Attracting people to the TLM

[SpiritusSanctus]

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.

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.

You must not know what doctrinal things the Church changed. According to you the teachings after Vatican II all remained the same and the only thing that changed was the Mass. You need to do research. You don’t seem to think the Church previously taught that female altar servers should not be allowed, that only Consecrated Hands should touch the host, etc. Maybe if you looked it up you would see the Church DID teach those things. Numerous sources will tell you the Church used to teach that, not just Traditional sites.

Nearly everything that was produced from Vatican II, if not everything, is in error. It doesn’t make me a sedevacanist. The fact is Popes after Vatican II saw nothing wrong with it because Paul VI set the standard for future Popes. So now they all go by it. I never said or implied that Benedict XVI was a heretic, and I am not a sedevacanist. You can’t tell people they are sedevacanists when you don’t even know what ALL of their beliefs.

I’m not the first Traditional Catholic on this forum to believe in such things. If you knew about Traditional Catholics you would see their beliefs are nearly identical to the beliefs of mine when it comes to the Church, Mass, and Vatican II. Therefore you are incorrect when you say I’m damaging Traditionalism.

 

[gospel_life]

You must not know what doctrinal things the Church changed. According to you the teachings after Vatican II all remained the same and the only thing that changed was the Mass. You need to do research. You don’t seem to think the Church previously taught that female altar servers should not be allowed, that only Consecrated Hands should touch the host, etc. Maybe if you looked it up you would see the Church DID teach those things. Numerous sources will tell you the Church used to teach that, not just Traditional sites.

Nearly everything that was produced from Vatican II, if not everything, is in error. It doesn’t make me a sedevacanist. The fact is Popes after Vatican II saw nothing wrong with it because Paul VI set the standard for future Popes. So now they all go by it. I never said or implied that Benedict XVI was a heretic, and I am not a sedevacanist. You can’t tell people they are sedevacanists when you don’t even know what ALL of their beliefs.

I’m not the first Traditional Catholic on this forum to believe in such things. If you knew about Traditional Catholics you would see their beliefs are nearly identical to the beliefs of mine when it comes to the Church, Mass, and Vatican II. Therefore you are incorrect when you say I’m damaging Traditionalism.

For one last time…

Not a single one of the things you note is doctrinal. They are all matters of discipline, which can be changed at any time by any Pope.

You are right though that I don’t know what doctrinal things were changed because I believe, as the Church states, that doctrine cannot be changed and that no doctrine was changed.

If however you believe that doctrine did change, by definition that would make you a sedevacantist. By definition, if doctrine changed the Popes are teaching error. If the Popes are teaching doctrinal error they are, by definition, heretics and not true Popes. If they are not true Popes then the Chair of Peter is empty, the very definition of sedevacantism. The claims you are making of doctrine being changed are the very claims made by those who identify as sedevacantists. The only difference is that they are actually citing things that truly are doctrinal that they believe changed whereas you have yet to mention a single doctrinal matter.

As far as knowing about traditional Catholics I grew up as one long before you were born and lived through Vatican II. I am more than passingly familiar with traditionalism and have great admiration for it even though I don’t personally observe all of the “small t” traditions and do not share a preference for the TLM.

As I said, you really need to get some sound, authentic Catholic education. You are so lacking in even the fundamentals that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion with you. Worse, the errors you are proclaiming, as I said, marginalizes the very movement you claim to support.

 

[Ockham]

Unfortunately that Mass awoke a lot of other issues.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042002445.html

Ah, so that’s why there was a last minute change.

 

[ljubim]

Back to the OP, I was thinking… why don’t you make flyers for your college’s Newman Center or Catholic club? I plan on doing that this year when I go to college, since I’ll be a regular attendee of the Traditional Latin Mass. I would make attractive flyers that say something like, “Want to explore your Catholic heritage?” and then instructions to text or call me and I’ll guide them through the Mass and explain things if they’d like.

This would be an incredible way to not only spread the TLM, but to raise awareness of it, even among those who prefer the OF, and to get a little group of friends going so you’re not the only one You never know if you could be God’s tool to get somebody to the TLM.

