Attracting people to the TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blessed_Karl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gospel_life said:
That is the most ludicrous thing I have seen yet. Clearly you have not studied either the documents or the history of the council beyond probably reading some of the outrageous dissident websites. Even such a recognized source as The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, as conservatively biased as it is, doesn’t make any such claims.
Click to expand...
I believe somewhere in that book it is mentioned that the council put aside Pope John XXIII’s agenda and worked on its own agenda. If that isn’t hijacking, I don’t know what is.
 
ProVobis said:
I believe somewhere in that book it is mentioned that the council put aside Pope John XXIII’s agenda and worked on its own agenda. If that isn’t hijacking, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of it saying any such thing. Perhaps you can give us a page number? Fr. Wiltgen certainly never made any such hijacking statement.

“Hijacking” implies a handful of people overriding the wishes of the majority. With a 98% or more vote on every single document the idea of hijacking just doesn’t begin to stand up.

But then the hijacking theory comes from pretty much the same group that makes the unsubstantiated claim that the Pope said to stop the council on his deathbed while at the same time denying Ottaviani’s recantation. “We support conspiracy theories as long as they’re OUR conspiracy theories.” :rolleyes:

Fortunately the actual history stands on its own, however much revisionism is being attempted.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
The Church was hijacked during Vatican II, just as Vatican II was hijacked. It’s still the same Church but with different beliefs, therefore why Traditionals go by what the Church taught before Vatican II most of the time.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if this offends you, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read that you have posted!😦

Yes, I will agree that there has been abuse, and it seems that it is much more visible now than it may have been prior to the “age of technology”(i.e. people with pocket cameras who take video at 5pm Mass and have it posted on the internet at 6:15pm!), but to say that there are different sets of beliefs is not only wrong, it is a dangerous mentality to have!
As I said before, we are one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
The Pope himself celebrates the OF (and yes, I know that he celebrates the EF, too!),
so are you saying that his beliefs are wrong also?:confused:
 
gospel_life said:
“We support conspiracy theories as long as they’re OUR conspiracy theories.” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you want to go down that road, gl, know that Fatima has been listed among the top 10 conspiracy theories in existence. A lot have denied that as well.

I’ll see if I can find my copy of that book and find the answer to your question, although the name of the book is enough to answer it, I believe. It’s been over 10 years since I read it. And I agree with you that it’s a valid source, though I wouldn’t call it that conservative.
 
gospel_life said:
That is the most ludicrous thing I have seen yet. Clearly you have not studied either the documents or the history of the council beyond probably reading some of the outrageous dissident websites. Even such a recognized source as The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, as conservatively biased as it is, doesn’t make any such claims.

Every one of the documents were signed by an overwhelming majority of the 2400 or so voting members with usually only a small handful of votes on any given document against. Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed all or nearly all of them.

I applaud your youthful enthusiasm and devotion but your unquestioning support of misstatements by groups outside of communion with the Church is very disturbing. The rabid support of such views by so many “traditionalists” is one of the things that makes anything having to do with traditionalism so unattractive to so many who truly love the Church.

It also makes it hard for those of us who do support the EF, even if we don’t prefer it ourselves, as far too many are now associating the TLM with fringe extremists. Certainly not the way to make it “attractive”.
Click to expand...
Um, Traditionals love the Church too, you know. Just because we go by what the Church taught for thousands of years over what it teaches today doesn’t mean we don’t have respect for it. Saying Traditionals don’t love the Church as much as others is not right.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I am sorry if this offends you, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read that you have posted!😦

Yes, I will agree that there has been abuse, and it seems that it is much more visible now than it may have been prior to the “age of technology”(i.e. people with pocket cameras who take video at 5pm Mass and have it posted on the internet at 6:15pm!), but to say that there are different sets of beliefs is not only wrong, it is a dangerous mentality to have!
As I said before, we are one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
The Pope himself celebrates the OF (and yes, I know that he celebrates the EF, too!),
so are you saying that his beliefs are wrong also?:confused:
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is what you just said, there are two different sets of beliefs. Pre-Vatican II beliefs, and post-Vatican II beliefs. A few years ago I heard a priest say it didn’t matter that a person went to a Protestant church as long as he or she was going. Huh? It doesn’t matter that people aren’t going to Christ’s Church? You would have never heard of such a thing before Vatican II. It explains why JPII prayed with people of all sorts of religions, these days the Church makes no effort to convert people. Exactly why Traditional Catholics go by what was taught before Vatican II most of the time.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
Just because we go by what the Church taught for thousands of years over what it teaches today doesn’t mean we don’t have respect for it. .
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could elucidate for us Catholics who have not made traditionalism into it’s own religion [or so it surely appears by many of the posts on this forum] just what dogmas and doctrines the Church of today holds to be true that are contrary to those it has always held to be true?
 
Frosty said:
Perhaps you could elucidate for us Catholics who have not made traditionalism into it’s own religion [or so it surely appears by many of the posts on this forum] just what dogmas and doctrines the Church of today holds to be true that are contrary to those it has always held to be true?
Click to expand...
Traditionalism isn’t a separate religion, it’s Catholicism.

