with holy joy courageously to continue our diligent preparation for the Feast of Christmas, so the Sunday of Laetare or "Be glad" offers us a rest in the middle of the Lenten observance.

INTROIT: Rejoice, O Jerusalem, and come together all you that love her; rejoice with joy, you that have been in sorrow: that you may exult, and be filled from the breasts of your consolation. V. I rejoiced at the things that were said to me: We shall go into the house of the Lord. V. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Repeat Rejoice...

COLLECT:  The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit.  Let us pray. Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds justly deserve to be punished, by the comfort of Thy grace may mercifully be relieved. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God Forever and ever. R.Amen.

EPISTLE:   Galatians 4: 22-31  A reading from the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul to the Galatians. Brethren: it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born according to the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments; the one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar: for Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children: but that Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit, so also it is now. But what saith the Scriptures? : Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bond-woman, but of the free; by the freedom wherewith Christ hath made us free.
Thanks be to God.

GRADUAL    Psalm 121: 1, 7  I rejoiced at the things that were said to me: We shall go into the house of the Lord. Let peace be in Thy strength, and abundance in Thy towers.

TRACT   : Psalm 124: 1-2  They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved forever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it: so the Lord is round about his people, from henceforth now and for ever.

GOSPEL:   John 6: 1-15  At that time, Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee which is that of Tiberias; and a great multitude followed Him, because they saw the miracles which He did on them that were diseased. Jesus therefore went up into a mountain, and there He sat with His disciples. Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand. When Jesus therefore had lifted up His eyes, and seen that a very great multitude cometh to Him, He said to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?" And this He said to try him; for He Himself knew what He would do. Philip answered Him, Two hundred penny-worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little. One of His disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, saith to Him, There is a boy here that hath five barley loaves and two fishes; but what are these among so many? Then Jesus said: "Make the men sit down." Now there was much grass in the place. The men therefore sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when He had given thanks, He distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would. And when they were filled, He said to His disciples, "Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost." They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten. Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said, This is of a truth the prophet that is to come into the world. Jesus therefore, when He knew that they would come to take Him by force and make Him king, fled again into the mountain Himself alone.
Praise be to Christ

OFFERTORY:    Psalm 134: 3, 6  The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.
Praise ye the Lord, for He is good: sing ye to His name, for He is sweet: whatsoever He pleased He hath done in Heaven and in earth.

SECRET  The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit.  May this victim, we beseech Thee, O Lord, cleanse away our sins, sanctifying Thy servants in both soul and body for the celebration of this sacrifice. Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God
Forever and ever.
R.Amen.

COMMUNION:   Psalm 121: 3-4  Jerusalem, which is built as a city, which is compact together: for thither did the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, to praise Thy name, O Lord.

POSTCOMMUNION  The Lord be with you.  R. And with thy spirit. 
Let us pray. Merciful God, who ceasest not to lavish upon us the riches of Thy sacraments; grant that we may ever draw near to Thine Altar with deepest reverence and with faith unwavering. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God
For ever and ever.
R. Amen.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005

Answers

Fourth Sunday in Lent

Station: The Holy Cross in Jerusalem

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.

Explanation to visitors wondering why Nick's readings and prayers are different from the ones in your Missal and said at Mass in your Catholic Church today: The ones Nick reproduces are those from the 1962 Missal which is permitted to be used in a very small number of Catholic Masses. 99.99% of Catholics use the standard approved form of the Mass which has totally different prayers.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 06, 2005.

Very illustrative post, Steve, Thanks.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005.

Yes, very illustrative.

Last time, it was 95%. Now it's 99.99%.

What's being illustrated here is Steve.

-- pius five (feeling@sorry.com), March 07, 2005.

No, it was never "95%". A previous figure, given more than once, was "about 98%." The "about 98%" figure was used because of the fact that about 1.8% of Catholics are in Eastern churches, which go by their own separate calendar. The 98% was NOT a way of saying that 2% of Catholics attend "indult Masses" in which the 1962 Missal is used. That number of people is negligible (less than 1% of Catholics).

The figure of 99.99%, given above, may have been an intentional hyperbole, a way of saying that very few Catholics indeed attend "indult Masses." If the figure of 99.99% was supposed to be an actual number, I'd say that it may be a bit too high. On the other hand, it is not ridiculously high, if one is speaking only of Western Catholics.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 07, 2005.

If "very few" Catholics attend "indult" Masses, it's because there are very few indult Masses. Which are invariably packed. Just goes to show, what people want and what people get are two very different things.