 

[ProVobis]

The Coalition to Support the Ecclesia Dei sells “I Love the Old Latin Mass” bumper stickers. PO Box 2071, Glenview, Il 60025. www.ecclesiadei.org

I wonder if they have rubber stamps too.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

For one last time…

Not a single one of the things you note is doctrinal. They are all matters of discipline, which can be changed at any time by any Pope.

You are right though that I don’t know what doctrinal things were changed because I believe, as the Church states, that doctrine cannot be changed and that no doctrine was changed.

If however you believe that doctrine did change, by definition that would make you a sedevacantist. By definition, if doctrine changed the Popes are teaching error. If the Popes are teaching doctrinal error they are, by definition, heretics and not true Popes. If they are not true Popes then the Chair of Peter is empty, the very definition of sedevacantism. The claims you are making of doctrine being changed are the very claims made by those who identify as sedevacantists. The only difference is that they are actually citing things that truly are doctrinal that they believe changed whereas you have yet to mention a single doctrinal matter.

As far as knowing about traditional Catholics I grew up as one long before you were born and lived through Vatican II. I am more than passingly familiar with traditionalism and have great admiration for it even though I don’t personally observe all of the “small t” traditions and do not share a preference for the TLM.

As I said, you really need to get some sound, authentic Catholic education. You are so lacking in even the fundamentals that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion with you. Worse, the errors you are proclaiming, as I said, marginalizes the very movement you claim to support.

Let me say this one last time. I am NOT, I repeat, NOT a sedevacanist. Tell me where I stated the chair if Peter is empty. I never said that, and you’re wrong when you say I am implying that. You have no place to tell me I’m a sedevacanist when I have not said I am or even hinted I am. There’s a difference between a Traditional Catholic and a sedevacanist.

Doctrine isn’t supposed to be changed, just like Tradition, and really neither one can be. However, Vatican II attempted a change of both. I’d like to see what sources you’re using, because you’re not only doubting that Vatican II was in error in any way but you’re even doubting the very possibility of it. As I said, just because Paul VI made a mistake and then set the standard for future Popes doesn’t mean that the chair of Peter is empty. It’s not. What it does mean is that things have changed since Vatican II, so your argument that things have not changed has no evidence what-so-ever and therefore is not worthy of discussion.

Anyway, I’m not going to argue with you about this subject any longer.

 

[gospel_life]

There’s a difference between a Traditional Catholic and a sedevacanist.

I am totally aware that there is a difference. The difference is that sedevacantists go beyond simply following tradition and claim that doctrine and dogma have been changed. By doing so they have left communion with the Church. That is why I kept asking the question of what DOCTRINE you thought had changed.

But it appears that just maybe there has been at least a minor breakthrough here.

Doctrine isn’t supposed to be changed, just like Tradition, and really neither one can be.

This is exactly the point I have been making all along while you continued to insist that doctrine had been changed.

However, Vatican II attempted a change of both.

I would totally and completely disagree with you on this. Every single document of Vatican II, without fail, is heavily footnoted with the Tradition, scriptures, and Church teachings it is based on. Each one also explains completely how it continues those traditions. The fact that you refuse to actually read the documents and instead rely on claims by sedevacantist groups that changes were made or attempted to be made is very troubling.

I’d like to see what sources you’re using, because you’re not only doubting that Vatican II was in error in any way but you’re even doubting the very possibility of it. As I said, just because Paul VI made a mistake and then set the standard for future Popes doesn’t mean that the chair of Peter is empty. It’s not.

Vatican II has many things that came out of it. Some are doctrinal, at least in the sense that they are either restatements of existing doctrine or statements of increased understanding of it. Other things are strictly disciplinary, such as the call for a new liturgy or the way priests are to be educated. Still others are “prudential judgments” such as the way the Church wishes to deal with the question of ecumenism in a pluralistic society as compared to how it was handled when Christianity was the only game in town in those areas where the Church operated.

There most certainly were changes made in disciplinary matters. And there most certainly were changes made in the prudential way in which the Church chose to interact with the world. And you are most certainly allowed to believe that not all of those changes were the best choices, or that the implementation of them was not as good as it should have been.

