Restoring Tradition

[CradleCath]

While there are certainly other factors let’s not minimize the impact the Novus Ordo had on the Church’s decline these past forty years. The liturgy is the reflection of our faith. As you worship so you believe. Simplifying the Mass has produced simple Catholics. When faced with moments of doubt that incredible life line we once had was no longer there.

Keep trying, Ockham. I remember when this Traditional forum was filled with Traditional Catholics. One, I particularly remember from about 2 years ago, was ‘Dustin’s Dad’. These Traditionalists fought the good fight for quite awhile, then left CA. Part of the reason they did so, was this insistence from the modernist Catholics, “My Mass is just as “good” as your Mass” &, no matter what the subject of a thread was, it always ended up with this argument.

In my view, the NO., while valid, is mundane & insipid. It is an occasion for the priest to be a “Master of Ceremonies”, the laity to be priestettes & psuedo-priests, the piety & sacredness of the Catholicism of 1960 yrs.,to be replaced with holding hands, bringing up the gifts (the only gift that matters is the gift of Christ’s SACRIFICE) & kumbaya songs.

The Church (meaning both the priest & the Lay person) in the U.S. has lost it’s sense of the sacred. We have lost the sense of our own sinfulness & the knowledge that ALL sin is a slap in the face to Christ…whether it be venial or mortal. AND, I fear that very few here
can even conceive of a wrathful God…
Romans
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

To most Catholics today, God is a grandfatherly old man, who pats his errant children on the head when they sin & says, “I understand, I empathize, just go forward with the path you have chosen…no problem”.

I look upon the sexual abuse crisis within the Church as a WAKE-UP call from Christ, Himself. IMO., we’d better reassess. To take Christ’s words, “I will be with you always, even until the end of the age”…as a GUARANTEE that the Catholic Church will never be brought to it’s knees, is wrong. How badly must we hurt Him along the way, before we suffer some consequences??

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

“Something didn’t seem right.” That’s really vague and doesn’t mean much of anything. Many Catholic teachings “didn’t seem right” to me until I realized and accepted that the Church has the fullness of the Truth. (And by the way, if the Church erred with the teachings of Vatican II and the promulgation of the Ordinary Form, then my realization was wrong and I might as well go back to being protestant, or something else entirely.)

I’m not inside the heads of the people who said it didn’t seem right. Maybe they miss Latin and have a preference for it. Maybe it was just because it wasn’t what they were used to. Maybe it was because the communion rail and statues and high altar and kneelers were torn out and the tabernacle hidden - inappropriate “renovations” that Vatican II and the Ordinary Form didn’t call for. Maybe it was the poor quality of the music - unfortunate, but not necessarily illicit.

If they left the Church that Christ founded and the Real Presence in the Eucharist because of personal preferences or even truly unfortunate practices… that’s like saying, “I don’t like my house the way it is, so I won’t live in a house anymore. I don’t like my food, so I won’t eat anymore.”

I am aware that there are plenty of reasons people leave the Church. And I’m not telling you to go back to being a Protestant. That would be a very big mistake indeed. All I’m saying is that the Novus Ordo is almost nothing like the TLM, and people who remember the TLM or know what it is likely aren’t going to feel very comfortable attending a Novus Ordo Mass every Sunday knowing there is something better out there. And that is the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[choy]

Keep trying, Ockham. I remember when this Traditional forum was filled with Traditional Catholics. One, I particularly remember from about 2 years ago, was ‘Dustin’s Dad’. These Traditionalists fought the good fight for quite awhile, then left CA. Part of the reason they did so, was this insistence from the modernist Catholics, “My Mass is just as “good” as your Mass” &, no matter what the subject of a thread was, it always ended up with this argument.

In my view, the NO., while valid, is mundane & insipid. It is an occasion for the priest to be a “Master of Ceremonies”, the laity to be priestettes & psuedo-priests, the piety & sacredness of the Catholicism of 1960 yrs.,to be replaced with holding hands, bringing up the gifts (the only gift that matters is the gift of Christ’s SACRIFICE) & kumbaya songs.