Meanwhile, the point: Why do you find it so necessary to point out the "negligibility" of those who attend the Tridentine Mass.

Do you have some sort of agenda? Are you trying to encourage others to dismiss it as you do? It certainly looks that way.

-- pius five (feeling@sorry.com), March 07, 2005.

I live in a medium-size city in the NE United States. There is an indult Mass at one Church in the city every Sunday at 10:00. I have attended a few times. There are usually about 30 to 40 people present, in a church that holds 600. Not quite what I would call "packed". Still, I have absolutely no problem with these good folks who prefer the Mass in that format. The overwhelming majority of faithful Catholics however recognize that there is nothing offered at such a Mass that is not also offered in their own parish. The Mass is the Mass.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2005.

Hi Paul, Glad to hear it, and I agree with you entirely (except that every TLM I've ever attended was SRO!)

I'm not one of those "trads" who claim the N.O. Mass to be invalid. For me, it's not about what is offered (I agree, they offer the same thing), but rather, it's about the way it's offered.

You see, I used to belong to the UCC (Congregational), and after attending worship services there, I felt a certain way. Now I feel pretty much the same way after I attend the N.O. Mass.

On the other hand, the Tridentine Mass does for me what I imagine the N.O. Mass must do for you. That's why I go. It's just a personal matter; I acknowledge no fault or defect in the N.O. Mass!!!

But since Pope St. Pius V declared the TLM to be valid for all time, I do get a little peeved whenever I think someone is bad-mouthing it, dismissing it, or even merely attempting to downplay it, or those who attend it. It just isn't right. That's why I spoke up.

-- pius five (feeling@sorry.com), March 07, 2005.

P.S. Paul, that indult Mass that you refer to, is it a real Tridentine Latin Mass, or is it a Latin translation of the N.O. Mass? There is a difference.

-- pius five (feeling@sorry.com), March 07, 2005.

Pius Five, you needn't be concerned that Paul M might be wrong about the last point. He is a deacon. When he said, "indult," he meant "indult" (not the revised rite in Latin). As you can see, I don't use the term "novus ordo." I don't use it because it is not the official name of the rite, and because the Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V could also be called a "novus ordo" in comparison to older rites.

To me, you said, If "very few" Catholics attend "indult" Masses, it's because there are very few indult Masses.

I believe that comment to be nothing more than a product of your hopes and preferences. No, I don't think that it's really "because there are very few indult Masses." I believe, instead, that very few attend, because, compared to the huge number of Catholics (about 60,000,000 in the U.S. alone) very few WANT to attend.

You then said to me, Why do you find it so necessary to point out the "negligibility" of those who attend the Tridentine Mass. Do you have some sort of agenda? Are you trying to encourage others to dismiss it as you do? It certainly looks that way.

I don't find it "necessary," but only helpful, merely because it is a fact pertinent to discussions that arise here. I'm just trying to be informative, not because of an agenda. I don't really care how many or how few people attend indult Masses. You may be shocked to read that I was an altar server for perhaps a thousand celebrations of the "Mass of Pius V" in the early 1960s. The experience contributed to my studying Latin for nine years, majoring in it in college, and preparing to teach it. Nevertheless, I so much prefer the newer rite (in English, or mixed English/Latin) that I have attended only a couple of indult Masses.

The older rite has various things about it that are extremely unappealing to the vast majority of Catholics in the 21st century. It would be good if you could realize and admit this, as it is not likely to change.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 07, 2005.

It would seem that the scarcity of indult Masses must necessarily lead to large attendence at those few? People who want that come from far away. If there were more to be found, attendence would be more evenly distributed, as it is in the ''vernacular'' celebrations. What does it matter?

If just ONE faithful Catholic is in attendence and he/she worships Our Lord with immense love, the Mass is good. Not meaning another Mass, where five hundred are gathered makes it holier in worship. That congregation en masse may not present God with the same FAITH the smaller one did. Indeed, an Indult celebration, for all its finesse, could be filled with philistines, and a Novus Ordo Mass could well be heaven on earth. The One who knows is GOD. I want Masses where Jesus Christ loves us and we love Him. So far, 50 years past Vatican II, my parish adores Him; ALL of us! We may be sinners. But He lives in our midst and we serve Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Sorry for my imprecision, I thought everyone would realise I was talking about western-rite Catholics. In which case 99.99% as far as I can tell is pretty accurate not hyperbole. As there are more than 1 billion western-rite Catholics that would mean that more than 100,000 of them attend 1962 Masses. I don’t have a hidden agenda, “pius five” (btw isn’t it a bit arrogant to use the name of a sainted pope as your “handle”?) I certainly wasn’t “bad-mouthing or dismissing or downplaying" the 1962 Mass and those who attend it. I was just explaining Nick’s post, which would otherwise have confused the majority of Catholics who don’t even realize that there is still such a thing as licit 1962 Masses. The latter are certainly not always “packed”. I mentioned that my parents' parish stopped them because there weren’t enough people attending.