But none of those things changed doctrine or dogma or Tradition, though some did change some “small t” traditions. An ecumenical council has the same protection as the Pope from the Holy Spirit in not being able to teach error in doctrinal matters.

The things you have mentioned, by contrast, aren’t in ANY of those categories. CITH, female altar servers, etc, are all disciplinary matters of implementation that happened well AFTER Vatican II and were not direct results of anything Vatican II specifically called for. Again, you are totally welcome to think that any or all of them are misguided.

None of them however make Vatican II “in error”. Doctrinally, Vatican II cannot be in error. While it is theoretically possible that an individual present at Vatican II might have had an interest in changing something that was doctrinal, it would not be possible for it to actually occur without the Church falling into heresy. Nor can it in any way be said that Vatican II attempted to change either doctrine or Tradition as an ecumenical council, as you rightly pointed out, cannot do either.

Hopefully we have things cleared up at this point so we can drop this discussion entirely and let the thread get back to its original premise rather than having to discuss how to not do things that make the TLM and traditionalism look un-attractive.

 

[OlgaMaria]

What is TLM and EF ?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

What is TLM and EF ?

EF = Extraordinary form

TLM = Traditional Latin Mass or Tridentine Latin Mass,

They are the same thing, in this case, the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal.

The Mass that the Church celebrates now, the OF- ordinary form, is from the Missal the was promulgated in 1969 and is the Mass that the Church now celebrates as the “norm”.

 

[dmorgan]

I am totally aware that there is a difference. The difference is that sedevacantists go beyond simply following tradition and claim that doctrine and dogma have been changed. By doing so they have left communion with the Church. That is why I kept asking the question of what DOCTRINE you thought had changed.

But it appears that just maybe there has been at least a minor breakthrough here.
This is exactly the point I have been making all along while you continued to insist that doctrine had been changed.
I would totally and completely disagree with you on this. Every single document of Vatican II, without fail, is heavily footnoted with the Tradition, scriptures, and Church teachings it is based on. Each one also explains completely how it continues those traditions. The fact that you refuse to actually read the documents and instead rely on claims by sedevacantist groups that changes were made or attempted to be made is very troubling.

Vatican II has many things that came out of it. Some are doctrinal, at least in the sense that they are either restatements of existing doctrine or statements of increased understanding of it. Other things are strictly disciplinary, such as the call for a new liturgy or the way priests are to be educated. Still others are “prudential judgments” such as the way the Church wishes to deal with the question of ecumenism in a pluralistic society as compared to how it was handled when Christianity was the only game in town in those areas where the Church operated.

There most certainly were changes made in disciplinary matters. And there most certainly were changes made in the prudential way in which the Church chose to interact with the world. And you are most certainly allowed to believe that not all of those changes were the best choices, or that the implementation of them was not as good as it should have been.

But none of those things changed doctrine or dogma or Tradition, though some did change some “small t” traditions. An ecumenical council has the same protection as the Pope from the Holy Spirit in not being able to teach error in doctrinal matters.

The things you have mentioned, by contrast, aren’t in ANY of those categories. CITH, female altar servers, etc, are all disciplinary matters of implementation that happened well AFTER Vatican II and were not direct results of anything Vatican II specifically called for. Again, you are totally welcome to think that any or all of them are misguided.

None of them however make Vatican II “in error”. Doctrinally, Vatican II cannot be in error. While it is theoretically possible that an individual present at Vatican II might have had an interest in changing something that was doctrinal, it would not be possible for it to actually occur without the Church falling into heresy. Nor can it in any way be said that Vatican II attempted to change either doctrine or Tradition as an ecumenical council, as you rightly pointed out, cannot do either.

Hopefully we have things cleared up at this point so we can drop this discussion entirely and let the thread get back to its original premise rather than having to discuss how to not do things that make the TLM and traditionalism look un-attractive.

Gospel Life please read the following at your convenience, for the points provided in this brief address talk to the problems with V-II that many Traditionalists see. V-II in and of itself may not have created the removal of many Traditions in the Church, but it certainly seems to have allowed for their removal.

 

[gospel_life]

Gospel Life please read the following at your convenience, for the points provided in this brief address talk to the problems with V-II that many Traditionalists see. V-II in and of itself may not have created the removal of many Traditions in the Church, but it certainly seems to have allowed for their removal.

