Attracting people to the TLM

[ProVobis]

Symphonies and opera companies have the pre-performance tutorials of this kind, and they are very popular.

Great point.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Anyhow, the thread is about how to attract people to the TLM and we have those who don’t attend it coming here and telling those who do how to promote it. Those are the ones who fear the EF. So does Satan.

Is this not a discussion forum?

I posted because I felt that my experiences may have given some insight as to
why people may choose not to seek out the TLM-
and isn’t the whole thread about how to attact people to the TLM?!
I don’t fear the TLM,
I fear the over-zealous *“traditionalist” *who denegrates the OF,
and all who prefer (or who only know) the Church post-VII.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

There are many things in this forum that come as quite a surprise to me, many of which can hardly be considered Catholic. I can honestly say that the last thing I would want to be is a “traditional” Catholic.

It should be want you want to be. Implying that Traditional Catholics and their posts aren’t considered Catholic is a violation of forum rules and dis-respectful to the Traditional Catholics on this section.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The Church did, in the 1960s, the same thing it did in the 1560s and invited protestants to attend and even participate in its council sessions. Why is it you give the Council of Trent a pass but not the Vatican II Council? You maintain that "nothing Protestant resulted from the Council of trent." Can you tell me what protestant resulted from Vatican II? And I mean explicits, not the same mantra of hand holding/shaking.

Tell me, please, how a validly consecrated host, which is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is “spoiled.” Is it that the host is spoiled or just your desire to have things the way YOU want them. As for your representation of Mother Angelica’s remarks, keep in mind that her community celebrates the OF.

How would you know?!?!? There have been multitudes of religious and lay alike in places like China and Vietnam, not to mention the Middle East who have been killed simply for being Catholic. What makes you so spiritually superior to them?

“To draw closer to protestants.” What does that even mean? By definition a Catholic liturgy is Catholic! Perhaps you would mind visiting my thread in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum titled “Protestant Elements in the Pauline Missal.” So far, no one has come up with one thing from the missal that is protestant. Perhaps you can clue us in.

1.- Protestants gave suggestions at Vatican II, and this time their suggestions were actually used. The reason altars and altar rails were eliminated was to turn the Mass into a celebration of the Last Supper more than the Holy Sacrifice. That is what it’s like at a Protestant service, a celebration of the Last Supper more than anything else. That’s also the reason Latin was removed, because you don’t see many people speaking in Latin at a supper, so they changed it to english. And that’s why now at NO Masses you will see the priest face the people more than the altar, because you don’t turn your back at a supper. Just like a Protestant service, it became all about the community. All about the people.

2.-Keep in mind that Mother Angelica prefered the TLM over the Novus Ordo and that she had a stroke which now makes her far less capable of saying anything bad about the Novus Ordo or Vatican II reform. And the presence of Christ at an NO Mass is primarily spoiled because not enough attention is payed to the Host. The EMs and CITH help spoil it even more.

3.- Tell me someone who died specifically for the Novus Ordo, not for being a Catholic in general.

4.- As I have said before, NO Masses are all different. They don’t go 100% by what’s in a Missal. Some are reverent, others are downright dis-respectful. The goal of Vatican II was to make the Mass more closely resemble a Protestant service so more protestants would accept the Catholic faith and Mass.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Edit: sorry, my computer messed up and posted the same post twice.

 

[ProVobis]

I fear the over-zealous *“traditionalist” *who denegrates the OF,
and all who prefer (or who only know) the Church post-VII.

Isn’t calling the NO a “banal fabrication” by a Cardinal in good standing a denegration?

 

[m134e5]

Protestants gave suggestions at Vatican II, and this time their suggestions were actually used. The reason altars and altar rails were eliminated was to turn the Mass into a celebration of the Last Supper more than the Holy Sacrifice. That is what it’s like at a Protestant service, a celebration of the Last Supper more than anything else. That’s also the reason Latin was removed, because you don’t see many people speaking in Latin at a supper, so they changed it to english. And that’s why now at NO Masses you will see the priest face the people more than the altar, because you don’t turn your back at a supper. Just like a Protestant service, it became all about the community. All about the people.

Vatican II never called for many of the things you list here. If it had, the parish in my town that has Latin, a communion rail, and a traditional high altar wouldn’t have those things. The problem is that so many Catholics go by what they are told instead of learning things for themselves- and misinformed people (and people who simply have bad intentions) are misleading them.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Isn’t calling the NO a “banal fabrication” by a Cardinal in good standing a denegration?