I defend your right to go to a 1962 Mass if you want to, "pius five". I was merely pointing out the fact that the vast majority of Catholics do not share your tastes. That doesn't mean that there's some terrible conspiracy against you. Unfortunately this type of paranoid conspiracy theory, causing kneejerk reactions perceiving "attacks" against them where there are none, seems to be not uncommon among those who go to the 1962 Mass.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

"..the majority of Catholics who don't even realize that there is still such a thing ..." says Steve. This is probably a true statement. Steve goes on to say that those of us who have a preference for the Tridentine Mass tend to be a little paranoid..well, perhaps there is truth there as well. When the majority of American bishops still refuse to follow the Pope's directive to offer this form of the mass "freely" to those who desire it, I suppose the result of that may be that those of us who do desire it may tend to feel somewhat neglected by our bishops.

If the majority of Catholics aren't even aware of the legitimate existance of the Tridentine mass, how could they possibly choose to "prefer" it or not? By not offering it "freely" as the Pope has directed, the Bishops do not permit any choice by Catholics..hence the "paranoia" exists.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 08, 2005.

Perhaps if there was more interest in attending Mass in a foreign language, the bishops would offer such an option more "freely". What are the bishops to do? Mandate that every parish offer a weekly Tridentine Mass for the half dozen individuals who might attend? Priests are stretched to the limit as it is.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2005.

Since you asked.."what are the Bishops to do?"

It would be nice if in each Archdiocese in the USA there was a Tridentine Mass offered at sometime at several parishes. Priests must say mass every day, not just on Sundays. Therefore, in every Archdiocese across the country, every parish which has a priest, has a mass said daily. That's a lot of masses. Surely room for ONE Tridentine mass each week at some time which is better than none at all.

Those Catholics who would like to attend a Tridentine mass could at least get to one, even if it were not on a Sunday. At LEAST that much effort could be given to the needs of those Catholics rather than having to travel 2 and 3 hours to find one Archdiocese which offers the mass.

How many people attend the daily mass in each Catholic parish? Do the number of people attending make the mass any less worthwhile? If a parish had ONE daily Tridentine mass a week, would this be such a terrible thing?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 08, 2005.

Unfortunately this type of paranoid conspiracy theory, causing kneejerk reactions perceiving "attacks" against them where there are none, seems to be not uncommon among those who go to the 1962 Mass. As there are more than 1 billion western-rite Catholics that would mean that more than 100,000 of them attend 1962 Masses.

What a blanket statement! How many have you really met in person?

-- goodgrief (whybother@nomail.com), March 08, 2005.

Good grief indeed. I didn’t say ALL or even MOST of those who attend 1962 Masses suspect a conspiracy, just that it is “not uncommon”, and you two have given a perfect example. Yes the majority of Catholics probably don’t know that the 1962 Mass is allowed because they don’t CARE enough about it to find out. I’m sorry you find it so hard to accept that the vast majority of Catholics don’t share your tastes. On another thread someone else claimed that there is a huge number of Catholics continuously demanding 1962 Masses but that their bishops are callously refusing them. I asked for evidence that there were more than a tiny handful of people wanting the 1962 Mass and unable to go to it, and none was forthcoming.

No, forcing priests to say weekday Masses in the 1962 rite is not on. Most parishes have ONE Mass per weekday which is attended by a group of their own parishioners. What’s the point of denying them the Mass they want? And are all of the 1962 Massgoers retired people who don’t have to take time off work to travel long distances to weekday Mass? On another thread someone else claimed the 1962 Masses are full of young families. They certainly wouldn't take time off work and school every week to go to a weekday Mass.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

Steve..I was simply agreeing with you when you stated that the majority of Catholics don't know that there is still a 1962 mass..so now you say that the majority of Catholics probably don't know because they don't care? LOL.