The Church (meaning both the priest & the Lay person) in the U.S. has lost it’s sense of the sacred. We have lost the sense of our own sinfulness & the knowledge that ALL sin is a slap in the face to Christ…whether it be venial or mortal. AND, I fear that very few here
can even conceive of a wrathful God…
Romans
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

To most Catholics today, God is a grandfatherly old man, who pats his errant children on the head when they sin & says, “I understand, I empathize, just go forward with the path you have chosen…no problem”.

I look upon the sexual abuse crisis within the Church as a WAKE-UP call from Christ, Himself. IMO., we’d better reassess. To take Christ’s words, “I will be with you always, even until the end of the age”…as a GUARANTEE that the Catholic Church will never be brought to it’s knees, is wrong. How badly must we hurt Him along the way, before we suffer some consequences??

again, the OF mass has nothing to do with the scandals. there have been a lot of sexual abuse scandals throughout the centuries with the clergy. the reason its so big right now is because there’s a huge throng of Protestants, Restorationists and Atheists who have anti-Catholic agendas who would love to blow this issue up bigger than it already is. now, add the internet to that mix and you have the scandal that we have today

i don’t know what the OF mass to do with any of that

 

[otjm]

I have heard some lame excuses for the for the decline of Catholicism since the council, but this has to be one of the weakest.

For starters, I don’t think I referenced a decline. I referenced an increase.

God only knows what goes through the mind of someone entering the seminary, unless and until they share with others what that was.

But just for giggles, let’s look at what has happened after Vatican 2 that might cast a bit of light on what happened before Vatican 2.

Since Vatican 2, a large number of priests who were ordained before Vatican 2 left the priesthood and got married. Some of them got married before they were laicized, but most of the ones I knew about sort of got the cart ande the horse in the right order.

Numerous priests who were accused of sexual abuse were ordained before Vatican 2; I ahve yet to see a breakdown, but a number of the cases with which I am familiar in my diocese were ordained before V2.

How many of that group (the latter) entered into the priesthood because in part of their sexual orientation (one does not have to explain being 30, or 40, 0r 50 and not married if one has to be celibate)?

Of those who got married, what was their reasoning for entering? they went in at a time where celibcy was the rule; how much talk was there of that changing?

How many went in because of the war(s) - not necessarily to avoid a draft, but as a result of the impact of the war(s)?

Society itself had not yet gone through the radical changes that openly occured in the 60’s and 70’s; how much of this relates to influences in society then as opposed to the 60’s and 70’s?

I suspect that there have been studies done of that period of increasing vocations; I know that it has been remarked as an unusual time. However, some people take the increase as the norm, where it appears to be not the norm, and then compare backwards to that time.

I was in the seminary during the earlier part of the Viwet Nam war; more than one seminarian remarked about being safe from the draft (and subsequently left).

 

[hosemonkey]

This is another part of the problem. These people are absolutely clueless. The house is burning down and some bishops are still aiding and abetting this kind of stupidity. read it and weep.
(emphasis mine)

Published: April 20, 2010
“Very active in pastoral ministry to LGBTQ Catholics”

Homosexual-friendly priest named rector at Santa Clara University, will be religious superior of 40 fellow Jesuits on campus

By Gibbons J. Cooney
Special to California Catholic Daily

On March 22, Santa Clara University announced that Fr. Michael Zampelli, S.J., had been named the new rector to the Jesuit community of Santa Clara University. Zampelli was appointed by Fr. General Adolfo Nicolás, S.J., the superior general of the Society of Jesus in Rome.

http://www.calcatholic.com/newsimages/FrMichaelZampelli042010.jpg“As rector of the second-largest Jesuit community in the California province of Jesuits, Zampelli will serve as the religious superior for his 40 fellow Jesuits on campus,” said a university news release. “His role is to support and serve them in living their personal, communal, and apostolic lives as Jesuits.”

