Attracting people to the TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blessed_Karl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
We’re not offering everyone the same two dishes. Some aren’t getting anything at all.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
. 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?
Click to expand...
Point one in the “you clearly don’t understand what an abuse even is” file. Use of girls as altar servers is approved by the Church. It is not an abuse. You may not like it or think it appropriate but it is not an abuse regardless.

And the double standard adopted when defending abuses of the TLM has to really make one wonder. Priests completely leaving out parts of the Eucharistic prayer? Being so drunk they couldn’t even get the words out? Changing the words of the consecration? Yeah, you’re right. They weren’t “planned”–though they happened unchecked on a weekly basis–so it’s ok. :rolleyes:
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?
Click to expand...
And here I rest my case. Nearly unanimous support of documents available for the whole world to read and there’s a backroom conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire Church, including the Pope who had to personally sign off on each document to promulgate it. :rolleyes:

For one who openly admits to never having even read the documents there is an awful lot of clairvoyance going on in knowing that they don’t say what they really did.

I’ll not trouble myself further with this stuff. There is such a lack of even the basics such as the difference between doctrines/dogmas and disciplines–you have yet to answer what doctrines/dogmas you think got changed–much less how an ecumenical council works, that further discussion is pointless. When we add in all the speculative conspiracy theory stuff besides it becomes less than pointless.

And by the way, given that ALL ecumenical councils are guided by the Holy Spirit and are the highest form of teaching by the Church, if any ONE council can be found to be in error in some way in a matter of doctrine or dogma, then ALL councils are open to question on such matters. That is clear and constant Church teaching and tradition. I guess though since although you claim that doctrinal and dogmatic changes were made but have not been able to offer any actual examples that you might be on safe ground still there.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Can you give me an example of someone who isn’t getting anything?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? A lot of rural areas, for starters. And a growing number of parishes don’t even have priests; they just hold communion prayers.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
They aren’t equal. That’s why I never call them the OF and EF, it puts them on the same level when, as my parish priest once said, “One is better than the other, and it’s the Tridentine Mass”. (This was an FSSP priest, for those who are wondering, so he had to say his comment was not to attack the Novus Ordo.)
 
gospel_life said:
Point one in the “you clearly don’t understand what an abuse even is” file. Use of girls as altar servers is approved by the Church. It is not an abuse. You may not like it or think it appropriate but it is not an abuse regardless.

And the double standard adopted when defending abuses of the TLM has to really make one wonder. Priests completely leaving out parts of the Eucharistic prayer? Being so drunk they couldn’t even get the words out? Changing the words of the consecration? Yeah, you’re right. They weren’t “planned”–though they happened unchecked on a weekly basis–so it’s ok. :rolleyes:

And here I rest my case. Nearly unanimous support of documents available for the whole world to read and there’s a backroom conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire Church, including the Pope who had to personally sign off on each document to promulgate it. :rolleyes:

For one who openly admits to never having even read the documents there is an awful lot of clairvoyance going on in knowing that they don’t say what they really did.

I’ll not trouble myself further with this stuff. There is such a lack of even the basics such as the difference between doctrines/dogmas and disciplines–you have yet to answer what doctrines/dogmas you think got changed–much less how an ecumenical council works, that further discussion is pointless. When we add in all the speculative conspiracy theory stuff besides it becomes less than pointless.

And by the way, given that ALL ecumenical councils are guided by the Holy Spirit and are the highest form of teaching by the Church, if any ONE council can be found to be in error in some way in a matter of doctrine or dogma, then ALL councils are open to question on such matters. That is clear and constant Church teaching and tradition. I guess though since although you claim that doctrinal and dogmatic changes were made but have not been able to offer any actual examples that you might be on safe ground still there.
Click to expand...
1.- A TLM has no female altar servers, no CITH, no EMs, etc. And while we’re on the subject of double standards, let me put that into perspective. So, it’s ok for the Church to approve of female altar servers today, but the Church saying it was wrong before Vatican II doesn’t matter and anyone who goes by what it said before Vatican II is wrong? Sounds like a double standard to me.

2.- I’ve already said what all got changed all Vatican II. More than once, actually. Vatican II was in error, others weren’t.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
1.- A TLM has no female altar servers, no CITH, no EMs, etc. And while we’re on the subject of double standards, let me put that into perspective. So, it’s ok for the Church to approve of female altar servers today, but the Church saying it was wrong before Vatican II doesn’t matter and anyone who goes by what it said before Vatican II is wrong? Sounds like a double standard to me.