I didn't suggest at all that having one Tridentine mass offered at each parish during the week would serve the needs of all the Catholics who desire it, I suggested that if the Bishops arranged such a thing, it would be the LEAST that might be done to permit more of those Catholics who desire the Tridentine mass to attend than is done currently.

In many (but certainly not all) parishes, the daily mass is said at 7AM..quite a few people who work MIGHT be able to attend a Tridentine mass said at that hour of the day. Those who work 3- 11PM..those who need not leave for work until 8AM or after..those who have that particular day "off". Those who work part-time. And yes, those retired people..Many who desire the Tridentine mass still would not be able to attend..yet this would at least permit MORE people to have access than is now permitted.

You also said that why should the people who attend a daily parish mass "give up" the mass that they prefer? My goodness. Exactly my point Steve. We are ALL Catholics. BOTH masses are valid are they not? Since Pope John Paul II said quite clearly that the Tridentine Mass is to be offered FREELY to those who desire it, why indeed should WE Catholics have to "give up" the mass that WE prefer???? ONE mass a week isn't asking too much. That leaves a minimum of 6 other masses, and for larger parishes, 7 other masses for those Catholics who prefer the Norvus Ordo mass.

There is time and space for guitar masses and charismatic masses (those can be really uplifting!) and "ecumenical" masses, so why not for valid Tridentine masses?????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 08, 2005.

Unfortunately this type of paranoid conspiracy theory, causing kneejerk reactions perceiving "attacks" against them where there are none, seems to be not uncommon among those who go to the 1962 Mass. As there are more than 1 billion western-rite Catholics that would mean that more than 100,000 of them attend 1962 Masses.

I'll ask again. How many have you met in person? You are stating above that "those" who go to 1962 Mass. Please give the number then being you seem to know a lot about "them".

Here is an article on this very subject.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1357786/posts

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/

-- ??? (noname@nomail.com), March 08, 2005.

“You are stating above that "those" who go to 1962 Mass.” Please stop twisting my words. I said it is “not uncommon” among those who go to the 1962 Mass. I was trying to be charitable, because it appears that the description fits actually the MAJORITY of those who go to the 1962 Mass and post to this forum.

I’ll ask again. WHERE is the evidence that a huge number of Catholics are continuously demanding 1962 Masses but that their bishops are callously refusing them?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

Hi, Lesley. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with certain things you wrote.

When the majority of American bishops still refuse to follow the Pope's directive to offer this form of the mass "freely" to those who desire it, I suppose the result of that may be that those of us who do desire it may tend to feel somewhat neglected by our bishops.

Although I have no doubt that this is true of some bishops, I feel sure that it is nowhere near "the majority of American bishops." First, there is no way that "the majority" could get away with "refus[ing] to follow the Pope's directive. Second, I don't believe that anywhere near half the bishops are evil enough to try to do such a thing.

It appears to me that you may be seeing that the older rite is not available in a high percentage of dioceses, and then you are jumping to the false conclusion that this is true because of an episcopal act of defiance. I firmly believe that the older rite is not offered in some dioceses for reasons other than a bishop's disobedience to the pope. Some probable reasons are:

(1) Lack of significant interest by laity. I'll bet that this is a big reason. Each bishop is asked to allow for the celebration of the older rite if sufficient interest is expressed. A bishop who hears of no significant interest in the older rite is not asked by the Church to arrange for its celebration in order to attract new people to it! Rather, he is asked to arrange it for people who ask for it because they "are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition" (words of the pope in "Ecclesia Dei" of 1988).

(2) Interest shown by only a few, and the bishop wants those few to cross into a neighboring diocese to attend an indult Mass. This was the case in my former diocese, which I believe to be one of the best, most orthodox and obedient dioceses in America.

(3) Lack of priests trained to celebrate the older rite. Yes, I have heard about new "orders" of older-rite-celebrating priests who are willing to go to dioceses like this, but perhaps bishops have legitimate reasons not to feel able to accept these outside priests.

(4) Impracticality. There may be cases in which a diocese is physically gigantic, and those who would like to attend the older rite are extremely distant from one another.

If the majority of Catholics aren't even aware of the legitimate existance of the Tridentine mass, how could they possibly choose to "prefer" it or not?

As I mentioned above, this is not a matter of "preferring" after experiencing, but of asking because of a genuine "attachment" to the earlier rite.

By not offering it "freely" as the Pope has directed, the Bishops do not permit any choice by Catholics ... hence the "paranoia" exists.

