My Statement

[JRKH]

The MP does not speak of ‘promoting’ the EF - so I am not sure the 20% means much of anything if it is based on a bit of ‘promotion’.

(((SIGH)))
Isn’t it interesting that out of my entire post the one item you picked up on was this.

I am not sure about you James but I have seen ‘traditional’ Catholics post about how there are so very many people ‘longing’ for the EF etc and since the MP was released suddenly it needs ‘promotion’?

My point is that:

1. There is an entire generation who doesn’t even know what the TLM is, so how could they know if they would prefer it or not.
2. Since there has not been any real effort on the part of most diocese to discern the level and type of interest there migth be in the EF. The faithful is left almost entirely on their own.

As far as the way changes were implemented – did the Church have a prior history of making changes so the laity would be ‘comfortable’ with them? If not, what should make 1969 and the changes from Vat II the exception?

In a sense this is the $64,000 question.
The short answer is no. Rome traditionally has made changes as needed and the Bishops implemented what Rome decreed.

The longer answer is that we are in a very different situation to the Pre-Vat II times:

1. Pre-Vat II, the liturgy had not substantially changed in form, or language since Trent. True there would be minor revisions of prayers and so forth. But nothing on the scale of the changes during 1965-1969.
2. Pre-Vat II a bishop refusing to implement, or improperly implementing Rome’s wishes would not be tolerated. He would be removed from his post.
3. Pre-Vat II the faithful felt they had a long, constant, distinguished, and nearly perfect liturgy - unchanging and unchangable.

Post Vatican II we found ourselves with a schism due to the changes from Vatican II. We find ourselves with pastors and even Bishops who feel they can ignore Rome, ignore the rubrics, ignore the magesterium.

In the old days there was a lock-step that may have been overly regimented, but today there is a sense of entitlement that shakes our very foundations.
(I may be overstating a bit but that’s how it feels to me.)

There were a great many mistakes from Vat-II because much was not clearly defined and/or enforced. It doesn’t mean that Vatican II was wrong, or that the changes were, in themselves, mistakes but it cannot be denied that the Church has gone through a difficult 30-40 years,

Peace
James

 

[Eilish_Maura]

(((SIGH)))

My point is that:

1. There is an entire generation who doesn’t even know what the TLM is, so how could they know if they would prefer it or not.
2. Since there has not been any real effort on the part of most diocese to discern the level and type of interest there migth be in the EF. The faithful is left almost entirely on their own.

I have not re-read the MP recently but I do not recall it was meant for those who ‘don’t even know’ what the TLM is.

Add to this that from BEFORE JPII issued his indult for the TLM there were claims of volumes of people ‘longing’ for this mass to be ‘freed’ being made up of both those who grew up with it and those who ‘discovered it’ later. The faithful have not been ‘left’ on their own and bishops have had the time since that 1st indult to get a sense of interest in their diocese.

 

[JRKH]

I have not re-read the MP recently but I do not recall it was meant for those who ‘don’t even know’ what the TLM is.

Add to this that from BEFORE JPII issued his indult for the TLM there were claims of volumes of people ‘longing’ for this mass to be ‘freed’ being made up of both those who grew up with it and those who ‘discovered it’ later. The faithful have not been ‘left’ on their own and bishops have had the time since that 1st indult to **get a sense of interest **in their diocese.

Eilish,
I will assume that since you have, once again, addressed only one small part of my post, that means you agree with the rest of it.

As to “getting a sense”, just how did the Bishops go about this. Did they poll the parishes? Did they run an item in the bulletins - The local Catholic papers or magazines? If they did, I never saw one and no one I know ever saw one. So just how did they get this “sense”.

Someone asked a question in another thread about how many people follow the SSPX. This caused me to do a bit of checking. One local Parish here has about 600 attending. Plus the TLM I attend has 100 plus on a regular basis. Now this 700 people consitute those who are: a) angry and dedicated enough to risk breaking with Rome, plus b) dedicated enough to travel many miles to attend a TLM that may not be all that convenient for them.
Regardless this is 700 people in just two places in one city. (actually there are 2 other SSPX parishes in the area so the number is probably closer to 1000-1500 persons.)

