Noticing alot of opposition to the Tridentine Mass

[E.E.N.S]

Let’s see, when you can’t come up with more reasons or facts you just call people “Protestant”? Nice way to try and divert attention, when you’re out of arguments go ad hominem – though I am actually Catholic. A Catholic who thinks the true issue here is obedience to the Church, which so far has proclaimed the NO as it’s principal Mass around the world. As a former Protestant, I can say you are behaving much more like Luther than I am.

But, to the point: last I checked Paul VI was Catholic, though when you read the contributions of many TLM’ers you’d think he was a heretic. (I guess you only defer to the Pope when you agree?) Oh, Paul VI is great when we’re talking about abortion, contraception, or birth control, but when it’s the Mass we can beat him up all we want. In addition, last I looked John Paul II was a pretty solid Catholic, but never revised the NO. That should be something in it’s favor. After all, JPII had a long time to fix it if he thought it was really that bad. As for Pope Benedict, well, if we believe some of the latest reports (per Cardinal Bertone) the “document” on the TLM is on the way VERY soon. I hope so, but I don’t think it will end this, unfortunately. Those like you should read it very carefully and think about its logic. After all, if he really agrees with you and you are right, then there is only one choice, that is, issue a Papal Bull and put things aright NOW: reinstate the TLM. If the Pope does less the NO will remain. I think Pope Benedict is quite wise, but he will not put an end to the NO because, in the end and despite some difficulties, you are wrong and Paul VI, JPII, and most Bishops, Cardinals, and theologians have established that. By the way, there is a big world of scholarship beyond Msgr Gamber, though I do respect his opinion.

Oh, your friend says hello –

[Edited by Moderator] It is YOUR profile that says YOU are protestant.

And I can’t really even address the rest of the [Edited by Moderator] post as it is purely a straw man. I never said the things you are implying, in fact Ihave been the one quoting Church documents.[Edited by Moderator]
Give me a break.

 

[lak611]

[Edited by Moderator] It is YOUR profile that says YOU are protestant.

And I can’t really even address the rest of the [Edited by Moderator] post as it is purely a straw man. I never said the things you are implying, in fact Ihave been the one quoting Church documents.[Edited by Moderator]
Give me a break.

Her profile says she is a Catholic convert, not a Protestant. I just read it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Her profile says she is a Catholic convert, not a Protestant. I just read it.

It does now, but it didn’t when I made the original comment - as another poster made the same observation. The user changed it and then accused me of “calling” him a protestant, when in fact all I did was point out what his profile said.

 

[BobP123]

[Edited by Moderator] It is YOUR profile that says YOU are protestant.

Give me a break.

Looks like you converted her.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, folks. Thank you.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Okay, let’s try this again, lol…

Let’s see, when you can’t come up with more reasons or facts you just call people “Protestant”? Nice way to try and divert attention, when you’re out of arguments go ad hominem – though I am actually Catholic.

Your profile did say that you were protestant at one point in time, as was noticed by others besides myself - see here:

I Just checked his/her profile----it does put a different perspective on this persons contributions here.

mshealy:

A Catholic who thinks the true issue here is obedience to the Church, which so far has proclaimed the NO as it’s principal Mass around the world.

Again, I am not even slightly close to arguing against the Novus Ordo, in fact when I refer to Church documents, I do so to defend the proper celebration of the NO.

mshealy:

As a former Protestant, I can say you are behaving much more like Luther than I am.

Who’s using ad hom now? But I do find it interesting that you would say such a thing about a person - such as myself - who is defending Church teaching. (PS~ I am a convert from protestantism as well.)

mshealy:

But, to the point: last I checked Paul VI was Catholic,

Yes, and he was a Pope too.

mshealy:

though when you read the contributions of many TLM’ers you’d think he was a heretic.

That’s a shame, but I would be careful to not paint with such a wide brush against many of your fellow bretheren here on this forum.

mshealy:

(I guess you only defer to the Pope when you agree?)

No, in fact, if I don’t agree I try to better understand and then fully conform…but by the grace of God I have been lucky to not have struggled much in this area.

mshealy:

Oh, Paul VI is great when we’re talking about abortion, contraception, or birth control, but when it’s the Mass we can beat him up all we want.