The pope did not use the word "freely." He wrote: "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal of 1962." Thus, each bishop has to determine whether there is a call for any "application of the directives" at all in his diocese -- and, if there is, what is meant by "wide and generous application."

The pope's directive came 17 years ago, plenty of time to be implemented. If he thought that bishops were unjustly ignoring it, he would tell them off (and order them to mend their ways) during their "ad limina" visits to the Vatican, or he would publish a follow- up document with more stringent guidelines (e.g., "Each bishop in the world must offer Mass according to the older rite in his cathedral, and in at least one other parish, at least once a week). He has apparently done neither of these things, so no one ought to be complaining publicly (such as here). Let all dissatisfaction be expressed by private letters to bishops and, if necessary, to the pope via the papal nuncio.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 09, 2005.

Ooops! I made an ambigous statment there near the end. I said that the pope could have published more stringent guidelines (e.g., "Each bishop in the world must offer Mass according to the older rite in his cathedral ...). When I used the word "offer," I wasn't speaking of each bishop celebrating the older rite, but rather arranging for the celebration (by himself or some other priest).

-- (OK@lets.go), March 09, 2005.

WHERE is the evidence that a huge number of Catholics are continuously demanding 1962 Masses but that their bishops are callously refusing them?

Where is there evidence that there isn't? Did you know where all the Latin Masses would be in each state where they do have them? Of course not.

-- goodgrief (noname@nomail.com), March 09, 2005.

If individual bishops have to ponder what "wide and generous application means" we're all in trouble.

17 years ago, MANY Catholics, of which I was just one, begged the archdiocese of Philadelphia for Tridentine masses..nope. refused. As late as the 1990's in New Jersey..nope..refused. we had a petition of 1200 signatures in NJ..nope, refused.

I cannot speak to any other places in the USA, just those two. And people wonder why we are "paranoid"?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Lesley, I'll believe that you have described the situation accurately. My reaction? You have provided anecdotal evidence about just two dioceses, and we have no way of knowing what the (arch) bishops provided as reasons for their actions.

Maybe the two (arch)bishops in your anecdotes had valid reasons, but what about if they did not? As I mentioned last time, Although I have no doubt that [not having valid reasons] is true of some bishops, I feel sure that it is nowhere near "the majority of American bishops." Then I said, First, there is no way that "the majority" could get away with "refus[ing] to follow the Pope's directive. Second, I don't believe that anywhere near half the bishops are evil enough to try to do such a thing.

The only other possibility that I could envision is one that involves secrecy. Here's what i mean:
Suppose that, in or shortly after 1988, the U.S. cardinals (or a large group of U.S. bishops who are loyal to the pope) went to the Vatican to discuss this whole situation with his Holiness.
Suppose they offered reasons why they believed that it would be imprudent for them to authorize the celebration of the older rite in their (arch)dioceses.
Suppose they pointed out that, in certain ways, they are the best judges of what would be the best liturgical discipline in their local churches, just as the various apostles were better judges of this than St. Peter.
Suppose they then asked the pope whether he was ordering them, against their will and under pain of sin, to provide for the celebration of the older rite?
Suppose the pope then said, "No, I am not going to force you, under pain of sin, to comply with my directive."
Now, if THAT kind of thing really happened "behind closed doors," it would be understandable -- even if some would consider it lamentable - - that various bishops chose not to comply with the papal directive of 1988.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 09, 2005.

I need to clarify a few things I guess: First, it is MY opinion that yes, there was/is some kind of "thing" which went on among MANY of the American Bishops which had them decide not to offer the Tridentine mass as Pope John Paul had said it should be offered. Only the Bishops know why they did that..

The reasons that we were given from both archdioceses' was it was not "practical". We had priests who supported us and signed the letters, so it wasn't a matter of lack of priests, or anything "practical". Since we didn't want to start a "movement" against the Bishops, we dropped it. Asking a Bishop is one thing, demanding is quite another!

It was our feeling that for whatever reason, the bishops simply didn't want to do this. But it surely wasn't for any lack of numbers of Catholics who desired the Tridentine mass in those geographic locations.

So yes, who can say? But that's where the "paranoia" comes from..the lack of any reasonable explanation when people did submit a lot of significant legitimate Catholic signatures to two Bishops (I can only speak from my own experience), and despite reading the Pope's letter, were told "no". Leaves you feeling, whoa..what's up with this? It's disappointing, and makes a person feel somewhat left out.

