Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[AlexV]

NO SUCH THING AS A “PRIMARY” LITURGY.

Once again, prejudicial language with no basis in liturgical law.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

There is ZERO ban on “new people” and this liturgy.

Cardinal Mahony made that claim in 1990. He was corrected by the Vatican.

As for “large numbers”, read the previous tiresome threads on this subject. You ban something for 40 years and then act surprised that after 4 months there aren’t lines around the street?

How’s that Novus Ordo attendance going, anyway? In some parts of the western world something like 2% of Catholics even bother to show up.

But where are all those who pressured 2 popes?? Who signed all the petitions etc and posted endlessly how they were waiting for this and there would be floods and floods of people to go.

 

[AlexV]

“Pressured” popes? Hmm, so the popes only allowed this out of “pressure”? Nice spin, bud.

 

[universalindult]

The church is not a democracy.

So, as you see it, when the Church imposed the NO on all the laity, none of whom wanted it, that was OK.

But when the Church reintroduces the prior liturgy for those few who remember or want it, that’s not OK.

In fact, since 4 months have passed, and most priests, bishops and cardinals have succeeded in obfuscating the fact the TLM has been liberated – and thus laity are not yet aware they can ask for it – the door should be slammed shut and no more TLM demand should be allowed to develop.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

NO SUCH THING AS A “PRIMARY” LITURGY.

Once again, prejudicial language with no basis in liturgical law.

It is not the extra ordinary form is it?

Are you targeting me re this item? I have seen plenty of others use the terms you criticize me for and no word from you.

 

[James0235]

***There was supposedly a FLOOD of folks interested/waiting for the MP - the flood had not appeared.

And this has been the talk for nearly the whole time since the indult was written.

Why wait anymore than 4 - 6 months?***

Hundreds of parishes is not a flood? It takes a lot of time and effort for a priest to learn the TLM - not to mention the training of servers and a schola. And yet we already see hundreds of parishes offering this Mass a short 4 months after the Motu Proprio.

Look at this thread for example.

Demand appears to be very high.

Just 1 hr a wk, did you at one time go by the name “thecoach”?

 

[AlexV]

It’s amazing how the enemies of this liturgy do the following:

1. Assert nobody really wants it and so it doesn’t matter;
2. Ban it, make it downright near impossible to attend it, despite their assertion nobody really wants it;
3. Smugly assert that nobody really wants it after they made it next to impossible for people to attend it.

The above pattern can be evidenced in dozens of US dioceses.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am asserting that the Consilium of the 1960s FABRICATED a liturgy that was subsequently imposed on Roman Rite Catholics, followed by a period of time where the liturgy of centuries was de facto banned throughout virtually all of the Roman Rite.

Yes, I agree with that assessment.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

So, as you see it, when the Church imposed the NO on all the laity, none of whom wanted it, that was OK.

But when the Church reintroduces the prior liturgy for those few who remember or want it, that’s not OK.

In fact, since 4 months have passed, and most priests, bishops and cardinals have succeeded in obfuscating the fact the TLM has been liberated – and thus laity are not yet aware they can ask for it – the door should be slammed shut and no more TLM demand should be allowed to develop.

---

There was supposedly a built in audience waiting and watching.

Did they stop when things were so close?

The build up to this has turned out to be very exaggerated.***

 

[AlexV]

Just 1 hr, you apparently need a course in reading comprehension.

“Extraordinary” does not = Secondary, and “Ordinary” does not = Primary.

Next point?

 

[AlexV]

“Exaggerated” in the view of one internet poster who has nothing better to do than come to a traditionalist forum and attack the traditional liturgy.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Just 1 hr, you apparently need a course in reading comprehension.

“Extraordinary” does not = Secondary, and “Ordinary” does not = Primary.

Next point?

The reality is one is the normative and one is not.

 

[AlexV]

Normative does NOT equal primary. You denigrate the liturgy by inaccurate terms. You are a provocateur who comes to a traditional forum and uses inaccurate terms to stir up trouble.

Like many enemies of this liturgy, you throw around words like “primary” “normative” and the like to denigrate and to demean a liturgy that you’re annoyed still exists.

Further, the Motu Proprio does NOT call any liturgy “normative”, which is a legal term. The cover letter is not a legal document. The Motu is. Ecclesiastical Law 101 would teach you that.

 

[James0235]

fatima1917:

In order to get something out of the TLM you must be spiritual. For those who are more attached to this matierial world then the next the New Mass is more to their liking. In the new mass you worship each other; in the TLM you worship God.

That generalization is neither fair nor accurate.

Wow.

I’m inclined to agree with Just 1 hr a wk on this one.

I know plenty of people who attend the New Mass who have little attachment to the material world. There are a lot of good and very faithful Catholics who attend (and prefer) the New Mass.

James

 

[universalindult]

---

There was supposedly a built in audience waiting and watching.

---

You willfully misrepresent the Pope’s intentions. He didn’t do this just for those already attached to the TLM.

He did it so that present and future generations may become attached to it.

 

[universalindult]

Normative does NOT equal primary. You denigrate the liturgy by inaccurate terms. You are a provocateur who comes to a traditional forum and uses inaccurate terms to stir up trouble.

Like many enemies of this liturgy, you throw around words like “primary” “normative” and the like to denigrate and to demean a liturgy that you’re annoyed still exists.

Accurate observations; Why is this kind of baiting permitted on the “Traditional Catholicism” subforum?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Normative does NOT equal primary. You denigrate the liturgy by inaccurate terms. You are a provocateur who comes to a traditional forum and uses inaccurate terms to stir up trouble.

Like many enemies of this liturgy, you throw around words like “primary” “normative” and the like to denigrate and to demean a liturgy that you’re annoyed still exists.

Further, the Motu Proprio does NOT call any liturgy “normative”, which is a legal term. The cover letter is not a legal document. The Motu is. Ecclesiastical Law 101 would teach you that.

Can you explain why the pope used that term if it is so meaningless?

 

[AlexV]

I HIGHLY suggest a reading comprehension course. Did I ever say the term was “meaningless”? You have fixated on one term that is not in the juridical document we call the Motu Proprio.

The pope also called the Novus Ordo Missae “banal”. Hmm…

But that was ALSO in a non-juridical document.

Case closed.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I HIGHLY suggest a reading comprehension course. Did I ever say the term was “meaningless”? You have fixated on one term that is not in the juridical document we call the Motu Proprio.

The pope also called the Novus Ordo Missae “banal”. Hmm…

But that was ALSO in a non-juridical document.

Case closed.

Since the comment was in a non-juridical document it is safe to say it does not hold much value today.

Curious - why are you so objecting so strongly to the the pope using the term normative?

 

[AlexV]

I don’t object strongly to anything except your blatant provocative attempts to denigrate the traditional liturgy on a traditional forum. Period.

The POINT is simple: comments in non-juridical documents are not binding. So if you want to consider the Novus Ordo banal, you can. If you want to consider it not banal, you can.

“Normative” can mean lots of things. It can mean most common and nothing more. It has NO legal meaning.

But YOU changed it to mean PRIMARY…which is quite different indeed. And I called you on your error.

Now move along to a new topic…this is getting quite old.