2.- I’ve already said what all got changed all Vatican II. More than once, actually. Vatican II was in error, others weren’t.
Click to expand...
LOL. Case closed. As I said, when one doesn’t even know the difference between doctrine–which can’t change–and disciplines–which can be changed by any Pope–further discussion is fruitless. I do find it intreesting though that you think that the Church allowing female altar servers is comparable to, or maybe worse than, changing the words of the consecration at a TLM.

And if you are maintaining that Vatican II is doctrinally in error, though I’m not sure you are since you don’t seem to understand what doctrine is, that would definitely put you out of communion with the Church. We already know you are a Lefebvre disciple but it is appearing that you are actually possibly outside even the SSPX. That’s fine and you’re entitled to your beliefs as long as you can understand that the Church does not agree. It is nice though to at least have some sense where you’re coming from in trying to sway Catholics from their faith.

I do owe you an apology though. From one of the other threads I was taken to play Hotel California backwards and found that the line “you can check out any time you like but you can never leave”, when played backwards is “evael reven nac uoy tub ekil uoy emit yna tuo kcehc nac uoy”. I used my Ovaltine Secret Decoder ring on that and it says it means “Beware of people with Vatican II conspiracy theories”.
 
gospel_life said:
As I said, when one doesn’t even know the difference between doctrine–which can’t change–and disciplines–which can be changed by any Pope–further discussion is fruitless.
Click to expand...
Be careful for these claims. SS will be the next Pope and ban everything you like, like eating pizza and drinking coffee. 😃
 
ProVobis said:
Be careful for these claims. SS will be the next Pope and ban everything you like, like eating pizza and drinking coffee. 😃
Click to expand...
Pizza and coffee gone!!! :eek:

I’m not sure SS believes there is a current Pope though, or that he doesn’t think that Gregory XVII is Pope. :confused:

We did have an 18 year old Pope though when John XII got elected so I guess I’d better be careful…

Making arrangements to stockpile pizza and coffee just in case… 👍
 
gospel_life said:
LOL. Case closed. As I said, when one doesn’t even know the difference between doctrine–which can’t change–and disciplines–which can be changed by any Pope–further discussion is fruitless. I do find it intreesting though that you think that the Church allowing female altar servers is comparable to, or maybe worse than, changing the words of the consecration at a TLM.

And if you are maintaining that Vatican II is doctrinally in error, though I’m not sure you are since you don’t seem to understand what doctrine is, that would definitely put you out of communion with the Church. We already know you are a Lefebvre disciple but it is appearing that you are actually possibly outside even the SSPX. That’s fine and you’re entitled to your beliefs as long as you can understand that the Church does not agree. It is nice though to at least have some sense where you’re coming from in trying to sway Catholics from their faith.

I do owe you an apology though. From one of the other threads I was taken to play Hotel California backwards and found that the line “you can check out any time you like but you can never leave”, when played backwards is “evael reven nac uoy tub ekil uoy emit yna tuo kcehc nac uoy”. I used my Ovaltine Secret Decoder ring on that and it says it means “Beware of people with Vatican II conspiracy theories”.
Click to expand...
1.- You can’t tell people what they do and don’t know without proof. Doctrine is teachings. The teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican II said that there should not be girl altar servers, that only Consecrated hands should touch the Host (the priest’s hands), that there should always be altars and altar stones present at Mass, etc. All of that was changed at Vatican II. Girl altar servers came along, altars were replaced with tables, everyone’s hands suddenly became allowed to touch the Host, and many other changes that went against the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you would read my posts more carefully you would see that I have already addressed the doctrinal changes of the Church after Vatican II and all other changes that took place.

2.- Saying Vatican II is in error doesn’t out me put of the Church. I’m going by what the Church taught before Vatican II. Just like Archbishop LeFebvre, I wouldn’t care if my beliefs and actions got me excommunicated, I would continue to stand up for Tradition. Also, how about telling me where I said I was trying to sway Catholics from their faith? I’m a Catholic myself, not a protestant. I’m just trying to stand up for Tradition.