The New Mass is nice..I don't understand the folks who whine and stomp their feet over it. I'm positively thrilled when I feel good enough to attend!! Yet there ARE those of us folks who find that we seem to be able to worship God best via the Tridentine mass. That mass positively uplifts my soul..I miss it terribly. We all have our cross to bear, eh?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

“WHERE is the evidence that a huge number of Catholics are continuously demanding 1962 Masses but that their bishops are callously refusing them? Where is there evidence that there isn't? “

Hey it’s you guys who keep asserting that there is. The maxim is “He who asserts must prove”.

“Did you know where all the Latin Masses would be in each state where they do have them? Of course not.”

Because, like the majority of Catholics, I don’t care enough about it to be bothered finding out.

Lesley, I feel sorry that you can’t get to the type of Mass you prefer. But there are 3.8 million Catholics in Pennsylvania and 3.3 million in New Jersey. 1200 Catholics spread over the State isn’t really that many. I don’t think we need to dream up any “secret agreement” between the bishops and the Pope to explain why your petition was turned down. And as “OK” mentioned, the bishops were only asked to take account of those who request the 1962 Mass because of their previous attachment to the earlier rite. That rules out any petitioner who’s under 50, or probably 60, years old.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

"If he thought that bishops were unjustly ignoring it, he would tell them off (and order them to mend their ways) during their "ad limina" visits to the Vatican, or he would publish a follow- up document with more stringent guidelines (e.g., "Each bishop in the world must offer Mass according to the older rite in his cathedral, and in at least one other parish, at least once a week). He has apparently done neither of these things, so no one ought to be complaining publicly (such as here).

He never did anything about Cardinal Mahony either. So according to your reasoning, Mahony is a-ok, and everybody ought to shut up.

But you know your own reasoning doesn't really work. You also know that you have a pope according to your needs.

"Let all dissatisfaction be expressed by private letters to bishops and, if necessary, to the pope via the papal nuncio."

Hello. My name is Emerald. You suppressed my Mass. Prepare to get expressed on.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

LOL Emerald..unless someone has seen the "Princess Bride" your last statement wouldn't be seen as humerous.I have, and it made me chuckle. I have nothing more to say on the subject..I'm sure Steve has though..

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Because, like the majority of Catholics, I don’t care enough about it to be bothered finding out.

I knew this, and I also knew you didn't care enough to know anything yet you pretended you did just to argue. You don't want the Latin mass therefore you will never know how many others do until you are in those circles which there are far more than you KNOW, and the numbers keep growing.

-- goodgrief (no@nomail.com), March 09, 2005.

I didn’t pretend to know anything, goodgrief. Who says I don’t want the Latin Mass? (I assume you mean the 1962 Mass). If my local parish started having the 1962 Mass instead of the standard Mass I’d happily keep going to Mass there. If the pope tomorrow said all Masses must be in Latin, or in the 1962 text, it wouldn’t bother me. It would still be the Mass. What bothers me is those Catholics who insist the Pope and the bishops don’t know what they’re doing and insist on “correcting” them.

“there are far more than you KNOW, and the numbers keep growing.”

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Who are they? Where are they? How many are they? And as I said, if they’re not oldies, the pope says their wish for the 1962 Mass should be disregarded. No Lesley I’m not going to post again here because it’s like talking to a brick wall. I really don’t see why some people get so excited about this. In another 30-40 years all those for whom the Pope has asked for the 1962 Mass to be provided will be dead, and there will be no more 1962 Masses.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 10, 2005.

"LOL Emerald..unless someone has seen the "Princess Bride" your last statement wouldn't be seen as humerous. I have, and it made me chuckle."

I'm glad then; that makes me happy.

"I have nothing more to say on the subject.."

That's fine as well; I understand. You seem one not get distracted or to miss the point. There's wisdom in that, I think.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

In another 30-40 years all those for whom the Pope has asked for the 1962 Mass to be provided will be dead, and there will be no more 1962 Masses.

That is funny. If you had taken the time to read the web page I posted you would see that the majority are in their 30's and 40's. Again you speak about something you know nothing of.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Who are they? Where are they? How many are they?

Did I not tell you that you would not know unless you were in those circles?

I’m not going to post again here because it’s like talking to a brick wall. I really don’t see why some people get so excited about this.

lol Get excited? You did post too so she was right. We only want what was promised to us and sorry to upset you when I tell you that now many younger people are "attached".

-- goodgrief (nomore@nomail.com), March 10, 2005.

I loved the Latin Rite when we were young. But now all of us can participate in the vernacular celebration of Mass.