I don’t see anything to read but it sounds like whatever it is should really be split off into another thread as this one has been drawn off topic enough already (mea culpa!).

I would disagree though that any Traditions were removed or changed, though certainly some traditions were given less emphasis. I’ll be happy to see what you have to say though as I do have great sympathy for those who feel that the rug got jerked out from under them.

 

[dragonlady708]

I attend BOTH the EF AND the OF… I belong to a choir in the OF and a schola in the EF…BOTH forms have been approved by the Papal Authority. The OF (English) Mass celebrates the Eucharist in an openly “communal” type of worship, where there is much bonding with your fellow parishioners. Praise and worship in the EF (Latin) Rite to me is a more private, personal contemplative experience. It’s MY understanding that God wants your love and adoration in ANY form, as long as your heart is there in truth. Every true Catholic should follow the Mass with their heart and understand that as humans NOTHING is perfect except God and that all we can do is STRIVE for perfection and accept and forgive all other shortcomings…OURS as well as EVERYONE ELSE’S

Pax vobiscum et toto mundo:grouphug:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I attend BOTH the EF AND the OF… I belong to a choir in the OF and a schola in the EF…BOTH forms have been approved by the Papal Authority. The OF (English) Mass celebrates the Eucharist in an openly “communal” type of worship, where there is much bonding with your fellow parishioners. Praise and worship in the EF (Latin) Rite to me is a more private, personal contemplative experience. It’s MY understanding that God wants your love and adoration in ANY form, as long as your heart is there in truth. Every true Catholic should follow the Mass with their heart and understand that as humans NOTHING is perfect except God and that all we can do is STRIVE for perfection and accept and forgive all other shortcomings…OURS as well as EVERYONE ELSE’S

Pax vobiscum et toto mundo:grouphug:

:clapping:

 

[ProVobis]

The OF (English) Mass celebrates the Eucharist in an openly “communal” type of worship, where there is much bonding with your fellow parishioners.

Yes, but take away the communion and the obligation and no one would show up for worship.

It should show more sacrificial nature, in my opinion.

 

[Frosty]

Yes, but take away the communion and the obligation and no one would show up for worship.

.

Really? How about the tens of thousands of Catholics who show up for daily Mass all over the world? There is no obligation to do that, is there?
Do you honestly believe that if the obligation hadn’t been in place for Catholics to attend Sunday Mass , the majority would have attended regardless? I still recall vividly one of the most shocking moments of my life as a young Catholic. It was 1959 and I was 12 years old. There was a week long Lenten parish mission at my parish preached by a Redemptoris priest. My parents insisted that we kids who had made our First Communion had to attend the mission with them. The very first night, the priest was talking about the Mass and its importance in our lives. At one point, he asked for a show of hands of how many of us would even attend Sunday Mass if we were not obliged to do so. At first everyone just sort of looked around, nodding and smiling. He insisted and asked us to be totally honest and if we wished to all close our eyes so we would not be tempted to judge our neighbours. He asked the question again and more than half of those attending put up their hands. How do I know this? Well, we had gotten to the church just as the mission began and Dad insisted that we sit in the back row and I was curious and peeked. The priest thanked us and remarked that he was saddened by the response although it was less than what he had encountered at some other parishes.
I was shocked because in the insular Catholic environment I lived in, I didn’t want to believe that people didn’t just come to Mass because they loved God and the Church. I already had begun to realize that a great many of my schoolmates seldom attended Mass and that the sisters at school and the parish priests were constantly railing about it, but in my naivety thought they were simply being lazy. But, to realize that there were adults who only went out of obligation really threw me for a loop.
There have always been Catholics who attend Sunday Mass because they are obliged to do so, just as there have always been Catholics who attend Mass because they love the Mass and want to worship God. To imply that the rite or form of the Mass is what impels them in either direction is completely baseless.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Really? How about the tens of thousands of Catholics who show up for daily Mass all over the world? There is no obligation to do that, is there?
Do you honestly believe that if the obligation hadn’t been in place for Catholics to attend Sunday Mass , the majority would have attended regardless? I still recall vividly one of the most shocking moments of my life as a young Catholic. It was 1959 and I was 12 years old. There was a week long Lenten parish mission at my parish preached by a Redemptoris priest. My parents insisted that we kids who had made our First Communion had to attend the mission with them. The very first night, the priest was talking about the Mass and its importance in our lives. At one point, he asked for a show of hands of how many of us would even attend Sunday Mass if we were not obliged to do so. At first everyone just sort of looked around, nodding and smiling. He insisted and asked us to be totally honest and if we wished to all close our eyes so we would not be tempted to judge our neighbours. He asked the question again and more than half of those attending put up their hands. How do I know this? Well, we had gotten to the church just as the mission began and Dad insisted that we sit in the back row and I was curious and peeked. The priest thanked us and remarked that he was saddened by the response although it was less than what he had encountered at some other parishes.
I was shocked because in the insular Catholic environment I lived in, I didn’t want to believe that people didn’t just come to Mass because they loved God and the Church. I already had begun to realize that a great many of my schoolmates seldom attended Mass and that the sisters at school and the parish priests were constantly railing about it, but in my naivety thought they were simply being lazy. But, to realize that there were adults who only went out of obligation really threw me for a loop.
There have always been Catholics who attend Sunday Mass because they are obliged to do so, just as there have always been Catholics who attend Mass because they love the Mass and want to worship God. To imply that the rite or form of the Mass is what impels them in either direction is completely baseless.