Fr. Zampelli has served on the Santa Clara faculty since 1998, and is currently the Paul Locatelli Professor in the university’s department of theatre and dance. According to the press release, “Zampelli earned a Ph.D. in drama from Tufts University; M.Div/STM from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, an M.A. from Fordham University, and a B.A. from Georgetown University. Born and raised in Lawrence, Mass., his academic work has focused on the early modern Italian professional theatre and its relationship to religion.”

“Currently, Father Zampelli is working on papers exploring Jesuit performance dynamics, Jesuit attitudes toward the professional theatre, and the theatre’s spiritual functions – particularly in the lives of LGBT people and those consistently marginalized by mainstream religions,” says Fr. Zampelli’s biographical page on the university’s website.

In 2004, Fr. Zampelli directed the play “Stop Kiss” at the university. The drama is about two women who start out as friends and end up being lovers, and are attacked when they share their first kiss in public, injuring one so seriously she falls into a coma. “The play is timely in terms of the human issues that it raises,” said Fr. Zampelli. “How does a person discover who she is? How does a person learn to love? How does a person come to understand how she is to live her life? … In the current cultural climate that problematizes particular kinds of relationships, ‘Stop Kiss’ gives us a place to think about ‘the things that really matter.’”

On October 26, 2005, at an SCU seminar titled “Is Tolerance Enough: Catholic Universities and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Issues,” Fr. Zampelli expanded on the theme of “problematizing particular kinds of relationships.” He said, “Those of us who identify as lgbtq have a particular fix on the world, and what we have come to understand about ourselves, our society, our religions, our scholarly disciplines, from this particular perspective makes an invaluable contribution to the store of knowledge.”

Tolerance of homosexuality in the priesthood, said Fr. Zampelli, “must be a temporary state of affairs that includes an acknowledgement that we are ‘on the road,’ that understanding more and becoming more understanding takes time.”

Fr. Zampelli also suggested that homosexuality must be celebrated, not just tolerated. “In this case, tolerance is unacceptable,” he said. “Why? Because, I believe deeply (along with Paul in Corinthians) that ‘I am what I am by the grace of God.’ And I believe that I have particular gifts deriving precisely from this blessed but marginalized way of being in the world. What I see clearly now is my own desire: I want to be a subject sought out and valued.”

In addition to his work at the university, Fr. Zampelli also serves on the board of directors of CALGM, the Catholic Association of Gay and Lesbian Ministries. He is the organization’s treasurer. His CALGM biography states: “Michael has been very active in pastoral ministry to LGBTQ Catholics in the Diocese of San José (SCU and the Emmaus Community) and with Dignity/San Francisco.” Dignity/San Francisco is not recognized by the Archdiocese of San Francisco, and is not allowed to meet on Church property.

The appointment of homosexual-friendly priests into positions of religious authority is a developing trend in the Jesuit California Province. Fr. Zampelli’s appointment follows that of Fr. Donal Godfrey, who in 2007 was named executive director of university ministry at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. Like Fr. Zampelli, Fr. Godfrey is active with “Dignity.” Last year, Fr. Godfrey led a workshop at the July 2009 Dignity USA convention in San Francisco. Fr. Godfrey also has been a fixture at San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer, a parish deeply involved in homosexual activism, including participation in the city’s yearly Gay Pride parade. In October 2007, Fr. Godfrey presided at a prayer service (later broadcast by the BBC) celebrating homosexuality.

 

[Kilo1Mike21]

ah yes, blogs, the source of unbiased opinion

And don’t forget, authoritative truth!! :bowdown2:

 

[Joannm]

Of those who got married, what was their reasoning for entering? they went in at a time where celibcy was the rule; how much talk was there of that changing?

I was in the seminary during the earlier part of the Viwet Nam war; more than one seminarian remarked about being safe from the draft (and subsequently left).