In the old days, the only voices heard during Mass were in the sanctuary. A priest speaking Latin and altar boys responding in Latin, with only a dim knowledge of what the words meant. Oh, we knew Amen was amen; and Dominus vobiscum meant the Lord be with you. But hardly anything else. I would much rather participate knowing what we're saying; loving God and expressing it aloud.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Oh, we knew Amen was amen; and Dominus vobiscum meant the Lord be with you. But hardly anything else. I would much rather participate knowing what we're saying; loving God and expressing it aloud.

Those days are long over. We know what they are saying. Our missals have Latin on one side and English on the other. Children of all ages can also follow. There missals have pictures in them letting them know what the priest is doing and why.

-- Love the Latin Mass (notan@addy.com), March 10, 2005.

Let's be specific; in pre-Vatican II days, almost nobody responded verbally to the priest's Latin. Just a pair of acolytes, or the choir on occasion. Today we answer in unison. A true and significant participation.

I'm not saying the Latin liturgy was wanting in some way. It didn't particularly call on the faithful to take an active role. What had once BEEN the vernacular of our western civilization --LATIN, later HINDERED the full response by our faithful. A simple language barrier. Please don't say that wasn't so.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"A priest speaking Latin and altar boys responding in Latin, with only a dim knowledge of what the words meant."

Well, consider this. You have the documents of Vatican II in English, right?

Even with those documents in English, you have only a dim knowledge of what the words mean.

I don't think things have change much.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

I worshipped in London recently where the priest faced the altarpiece, back to his congregation, and intoned the Latin Mass. There were quite a few English Catholics who responded to his words in Latin. They are serious about participating today. BECAUSE the Novus Ordo has made that a norm ! -----In the past everybody was silent.

And; nobody can deny that during these Masses, all is excellent and grandiose. There was no let-down that I could see,

When the good priest gave us a wonderful homily in ENGLISH. If he'd given it in Latin, what good would it have been?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"If he'd given it in Latin, what good would it have been?"

Now there's an idea. Perhaps we could get Archbishop Roger Mahony to give his sermons in latin.

He could appear traditional, and not mislead his flock.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

You'd be able to follow, I'm sure. Being the genius you are. Why a non-sequitur, at the moment of truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

And as “OK” mentioned, the bishops were only asked to take account of those who request the 1962 Mass because of their previous attachment to the earlier rite. That rules out any petitioner who’s under 50, or probably 60, years old.
I really don’t see why some people get so excited about this. In another 30-40 years all those for whom the Pope has asked for the 1962 Mass to be provided will be dead, and there will be no more 1962 Masses.

I hate to burst your bubble, Steve, but you misunderstood something. You inserted the word "previous," which neither I nor the pope had used. He did not sepak of people with a "previous attachment," but spoke of showing respect for the feelings of those "who are attached". I believe that I have read a follow-up note from the Vatican, an answer of "No" in response to someone's question as to whether the pope was referring only to people who were "attached" to the 1962 Missal prior to the new Missal's publication in 1970.

Naturally, some people have become "attached" to the older rite since 1970, because they are converts (or children of converts) whose first (or even only) Mass attended was one in the older rite.

A key item for every one to learn and keep in mind: Pope John Paul II made it clear in 1984 that Catholic priests are not permitted to ask bishops for permission to celebrate indult Masses, unless they "made publicly clear, beyond all ambiguity, that" they "and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."
I have no doubt that some priests and laity (including some who may be haunting this forum) are not in compliance with the above papal requirement. These people have NO PERMISSION to attend indult Masses, but must (ironically) fulfill their obligation by attending Mass celebrated according to the newer Latin rite to which they object (or, I suppose, by attending an Eastern Divine Liturgy).

-- (OK@lets.go), March 11, 2005.

"Pope John Paul II made it clear in 1984 that Catholic priests are not permitted to ask bishops for permission to celebrate indult Masses, unless they "made publicly clear, beyond all ambiguity, that" they "and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.""

It wasn't Pope John Paul II who said that. It was Augustin Mayer, Pro-Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship.

See the underlined above?

The promulgation of the Novus Ordo uses at the consecration the phrase pro multis, or as you well know, "for many".

At the Mass you assist at, you most likely hear "for all".

Heh, in the assent to doctrinal exactitude, we're more in compliance than you are. LOL!