I will agree with you that the number people who are truly dedicated to bringing back the TLM and are willing to push it may be relatively small, if you will agree with me that, there is a significant percentage of people who would attend the TLM if it were more widespread so that more people were exposed to it.

After all, my guess is that easily half of the parishoners in 1965-1969 saw any real need to change the mass from latin, turn the priest around, tear out the altar rail etc.

Peace
James

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish,
I will assume that since you have, once again, addressed only one small part of my post, that means you agree with the rest of it.

The assumption is wrong - simply shows what area I wish to comment on.

As to “getting a sense”, just how did the Bishops go about this. Did they poll the parishes? Did they run an item in the bulletins - The local Catholic papers or magazines? If they did, I never saw one and no one I know ever saw one. So just how did they get this “sense”.

Hmmm - by the same vocalized desire that produced prompted JPII to issue an indult and the B16 to issue the MP?

Talk/demand for ‘freeing’ the TLM has been around quite a while and supposedly there were hordes waiting in the wings for it.

I have noticed even the most vocal chat/board individuals I have had exchanges with over the years dropped this concept a few months before the MP was issued - reality sunk in?

Also the MP speaks of laity intiating the process and not about soliciting their preferences.

I will agree with you that the number people who are truly dedicated to bringing back the TLM and are willing to push it may be relatively small, if you will agree with me that, there is a significant percentage of people who would attend the TLM if it were more widespread so that more people were exposed to it.

IF enough people request the TLM in an area, and others who did not originally have an interest decide to go, well that is fine. However, there is no reason to ‘expose’ more people to it and the Pope does not suggest this.

 

[sphilomena]

This sounds so strange, I’m not sure how to respond. I’d like to give an example: I grew up before all the Vat II changes; always loved Mass even through college where I tried to go to daily Mass. Fast forward many years to finding the TLM across town, went often, took my grown daughter. She loved the beauty and reverence of it. If she had never been “exposed” to it, she would never have known what she was missing. Some people seem to want to keep the TLM hidden, so others won’t experience it and love it.

p.s. brotherhrolf, don’t feel badly, some of us love you

 

[JRKH]

The assumption is wrong - simply shows what area I wish to comment on.

Hmmm - by the same vocalized desire that produced prompted JPII to issue an indult and the B16 to issue the MP?

Talk/demand for ‘freeing’ the TLM has been around quite a while and supposedly there were hordes waiting in the wings for it.

I have noticed even the most vocal chat/board individuals I have had exchanges with over the years dropped this concept a few months before the MP was issued - reality sunk in?

Also the MP speaks of laity intiating the process and not about soliciting their preferences.

IF enough people request the TLM in an area, and others who did not originally have an interest decide to go, well that is fine. However, there is no reason to ‘expose’ more people to it and the Pope does not suggest this.

So you feel that there is no need to expose people to something they are not familiar with so as to allow them to choose which they prefer.

Too bad this same mentality wasn’t employed in the '60’s.

Sorry for the snide remark above, but it illustrates a point.

Peace
James

 

[Eilish_Maura]

So you feel that there is no need to expose people to something they are not familiar with so as to allow them to choose which they prefer.

Too bad this same mentality wasn’t employed in the '60’s.

Sorry for the snide remark above, but it illustrates a point.

Peace
James

You should be ashamed of yourself for that comment.

Those with authority decided how things would be done in the 60’s and B16 decided NOT to include ‘promoting’ the TLM in his MP.

Perhaps he does not want the number of people interested in it to increase?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This sounds so strange, I’m not sure how to respond. I’d like to give an example: I grew up before all the Vat II changes; always loved Mass even through college where I tried to go to daily Mass. Fast forward many years to finding the TLM across town, went often, took my grown daughter. She loved the beauty and reverence of it. If she had never been “exposed” to it, she would never have known what she was missing. Some people seem to want to keep the TLM hidden, so others won’t experience it and love it.

p.s. brotherhrolf, don’t feel badly, some of us love you

Yet the pope does NOT encourage broader exposure.