I would attend a TLM every Sunday even if there was no obligation. The rite does matter, though.

 

[ProVobis]

Really? How about the tens of thousands of Catholics who show up for daily Mass all over the world?

Read my post again. I said throw out communion and no one would show up. I threw in the obligation as an afterthought. But I’ll concede that the Polish OF and Latin OF and some of the other OF’s may draw whether there is communion or not. The EF is a different story too.

 

[dragonlady708]

When Mass is an considered an"obligation" and not seen as a privilege, our thinking needs to be re-aligned… Like a rebellious child, I went astray for 30 some odd years, until multiple disasters in my life made me seek solace back in the Church…I thought whether I should be here or try Protestantism. I searched, researched and prayed very hard. Catholicism is the only religion that can trace its roots right back to Christ…Every action in every Mass is based on something He did, He said… I doubt that He said it in Latin…It was probably Hebrew…Latin was used in the early days of the Church by the Church Fathers as the most universal language…And, like a game of “Whisper down the lane” each time we “re-translate” the Mass, it has the possibility of slightly changing with each telling…I love the EF for its serenity, and I love the OF for its relevancy to each age, but what MUST happen, is that, nomatter which form you prefer, you must WANT to be there, you must WANT to give back to God all that He deserves…
For many people, who learned “Obligation” days (myself included), it takes a religious maturity to develop over the years, and a resulting desire to WANT to attend and participate in Mass. That’s when you realize that you’ve embraced your Faith and that it’s a part of you. Not just a training ritual and a bunch of "Have-to"s.
Our Jewish brothers and sister still use the Hebrew language in many of their prayers and rituals, as well as English when appropriate. We shouldn’t fear ANY language, as long as we recognize the priest’s actions “in persona Christi”.

 

[ProVobis]

We shouldn’t fear ANY language,

The language isn’t the problem. But don’t accept a translation where everything sounds good. And always ask to see the original. Keep them honest and pretend you know what it means.

As Vergil put it nicely,

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. (I fear the Danaans, even when bearing gifts.- The Trojan horse.)

 

[Layman]

Vat. II announced pronounced no doctrine. In fact, I can’t remember it pronouncing anything of real significance. If it never happened, I don’t think we’d be poorer for it.

The changes to the Mass that most upset people were never promoted by it. Even using the vernacular. They were just done. So they can be undone quite easily.

If the O.F. had never been invented, what would we have lost? What’s key is that ‘the 60’s began in the 50’s’ and modernism well before that. Post Vat. II was just an after-effect of a longing for change.

It’ll be nice when Mass returns to being primarily a Sacrifice and not a Meal. Sinners need to make sacrifices to appease God. The already-saved can dance in the temple.