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

What a lot of megillah; the ''promulgation of the Novus Ordo--'' Can't you stop the bombast? -----------We know all about this MONSTRUOUS clinker you pass off as buggery. SO WHAT? Jesus Christ truly was shedding His blood so that ALL might receive forgiveness. Theologically it needs no justification. Just put away your electron microscope, and note that these consecrations are no less efficacious and holy. Who cares if your Latin is as brilliant as sunlight? God understands the vernacular without a degree from your alma mater. You're filled with self-love instead of love for God and his people.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Look, what the Novus Ordo promulgated was pro multis. All those promulgations are in latin, you know.

We still abide by the doctrinal exactitude of what was promulgated. You don't.

Well?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

''We're more in compliance than you are. LOL!''

Could be; but your're teaching good Catholics to sin against the Church. You divide the People of God.

That makes you a devil's disciple. ''We're more in compliance than you are.'' LOL!''

WE? A different Church? Then you ARE a schizmoid.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

It wasn't Pope John Paul II who said that. It was Augustin Mayer, Pro-Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship.

Good heavens! Are you actually trying to look like a complete buffoon to me? Only the tiniest mental midget would think that the Pope had not read, and perfected the final draft of, Cardinal Mayer's "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," so important a document was it. It is perfectly proper to say that the words I quoted came from the pope. It was HE, not Cdl. Mayer, who imposed a duty on those requesting the older rite to be acting with the right motivations toward, and beliefs about both rites.

The promulgation of the Novus Ordo uses at the consecration the phrase pro multis, or as you well know, "for many". At the Mass you assist at, you most likely hear "for all". Heh, in the assent to doctrinal exactitude, we're more in compliance than you are.

Again, sir, are you actually trying to look like a complete buffoon to me? Only the tiniest mental midget or the most devious snake would say that "pro multis" means merely, "for many," after the Church has already explained otherwise. I'm sure that this has been explained about 2,973 times at this forum besides. Not only are you ignorant about translation of Latin, you are, for various other reasons besides, in no position whatsoever to say "word one" about "doctrinal exactitude."

Besides, the old "flim-flam" about pro multis is nothing but a red herring from the rear end of some prideful elitist. If one desires to attend an indult Mass, his duty is to humbly bow and say, "Yes, I recognize legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970," without making any comment whatosever about translations thereof or about people who attend Mass celebrated according to the newer rite.

-- (OK@lets.go), March 11, 2005.

"WE? A different Church?"

No. We as in those who assist at the Latin Mass.

"Then you ARE a schizmoid."

No, you just twisted what I said, that's all.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

"Only the tiniest mental midget would think that the Pope had not read, and perfected the final draft of, Cardinal Mayer's "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," so important a document was it."

Tiny mental midgets can't be Catholic?

You like precision it seems. I helped you.

"Again, sir, are you actually trying to look like a complete buffoon to me?"

To you? Yes.

Only the tiniest mental midget or the most devious snake would say that "pro multis" means merely, "for many," after the Church has already explained otherwise."

I can't believe I'm reading this. Sir. Pro multis means "for many". That's what it means. "For all" is pro omnibus.

"I'm sure that this has been explained about 2,973 times at this forum besides. Not only are you ignorant about translation of Latin, you are, for various other reasons besides, in no position whatsoever to say "word one" about "doctrinal exactitude."

Pro multis means "for many". "For all" in latin: pro omnibus.

No matter how many times you pretend that this isn't so, you'll still be wrong.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

Catholics believe in the infinite Mercy and love of God. ''Trads'' don't.

The matter of Latin is altogether irrelevent to Almighty God; since the Holy Spirit abides with us. A penny-ante argument like Emerald's isn't important . Don't pay him the compliments he craves, ignore him. Why is anybody giving him the flattery of a reply?

If Emerald's really inspired by the devil, as one ticked-off Catholic says, let the devil have him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

The following NOT for Ian or Emerald; but for others whom it may concern ------->

''We're more in compliance than you are. LOL!''

''We're more in compliance than you are.''
...WE? ...A different Church? --Why does Emerald say ''WE,'' vs. YOU?

He says it to separate himself from the main body of Catholic faithful; a schism of one kind. This is the schism of Elite or, CLASS Catholicism, a form of self-love. How can this NOT be the way of the Scribes and Pharisees, who thought Jesus Christ, a Galilean, was only a fraud? They were thrilled to see Jesus hanging on a cross!

It's plain to see in his slip of the lip. And he protests that I've twisted his words. NO-- I understood WE against YOU, exactly what SCHISM is. Emerald meant it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.