Go figure.

 

[JRKH]

Yet the pope does NOT encourage broader exposure.

Go figure.

The pope makes no statement one way or the other.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Eilish,
Just out of curiosity, have you attended an EF Mass?
I can’t remember if you mentioned that or not.

Peace
James

 

[latinmasslover]

You should be ashamed of yourself for that comment.

Those with authority decided how things would be done in the 60’s and B16 decided NOT to include ‘promoting’ the TLM in his MP.

Perhaps he does not want the number of people interested in it to increase?

Confession isn’t exactly coming forth from his mouth/pen regularly, maybe there’s no need to go anymore?

Why do you think he issued the Motu Proprio exactly? To placate the traditional Catholics? He’s not the cowardly type.

 

[latinmasslover]

Yet the pope does NOT encourage broader exposure.

Go figure.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in Transubstantiation? or any of the other doctrines of the Church for that matter? do you believe praying the Rosary/kneeling before God are sinful?

 

[Sophie]

This topic is another fine example that all religions are ALL the same! The Catholic church, like all religions, changes the rules and make things up as time goes by!

 

[latinmasslover]

This topic is another fine example that all religions are ALL the same! The Catholic church, like all religions, changes the rules and make things up as time goes by!

No, this is a wonderful example of how Jesus truly knew the future, that there would be a great apostacy, a major falling away…even still, the Church will not fall. The Lord called St. Peter onto the water, he answered, faltered, began to sink. When the Vicar humbles himslef to the point of crying out “Lord, save me!” before the bishops, in imitation of St. Peter, the Lord will pull him up and save him.

 

[JRKH]

This topic is another fine example that all religions are ALL the same! The Catholic church, like all religions, changes the rules and make things up as time goes by!

That is a pretty broad statement which really requires another thread.

It is true that the Church can and does “change the rules”, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. (My parents and Grandparents use to have to fast from midnight Sat/Sunday in order to take communion at Sunday mass)

I would appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean by “make things up” - as it pertains to the discussion in this thread.

Peace
James

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in Transubstantiation? or any of the other doctrines of the Church for that matter? do you believe praying the Rosary/kneeling before God are sinful?

The comment of mine you quoted does not indicate any problems with my belief in the doctrines of the Church so no clarification of what I believe is needed.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

This topic is another fine example that all religions are ALL the same! The Catholic church, like all religions, changes the rules and make things up as time goes by!

And, Sophie’s post is an example of the scandal of schism.

(That wasn’t directed at you, Sophie.)

 

[Indyann]

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110

 

[Sophie]

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s needs. Acts 2:44-45

The community of believers were of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that ANY OF HIS POSSESSIONS WAS HIS OWN, but they had everything in common. There was no needy person among them, for THOSE WHO OWNED PROPERTY OF HOUSES WOULD SELL THEM, BRING THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed each according to need. Acts 4:32-35

So according to the Bible and the histories of the early Christians, they were communistic. Everything they owned had to be given to the christian commune. The Catholic Church does not follow these rules. So the Catholic Church is a schism.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

No, that’s not really the definition of a schism, Sophie. The Catholic Church can define doctrine and set the rules. Schism is breaking away from that authority. You can argue that the Church doesn’t have that authority or isn’t doing what Jesus wanted (people do argue this, and they’re wrong) but that’s not the same thing as a shism.

Other churches can have schisms, as well, such as you see with the Anglican communion right now. Or, whenever a protestant congregation somewhere splits off over some issue or another and starts a spin-off Church.

All protestants originated in a schism from Catholicism, which was the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Orthodox Church is also in schism, even though they agree on 99.9% of doctrine with Catholics… they’re in schism because they don’t think that the Bishop of Rome has authority over all the other Bishops. This is what some of the Traditionalist Catholic sects are doing or are in danger of doing.