Look back, honestly, at his history of threads, without bias and then come back and tell me you don’t see bashing, remembering that the LORD bears witness to all we say and do. And no matter how upset you are, no one has the right to spread misinformation.
And perhaps some are just plain disobedient, as the spokesman for the Vatican claims. Then they have the gall to point fingers at the SSPX, hopefully distracting from their own transgressions against the Church.
I looked over all of Bob’s posts in this thread, but my question still stands: What did he say that is untrue? (reference to *facts *he gave).
No one here is advocating what YOU and There Can Only Be I accuse them of advocating. This is like McCarthyism. You paint with as broad a brush as possible and hope that at least some of it will stick to the people who are on to YOU, whether they actually believe and say what you accuse them of believing and saying or NOT. In other words, TRUTH doesn’t matter to you. Bear in mind, however noble your hopes for the TLM, the CATHOLIC Church teaches that the end does NOT justify the means.
Read my last post again. JKirk is in no way against or grieved by the TLM. That is very untrue.
I said his “history of threads,” not simply this one. Reread what I said.
Yes I suppose they could all things being equal. So to put it bluntly, you don’t trust the Priests enough to believe that they will say the prayers correctly unless you can hear them. Would that be a valid statement, or have I somehow misunderstood what your meaning is? I mean after all, that was the major thrust of Martin Luthers objection to the silent canon was it not? The utter infidelity of the Priests?And yet if the Canon is silent they can, as I said, skip the all-important Words of Consecration all together if they so wish
Actually Trent used the words “low tone.” As a server I always heard the words of Consecration. If I hadn’t, I’d have been suspicious myself. Thank you for your concern.
I also heard the words as an Altar Boy and don’t recall the Priests skipping, onitting or otherwise screwing it up. But, on the other hand, if I hadn’t heard them, I still would have had enough trust in the Priests to believethat they said it correctly, but thats just me.
Are you claiming I’m making this stuff up? Hey, if you have sources that know better than the Pope or Trent or Vatican II, please let us in on them. Or you can continue to whine about the bashing you’re not doing. Your choice.
I do not mean to offend you personally but this is exactly the attitude that gives Traditionalists a bad name. While you may prefer the Missal of 1962 to the Ordinary Form, it is a grave charge to assert that you don’t feel you fulfilled your Sunday obligation. That insinuates that there is a fatal flaw in the OF Mass. While there is quite a lot I would love to see changed in the OF Mass, it is still Mass, and is no less valid for obligation or otherwise than the EF Mass.I doubt it. The only reverent NO Mass I’ve been to was at 6:30am in Latin with Polish vernacular (readings and homily). Not a word of ICEL. Heaven.
But it still had a lot missing and I didn’t feel I fulfilled the Sunday obligation.
No, I’m claiming that you are selectively interpreting things. For example, Latin. You have maintained that Trent anathematized anyone who ever said the Mass could be or might said in any vernacular. That isn’t true. Trent said that at that time, it did not seem appropriate to go to the vernacular, but Trent did not condemn the idea out of hand. Trent condemned the idea that it HAD to be in the vernacular or that it COULDN’T be in Latin. And that’s just one example. You’ve gone on about Quo Primum meaning that no other rite could be established and that no change could be made to the Mass. It’s patently false to assert that and it’s not simply the post-conciliar popes who are in trouble over that, but others regarded as heroes to “traditionalists.”
Just so. And instead of discouraging those in the Church who are rightly challenging such beliefs and info as provided by Bob, TCBO1, and LatinMassLover, it’s only going to encourage those who genuinely hate the TLM. They know no one wants to be like some of these posters who defend the TLM (an innocent bystander, for all intents and purposes) and those people will thus avoid the TLM (in their minds, it will be a question of “well, if it produces that kind of mindset, not to mention the lack of charity, I’m sure not going”). They’re the TLM’s worst enemy and they’re actually doing the modernists/liberals a favor. And no one wants to see the mods/libs win.
That is known and much appreciated.
It seems there are many here who believe that they can win people over to the traditional movement by being snarky and vindictive. Sadly, they will find themselves with smaller and smaller numbers with this type of attitude. It seems the most well-attended EF Masses are held by parishes who say both forms of the Mass. Those who decry the OF Mass will find themselves with smaller and smaller congregations.
I agree. I would much rather attend a TLM over a NO, but just because I would does not mean that I believe the NO is invalid or illicit. If Paul VI was a true Pope, which he was (doesn’t necessarily mean he was a good Pope), then the Mass he promulgated is valid and licit (doesn’t necessarily mean the Mass is “good” or even better than the old, but then again that is subjective anyway). The Mass might not be the best in the world (largely due to loose rubrics in my opinion), but it is still valid and licit to attend.
If the NO is valid and licit it is also sacred and "good". I agree however that one form of Mass can not be better than another. The Mass is the Mass. I am looking forward to next month when my parish has both forms. My prefernce will be the traditonal Mass, but will frequent both.I disagree, I believe one form can be better than the other. Both are valid, but not equal in what I think is “good.” Obviously this is different person-to-person, as it is subjective. With the NO, the Consecration is valid, the Eucharist is valid, etc. The music tends to not be as good (depending on where you go), and some other practices are different (receiving on the tongue vs. on the hand, etc.). These factors allow me to make a decision for myself which form I think is better.
I suppose that might be subjectively true, but even though I defend the NO as a legitimate and valid expression of the Mass, I’d be hard pressed to say that it is just as “good.” It is just as salvific, just as valid, it does what the Church purports that it does, ie, it confects the Holy Sacrice. And there is a noble simplicity to it. The words of the Tridentine, in the vernacular translation, however, far outstrip it. The Tridentine could be offered with the same “noble simplicity” as the NO (just a few minor changes and less of a drill team approach to moving from place to place). The greatest benefit to the NO, IMHO, is that it is offered in the vernacular. Perhaps someday the Tridentine will be as well. At any rate, the NO is what nurtured my faith and I feel it is worth defending.