Lots of things changed after Vatican II. Female altar servers suddenly became ok, praying with people who worship false gods suddenly became ok, not having reverence at a Mass suddenly became ok (like playing limbo during Mass), etc.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
Um, Traditionals love the Church too, you know. Just because we go by what the Church taught for thousands of years over what it teaches today doesn’t mean we don’t have respect for it. Saying Traditionals don’t love the Church as much as others is not right.
Click to expand...
Ummm, please show me ANYWHERE where I said or implied that traditionalists don’t love the Church. I have not ever said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing. In fact I applauded your enthusiasm and devotion.
SpiritusSanctus said:
Lots of things changed after Vatican II. Female altar servers suddenly became ok, praying with people who worship false gods suddenly became ok, not having reverence at a Mass suddenly became ok (like playing limbo during Mass), etc.
Click to expand...
None of these things answer the question that was asked as to what doctrines or dogmas changed after Vatican II.

If you want to get into abuses of disciplines I can give you a truckload of them that existed just in my personal experience in the TLM during the pre-Vatican II days. As the saying goes, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Masses have always been abused. It doesn’t make the Mass bad, it simply means that some priests don’t take it as seriously as they should.

And your conception that the documents of Vatican II don’t really mean anything because (wink, wink) everything happened in back rooms and that’s what Vatican II really produced, especially given your admission that you haven’t read the documents, would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad that you might actually even possibly believe that could happen.

All of your conspiracy theories are really cute but it has become quite boring watching you tar the traditionalist movement with such ludicrous propositions and actually manage to single-handedly make that movement look like a parody. Fortunately (hopefully) most people are able to see through such things and will just write you off rather than writing off traditionalism itself.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
Traditionalism isn’t a separate religion, it’s Catholicism.

.
Click to expand...
You are correct, traditionalism is not a religion although it certainly appears that some have made it so. Do you have any idea of how the **Catholic Church **understands tradition? Please, not your version of what it means.
 
gospel_life said:
Ummm, please show me ANYWHERE where I said or implied that traditionalists don’t love the Church. I have not ever said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing. In fact I applauded your enthusiasm and devotion.

None of these things answer the question that was asked as to what doctrines or dogmas changed after Vatican II.

If you want to get into abuses of disciplines I can give you a truckload of them that existed just in my personal experience in the TLM during the pre-Vatican II days. As the saying goes, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Masses have always been abused. It doesn’t make the Mass bad, it simply means that some priests don’t take it as seriously as they should.

And your conception that the documents of Vatican II don’t really mean anything because (wink, wink) everything happened in back rooms and that’s what Vatican II really produced, especially given your admission that you haven’t read the documents, would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad that you might actually even possibly believe that could happen.

All of your conspiracy theories are really cute but it has become quite boring watching you tar the traditionalist movement with such ludicrous propositions and actually manage to single-handedly make that movement look like a parody. Fortunately (hopefully) most people are able to see through such things and will just write you off rather than writing off traditionalism itself.
Click to expand...
:tiphat:
👍
 
gospel_life said:
Ummm, please show me ANYWHERE where I said or implied that traditionalists don’t love the Church. I have not ever said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing. In fact I applauded your enthusiasm and devotion.

None of these things answer the question that was asked as to what doctrines or dogmas changed after Vatican II.

If you want to get into abuses of disciplines I can give you a truckload of them that existed just in my personal experience in the TLM during the pre-Vatican II days. As the saying goes, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Masses have always been abused. It doesn’t make the Mass bad, it simply means that some priests don’t take it as seriously as they should.

And your conception that the documents of Vatican II don’t really mean anything because (wink, wink) everything happened in back rooms and that’s what Vatican II really produced, especially given your admission that you haven’t read the documents, would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad that you might actually even possibly believe that could happen.

All of your conspiracy theories are really cute but it has become quite boring watching you tar the traditionalist movement with such ludicrous propositions and actually manage to single-handedly make that movement look like a parody. Fortunately (hopefully) most people are able to see through such things and will just write you off rather than writing off traditionalism itself.
Click to expand...
Write me off? If you say so. :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to seriousness, by abuses in the NO Mass, I mean abuses that are planned. CITH, for instance, is an abuse and they obviously don’t accidentally have that. Same goes for girl altar severs. Sure, there have always been abuses, but have they always been planned? Clearly a Mass with girl altar servers is a planned abuse. Do they accidentally allow girl altar servers or appoint them themselves?

Reading the documents doesn’t matter. If you stopped and thought about it really hard and gave it plentiful thought, you may be able to realize that the documents aren’t honest when all that went on at Vatican II wasn’t even explained. How do you explain such changes getting put in there without any explanation? They obviously didn’t want to admit what they were doing because if they did most people would have refused to accept it. People always seem to go by the documents when they could stop and think and maybe wonder just how honest the documents are. Nothing that was changed at Vatican II got put in the documents, yet how can you trust a document that does not speak of such changes when those changes are right in front of you?
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
Reading the documents doesn’t matter. If you stopped and thought about it really hard and gave it plentiful thought, you may be able to realize that the documents aren’t honest when all that went on at Vatican II wasn’t even explained. How do you explain such changes getting put in there without any explanation? They obviously didn’t want to admit what they were doing because if they did most people would have refused to accept it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the U.S. Senate. 🙂
 
Here is my question: why is it that people need to be attracted to the TLM? After all, we have two equally valid masses, the OF and the EF. If we are offering two dishes, chicken and fish, why is it a concern what fraction wants chicken and what fraction wants fish?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top