Please quote a single instance where I have said anything negative about Pope Paul VI - or any Pope for that matter.

mshealy:

In addition, last I looked John Paul II was a pretty solid Catholic,

Indeed, and he was also a Pope as well. Have you ever read his tribute to Pope Pius Xth’s Inter Solecitudine?

mshealy:

but never revised the NO.

No, but he did write encyclicals to try and correct some of the abuses that were taking place within the liturgies.

mshealy:

That should be something in it’s favor. After all, JPII had a long time to fix it if he thought it was really that bad.

Refer to comment above.

mshealy:

As for Pope Benedict, well, if we believe some of the latest reports (per Cardinal Bertone) the “document” on the TLM is on the way VERY soon. I hope so, but I don’t think it will end this, unfortunately. Those like you should read it very carefully and think about its logic.

I plan on it. Everyone should - including yourself.

mshealy:

After all, if he really agrees with you and you are right,

Actually, you stated that incorrectly, it is I* that agrees with him* and* he is right* - not the other way around as you put it.

mshealy:

then there is only one choice, that is, issue a Papal Bull and put things aright NOW: reinstate the TLM. If the Pope does less the NO will remain.

What?

mshealy:

I think Pope Benedict is quite wise, but he will not put an end to the NO

no one is talking about putting an end to the Novus Ordo, so please stop saying otherwise.

mshealy:

because, in the end and despite some difficulties, you are wrong and Paul VI, JPII, and most Bishops, Cardinals, and theologians have established that.

How can I be wrong if I am only quoting the Church? What I think is you are building a strawman (which is plain to see by pretty much anyone reading this) and saying that it is wrong.

mshealy:

By the way, there is a big world of scholarship beyond Msgr Gamber, though I do respect his opinion.

Indeed. And what are his thoughts exactly? It would seem that you didn’t quite undersatnd what he was saying.

mshealy:

Oh, your friend says hello –

Remember, you used him first.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Okay, let’s try this again, lol…
Your profile did say that you were protestant at one point in time, as was noticed by others besides myself - see here:

I just re-read this and I think it can be confusing, but I waited too long to edit it. The profile at one point in time said:

Religion: Protestant

after I made the comment about it, it was changed to:

Religion: Catholic

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

 

[Walking_Home]

I just re-read this and I think it can be confusing, but I waited too long to edit it. The profile at one point in time said:

Religion: Protestant

after I made the comment about it, it was changed to:

Religion: Catholic

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

---

Yup—the profile used to say -----protestant.

 

[gorman64]

Opposition to this “universal indult” by the conciliar bishops is somewhat understandable just from a practical viewpoint. The result would be that any priest in his diocese could start saying the TLM…this would introduce conflict in his diocese…conflicts in both the laity and clergy. Given these bishop’s track record in wanting to avoid conflict at any cost…one can understand why they might oppose any type of indult of which they lack complete control of…

Gorman

 

[mshealy]

“no one is talking about putting an end to the Novus Ordo…” per E.E.N.S. see above.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Much of the opposition to the Latin Rite comes from the “ecumenical” sector.

The LM would be an impediment to unifying other denominations and the ridding of the LM was a kind of lowering of catholicity and its uniqueness.

The Church, if it loses its uniqueness, dims its mission of being the beacon and sign of contradiction in the world.

No one can argue that the LM was a lessening of holiness and servitude to Our Lord. Or can they?

 

[E.E.N.S]

“no one is talking about putting an end to the Novus Ordo…” per E.E.N.S. see above.

Then maybe you should stop trying to make it sound as if that is what I have been saying, when in fact I must keep reminding you otherwise. Either you are purposefully trying to put words in my mouth that I am not saying or apparently you are unable to have an intelligent dialogue, which is it?

 

[ncjohn]

No one can argue that the LM was a lessening of holiness and servitude to Our Lord. Or can they?

I won’t argue that the LM would lessen holiness, but quite frankly find it pretty amazing that someone would actually bluntly imply by such a statement that those who prefer a different liturgy are in fact less holy and devoted.

I’m sure the claim will be made that the statement doesn’t say any such thing, but without that implication the statement would have no reason for existing within the context of the post as it is a totally separate thought. I hope you will tell me I’m wrong in interpreting it that way though so I can humbly apologize for my rash judgment.

As to your assertion that much of the opposition comes from the “ecumenical sector”, that may be quite true since the “ecumenical sector” is those who follow the teachings of the decrees of Vatican II and largely also prefer the N.O. Mass. To assert it as if it is some kind of conspiracy though to destroy our uniquenss, I find pretty laughable. This is, to me, a clear case of correlation not implying causation.