 

[Timothysis]

1.- Protestants gave suggestions at Vatican II, and this time their suggestions were actually used. The reason altars and altar rails were eliminated was to turn the Mass into a celebration of the Last Supper more than the Holy Sacrifice. That is what it’s like at a Protestant service, a celebration of the Last Supper more than anything else.

Altars and rails were never said to be removed. Please tell me what “suggestions” given by protestants at Vatican II “were actually used.”

That’s also the reason Latin was removed, because you don’t see many people speaking in Latin at a supper, so they changed it to english.

Ridiculous.

And that’s why now at NO Masses you will see the priest face the people more than the altar, because you don’t turn your back at a supper. Just like a Protestant service, it became all about the community. All about the people.

I think you need a refresher on what just exactly the Mass is; seriously.

2.-Keep in mind that Mother Angelica prefered the TLM over the Novus Ordo and that she had a stroke which now makes her far less capable of saying anything bad about the Novus Ordo or Vatican II reform. And the presence of Christ at an NO Mass is primarily spoiled because not enough attention is payed to the Host. The EMs and CITH help spoil it even more.

Tell me how Christ can be “spoiled;” is this a theological term that I’m unfamiliar with?

Tell me someone who died specifically for the Novus Ordo, not for being a Catholic in general.

The martyrs of North America were killed, not because of the TLM but because they were Catholic missionaries and that was enough to canonize them. I’m sure the exact same can be said for those serving in areas of the world today that persecute the Church. Do you want one by name? Sorry, I can’t help you there but it doesn’t mean it hasn’t and doesn’t continue to happen.

The goal of Vatican II was to make the Mass more closely resemble a Protestant service so more protestants would accept the Catholic faith and Mass.

If you say so.

 

[Ockham]

Well thank you to all for completely detracting from my initial topic.

The whole “OF is evil” attitude has to go. Present the TLM as a unique and beautiful expression of the faith is the way to go.

Unfortunately, most discussions like this one get hijacked by NO infantry. Try opening a thread like this on the L&S thread and it will get shut down abruptly.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Vatican II never called for many of the things you list here. If it had, the parish in my town that has Latin, a communion rail, and a traditional high altar wouldn’t have those things. The problem is that so many Catholics go by what they are told instead of learning things for themselves- and misinformed people (and people who simply have bad intentions) are misleading them.

Just because your parish offers a more reverent Novus Ordo doesn’t mean others do. You can’t go by your parish. All parishes these days are different.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Altars and rails were never said to be removed. Please tell me what “suggestions” given by protestants at Vatican II “were actually used.”

Ridiculous.

I think you need a refresher on what just exactly the Mass is; seriously.

Tell me how Christ can be “spoiled;” is this a theological term that I’m unfamiliar with?

The martyrs of North America were killed, not because of the TLM but because they were Catholic missionaries and that was enough to canonize them. I’m sure the exact same can be said for those serving in areas of the world today that persecute the Church. Do you want one by name? Sorry, I can’t help you there but it doesn’t mean it hasn’t and doesn’t continue to happen.

If you say so.

1.- Altars and altar rails WERE removed. Thus why at many NO parishes you now see tables instead of altars. All the things I mentioned were suggested by the protestants and were used.

2.- Um, what was ridiculous there? And what do you mean by I need a refresher about what the Mass is? I was saying that after Vatican II it has been all about the community and people when it should be more about God than anything else.

3.- I mean the presence of Christ at an NO Mass is spoiled. It’s not exactly easy to describe, but the best way I can put it is that there’s not enough reverence to support His presence. EMs, CITH, no altars or altar rails, etc. are not reverent.

4.- What I say is true. Why do you think so many things at a protestant service were suddenly thrown in there?

 

[ProVobis]

All parishes these days are different.

Like a box of chocolates?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Like a box of chocolates?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Yeah, like a box of chocolates. Wish I had a box right now.

 

[At_Trent]

Isn’t calling the NO a “banal fabrication” by a Cardinal in good standing a denegration?

Mam,. I was speaking in general in the post you referred to. You are not one of the ones I was speaking of. I meant the ones who never post on the forum unless it is to tell someone they are wrong. And of course it’s a discussion forum. But we’d rather argue it seems.

But anyway, yes as Cardinal, H.H. BXVI said/wrote that. And other clergy, some high profile, have expressed regret for the novus Ordo Missae.

Archbishop Bugnini called Fr Joseph Gelineau “one of the great masters of the international liturgical world” Fr Gelineau had much say in the formation of the NO. Here is what he said.

“Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists”

Monsignor Klaus Gamber

“At this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed”

Cardinal Ratzinger

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy”

One Fr Dugan

“It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change”

Revolutionary change ? Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia.

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

JXXIII penned that in 1962. There was a plenary meeting before the Council in 1961, so JXXIII left no doubt how he felt on the matter of introducing vernacular into the Liturgy. In 1963 less than 6 months after his death, Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated, permitting the use of vernacular language, but also stressing the importance of Latin.

So you see, when a Roman Catholic says the novus Ordo Missae is lacking compared to the codified Missal of Pius V, they are not necessarily speaking maliciously. They are echoing the thoughts of those quoted above. It’s stated here in somewhat harsh terms at times, and that is what makes the comments seem so appalling. And of course some assume it is only crazy traditionalists expressing concerns about the NO Mass.

And the “traditional Catholic” term. Some are offended when a member of this forum wears the label proudly.

"Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."
Pope St. Pius X

How long has it been since a Pope was canonized ? How long had it been since one was before St Pius X became one ? Can a Roman Catholic be criticized for embracing his words ? Aren’t today’s traditionalists speaking against revolutionary changes and innovations ? When it concerns the novus Ordo Missae, the Pope who called VII decreed and commanded against such. He gave us the 1962 Missal. He didn’t want a new Mass or vernacular Liturgy. He was a traditionalist.

So you see, the traditional Catholic doesn’t make this stuff up. We have to rely on the words, teachings, and guidance of the great Doctors and Saints. Doctrine and Dogma are what they are, and when a red flag pops up, the traditionalist will roar, be it clergy or laity. And we should. With prudence and charity when possible

 

[At_Trent]

At any rate, I’m thinking that lumping Catholics who don’t already go to the TLM in with Satan is probably not the best strategy for changing the numbers. I have found that Catholics are insulted but remarkably unalarmed on their own behalf when asked by people who disagree with them to contemplate the possibility that they are cooperating with evil. .

Hi, I read and agree with most all you offered, especially being charitable. But I didn’t say those who don’t attend the TLM are like or doing the work of Satan.

“Anyhow, the thread is about how to attract people to the TLM and we have those who don’t attend it coming here and telling those who do how to promote it. Those are the ones who fear the EF. So does Satan.”

Poor clarification on my part on specifically who I was directing that towards, but in saying Satan fears the TLM as well, I wasn’t implying anyone who doesn’t attend the TLM was evil.

Poor choice or wording,
mea culpa

 

[Ockham]

All parishes these days are different.

Exactly. Whereas the TLM bears the four marks of the Church: One, Holy, Cathlic, Apostolic. Last time I checked, Bugnini wasn’t an apostle so the NO can’t make the same claim.

 

[ProVobis]

Whereas the TLM bears the four marks of the Church: One, Holy, Cathlic, Apostolic. Last time I checked, Bugnini wasn’t an apostle so the NO can’t make the same claim.

Similar to an argument I use. If the NO were such a wonderful thing, Bugnini and Paul VI would be on the road to canonization by now. But they’re not.

 

[Ockham]

Similar to an argument I use. If the NO were such a wonderful thing, Bugnini and Paul VI would be on the road to canonization by now. But they’re not.

I suspect Pope Paul VI gets a bad rap. It would take some study to understand his pontificate but if he was a liberal Humane Vitae would never have been writen. Perhaps he just wasn’t a strong disciplinarian and couldn’t reign in the ‘spirit of V2’ horses once they left the barn.

 

[ProVobis]

It would take some study to understand his pontificate but if he was a liberal Humane Vitae would never have been writen. Perhaps he just wasn’t a strong disciplinarian and couldn’t reign in the ‘spirit of V2’ horses once they left the barn.

I wouldn’t give him too much credit there. HV was damage control after he relaxed a lot of church rules, after his Progressio Populorum was written, after he had assembled a group of liberal theologians who favored using the pill, and “allowed” (didn’t stop) most bishops to anticipate a “favorable” ruling on the birth control pill. And don’t forget the ecumenical attitude pervasive at the time as other Christian denominations didn’t/don’t have bans against birth control. A lot of priests were already allowing consciences to be used regarding the pill and, as you said, the horses had already left the barn.

To put things into perspective, here’s an excerpt from his Progressio Populorum, very damaging in my opinion:

Population Growth

1. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—**following the dictates of their own consciences **informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)

I think it’s easy to see how priests were led to believe it was proper for their congregations to use their consciences in the matter of birth control pills.