I remember sepaking to a friend of mine who left the priesthood along with one who stayed. They entered just around the time of Vat II. they both sais there was a strong feeling that Vat Ii would change the celibacy rule. When it didn’t then the one left, along with many others. While it is not scientific evidence via surveys etc, but it was the experience of two priests of that era.

 

[wisdomseeker]

angelqueen.org/articles/04-02_bugnini.shtml

I don’t mean to be rude, but if you haven’t studied anything about this man, Annibale Bugnini, who WROTE the NO. you may not be knowlegeable enough to discuss Vatican II. Anyone who does not know the part that Karl Rahner, Hans Kung & the HANDFUL of “intellectuals” from western Europe played in the making of “new Church” AND how impressed our own hierarchy was with their “sophistication”, really needs to immerse themselves in a study of the council. There are many books about it &, of course, there is much info found on the internet. Do you know how CITH came about?

I am really tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow we can discuss the ambiguous documents of the council. They are very open-ended.

BTW. were you a member of the Catholic church pre-Vatican II. I find that many on these forums who defend the NO., have no idea what the Church was like before the council.

how can we restore the beauty of Worship to God? many dont seem to care abou it. many are more interested in what makes them comfortable without any concern for what God wants. did not God told us how to worship Him? so why are we try to play with it.

many are confusing the problems outside the Church with the problems inside the Church. the problems before, although, we had some in the Church, it was never is bad as it is today. and i have no doubts, it is because of the poor worship that we are giving to God. we have forgotten how important God really is.

youtube.com:80/watch?v=HGHdGFvm1K4

 

[Bbigam]

That’s essentially the legacy of V2: ambiguous documents that were misinterpreted by those with hidden agendas. Although there wasn’t any real need to call the Council I don’t believe there are any doctrinal errors from it.

Thank you for clarifying. The way many people talk about VII, it’s easy to assume that they think it actually taught error, and I know some people actually do think that.

I am aware that there are plenty of reasons people leave the Church. And I’m not telling you to go back to being a Protestant. That would be a very big mistake indeed. All I’m saying is that the Novus Ordo is almost nothing like the TLM, and people who remember the TLM or know what it is likely aren’t going to feel very comfortable attending a Novus Ordo Mass every Sunday knowing there is something better out there. And that is the Traditional Latin Mass.

I’m glad you don’t want me to be Protestant! I didn’t think you did. I have been to the EF, in case you wondered. I go about once a month to the FSSP community, and it’s usually a Missa Cantata. While it is a different style, I really don’t see it as being hugely different at the core. But again, I am at a very reverent OF parish, that has a high altar with tabernacle, and statues and votive candles and communion patens and sanctus bells and so on. I guess in my view they don’t have to be as dramatically different as they are often celebrated. I do think there are things that are better about the EF - prayers at the foot of the altar, tighter rubrics, some of the prayers are much richer, more genuflections, mandated kneeling to receive on the tongue from the priest and ad orientem for Canon, and so on. But I think some things are better in the OF, such as the rubrical participation of the congregation in the responses, expanded lectionary, prayers of the faithful, option for vernacular, Canon out loud, and some others. I’m glad I have access to both.

 

[Bbigam]

Keep trying, Ockham. I remember when this Traditional forum was filled with Traditional Catholics. One, I particularly remember from about 2 years ago, was ‘Dustin’s Dad’. These Traditionalists fought the good fight for quite awhile, then left CA. Part of the reason they did so, was this insistence from the modernist Catholics, “My Mass is just as “good” as your Mass” &, no matter what the subject of a thread was, it always ended up with this argument.

In my view, the NO., while valid, is mundane & insipid. It is an occasion for the priest to be a “Master of Ceremonies”, the laity to be priestettes & psuedo-priests, the piety & sacredness of the Catholicism of 1960 yrs.,to be replaced with holding hands, bringing up the gifts (the only gift that matters is the gift of Christ’s SACRIFICE) & kumbaya songs.