3.- You obviously never played “Hotel California” backwards. Play it backwards for real, then we’ll talk about that.
 
gospel_life said:
Pizza and coffee gone!!! :eek:

I’m not sure SS believes there is a current Pope though, or that he doesn’t think that Gregory XVII is Pope. :confused:

We did have an 18 year old Pope though when John XII got elected so I guess I’d better be careful…

Making arrangements to stockpile pizza and coffee just in case… 👍
Click to expand...
Yet again, I am NOT a sedevacanist.
 
ProVobis said:
Be careful for these claims. SS will be the next Pope and ban everything you like, like eating pizza and drinking coffee. 😃
Click to expand...
This is a rather crazy comment. I have already said that I do not qualify to be Pope. And Popes can’t ban pizza and coffee.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
1.- You can’t tell people what they do and don’t know without proof. Doctrine is teachings. The teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican II said that there should not be girl altar servers, that only Consecrated hands should touch the Host (the priest’s hands), that there should always be altars and altar stones present at Mass, etc. All of that was changed at Vatican II. Girl altar servers came along, altars were replaced with tables, everyone’s hands suddenly became allowed to touch the Host, and many other changes that went against the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you would read my posts more carefully you would see that I have already addressed the doctrinal changes of the Church after Vatican II and all other changes that took place.
Click to expand...
You’re right; I can’t say it without evidence but you have provided all the evidence. You continually cite disciplinary practices–which can be and have been changed many times through the centuries–and proclaim them to be doctrine, which they are not. I have yet to see you address a single thing that is actually doctrinal no matter how many times I have read through your posts.
2.- Saying Vatican II is in error doesn’t out me put of the Church. I’m going by what the Church taught before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Again, incorrect. If you are proclaiming that Vatican II produced doctrinal error you are out of communion with the Church as an ecumenical council is not capable of producing doctrinal error by traditional Church teaching. If you truly believe it did, then you are indeed outside of communion with the Church and by implication a sedevacantist. If the Church is proclaiming doctrinal error, it would mean that the Pope (and all Popes since Vatican II) is then a heretic and by definition cannot truly be the Pope.

I’m not sure which specific websites you’re getting your “education” from since there are so many of them proclaiming this drivel but you really would do well to get some authentic Catholic education before coming out in public trying to tell people what the Church is and what it teaches. What you are doing here is making traditionalism look like some kind of fringe whacko movement and somehow I’m quite sure the last thing you want to do is make the movement you claim to support less attractive and damage its credibility.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Never heard of the National Fisheries Institute or the National Chicken Council? The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association?

Seriously, though, there are three easily-seen reasons to want to attract people to the TLM:
  1. Some Catholics who love it simply want to share it. They don’t want the treasures of the TLM to be the Church’s best-kept secret.
  2. Some who love it want to protect it. From opera to history to fabric arts, that which does not enjoy interest is always in danger of being lost. The TLM isn’t endangered, but it is still in a bit of a fragile region. There aren’t enough places where a TLM is available even once a week at a church within a twenty-mile radius.
  3. Some believe that although both rites are valid, one in particular is uniquely edifying and that attendance at that particular rite benefits the Universal Church.
There are other reasons, too, but those are a few of the legitimate reasons for wanting to attract others to the TLM. Note that none imply an agenda that wants to encourage factions in the Church.
 
EasterJoy said:
Never heard of the National Fisheries Institute or the National Chicken Council? The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association?

Seriously, though, there are three easily-seen reasons to want to attract people to the TLM:
  1. Some Catholics who love it simply want to share it. They don’t want the treasures of the TLM to be the Church’s best-kept secret.
  2. Some who love it want to protect it. From opera to history to fabric arts, that which does not enjoy interest is always in danger of being lost. The TLM isn’t endangered, but it is still in a bit of a fragile region. There aren’t enough places where a TLM is available even once a week at a church within a twenty-mile radius.
  3. Some believe that although both rites are valid, one in particular is uniquely edifying and that attendance at that particular rite benefits the Universal Church.
There are other reasons, too, but those are a few of the legitimate reasons for wanting to attract others to the TLM. Note that none imply an agenda that wants to encourage factions in the Church.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, very well put. The last thing I want is further schism in the Church. We allready have more than enough! What I do want is a greater offering of the EF, just as the Holy Father stated in Summorum Pontificum. I sicerely hope and PRAY that the televised Mass this past weekend at the National Basilica will awaken a sense for the Sacredness of the EF and spur the faithfull to seek for more offerings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top