And just for the record, once again, I am all for releasing the TLM and am not opposed to it for those who prefer it, lest I be branded as one of those “ecumenists” in opposition.

Peace,

 

[johnstown_johnn]

It is part of the One World Religion. The change in the Mass has evolved into a generic form of worship. Many/most songs during mass are straight from Protestant hymn books.

Soon we will hardly note the difference from Lutheran services or other Protestand forms.

If I wanted to be a protestant I would be one today…but I do NOT.

 

[ncjohn]

It is part of the One World Religion. The change in the Mass has evolved into a generic form of worship. Many/most songs during mass are straight from Protestant hymn books.

Soon we will hardly note the difference from Lutheran services or other Protestand forms.

If I wanted to be a protestant I would be one today…but I do NOT.

To quote a couple other posters here…one from each “side” of the aisle…

 

[E.E.N.S]

As to your assertion that much of the opposition comes from the “ecumenical sector”, that may be quite true since the “ecumenical sector” is those who follow the teachings of the decrees of Vatican II and largely also prefer the N.O. Mass. To assert it as if it is some kind of conspiracy though to destroy our uniquenss, I find pretty laughable. This is, to me, a clear case of correlation not implying causation

I think what the poster may have meant by “ecumenical sector” is that group of people who use the word “ecumenical” but who are really not in line with Church teaching in many areas that they term “ecumenical”.

That is just my take on it from similiar discussions using they same terminology.

johnn, am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[John_Higgins]

gorman64:

Opposition to this “universal indult” by the conciliar bishops

(Bolding mine)

Gorman,

There are not “conciliar bishops”; there are only bishops.

John

 

[gorman64]

I won’t argue that the LM would lessen holiness, but quite frankly find it pretty amazing that someone would actually bluntly imply by such a statement that those who prefer a different liturgy are in fact less holy and devoted.

I’m sure the claim will be made that the statement doesn’t say any such thing, but without that implication the statement would have no reason for existing within the context of the post as it is a totally separate thought. I hope you will tell me I’m wrong in interpreting it that way though so I can humbly apologize for my rash judgment.

As to your assertion that much of the opposition comes from the “ecumenical sector”, that may be quite true since the “ecumenical sector” is those who follow the teachings of the decrees of Vatican II and largely also prefer the N.O. Mass. To assert it as if it is some kind of conspiracy though to destroy our uniquenss, I find pretty laughable. This is, to me, a clear case of correlation not implying causation.

And just for the record, once again, I am all for releasing the TLM and am not opposed to it for those who prefer it, lest I be branded as one of those “ecumenists” in opposition.

Peace,

John,

The issue is false ecumenism. This is very clearly stated by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Mortalium Animos…go look it up if you don’t believe me.

[Edited by Moderator]

Gorman

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I think what the poster may have meant by “ecumenical sector” is that group of people who use the word “ecumenical” but who are really not in line with Church teaching in many areas that they term “ecumenical”.

That is just my take on it from similiar discussions using they same terminology.

johnn, am I wrong in this assumption?

I think you got me correctly. I see a lot of nuances in my parish from one week to another…very subtle. The homilies are generic much of the time and lack catholocity. Couple this with an archbishop who is into ecumenism Big Time, it has to make one wonder.

One thing that occurs more often than it should is having the Gospel read that does NOT match the Gospel in the missalette we are all holding. Of course this could be human error but… the Gospel is a major part of the Mass.

The Latin Mass never had mishaps like that.

I wonder if this diocese will comply with the “…for the MANY…” at Consecration.

This thread is not one to cast away the NO but is is NOT a thread that outlaws TLM either.

Frankly, I have a feeling that the Church will be going through another crucible regarding more use of Latin in the Mass.

I fulfill my obligation of keeping the sabbath by attending a Novus Ordo Mass. But I still yearn for a return of the mystique and beauty of Latin. Not because it is is a novelty but because it has merit. Our forebears attended TLM so nothing can be wrong with that…right?

 

[gorman64]

(Bolding mine)

Gorman,

There are not “conciliar bishops”; there are only bishops.

John

They call it the conciliar church…the church of the new advent…a new pentecost…I am merely using their terminology.

Gorman