So does appreciating a properly celebrated Ordinary Form Mass (that doesn’t look at all like your description above) make me a “modernist Catholic?” I sure hope not. Does Traditional Catholic have to mean strong attachment to the Extraordinary Form and dislike of the Ordinary Form? Why can’t Traditional mean fidelity to the Magisterium, regardless of which form of Mass or rite of the Liturgy we prefer?

The Church (meaning both the priest & the Lay person) in the U.S. has lost it’s sense of the sacred. We have lost the sense of our own sinfulness & the knowledge that ALL sin is a slap in the face to Christ…whether it be venial or mortal. AND, I fear that very few here
can even conceive of a wrathful God…
Romans
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

To most Catholics today, God is a grandfatherly old man, who pats his errant children on the head when they sin & says, “I understand, I empathize, just go forward with the path you have chosen…no problem”.

Sadly, I completely agree with this part of your post. But I don’t think it’s accurate to tie huge cultural upheaval, inside and outside the Church, to the Ordinary Form and Vatican II. Sure, they happened around the same time, and the OF and VII were used as excuses for tons of illicit and irreverent practices, terrible catechesis, and the like. But the documents of Vatican II, and the prayers of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, do not by any means call for or encourage all this.

 

[pnewton]

how can we restore the beauty of Worship to God? many dont seem to care abou it.

A good first step is to let others see that beauty manifest in us. One can not win over others be belittling them, calling them ignorant and hurling insults. If one is wanting to reach out to one’s fellow parishoners to see the beatuy and reference of the holy worship, it does not do to blind them with our own ugliness.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Thank you for clarifying. The way many people talk about VII, it’s easy to assume that they think it actually taught error, and I know some people actually do think that.

I’m glad you don’t want me to be Protestant! I didn’t think you did. I have been to the EF, in case you wondered. I go about once a month to the FSSP community, and it’s usually a Missa Cantata. While it is a different style, I really don’t see it as being hugely different at the core. But again, I am at a very reverent OF parish, that has a high altar with tabernacle, and statues and votive candles and communion patens and sanctus bells and so on. I guess in my view they don’t have to be as dramatically different as they are often celebrated. I do think there are things that are better about the EF - prayers at the foot of the altar, tighter rubrics, some of the prayers are much richer, more genuflections, mandated kneeling to receive on the tongue from the priest and ad orientem for Canon, and so on. But I think some things are better in the OF, such as the rubrical participation of the congregation in the responses, expanded lectionary, prayers of the faithful, option for vernacular, Canon out loud, and some others. I’m glad I have access to both.

Well, I find it nice that you have access to a more reverent Novus Ordo, and I’m especially glad you have access to a TLM. I have no reverent Novus Ordos near me, but even if I did I’d still attend the TLM at all times. One of the primary problems I have with the Novus Ordo is the atmosphere in there. It’s too noisy. Perhaps reverent Novus Ordos are a bit more quiet, but the clapping, laughing, and constant talking makes it difficult to pray to God during Mass. That’s just one reason I prefer the TLM, it has a much more quiet atmosphere. And the quiet atmosphere leads to more concentration on the presence of Christ at the altar as well.

Of course, reverent or not, it’s still the Novus Ordo, and there are still some significant differences. Your parish has an altar during Novus Ordo Masses, whereas altars were replaced with tables in many parishes following Vatican II. Not to mention too much attention being payed to the people instead of the Holy Sacrifice. Clearly I can’t comment on exactly how much different the Novus Ordo Masses at your parish are from the TLM, but regardless of how reverent it is, there’s still some pretty big differences. Thus why I will always want to attend the TLM. The easiest way, of course, to tell the differences between the two Masses is to attend a non-reverent Novus Ordo and then attend a TLM.

 

[Bbigam]

Well, I find it nice that you have access to a more reverent Novus Ordo, and I’m especially glad you have access to a TLM.

Thanks! Me too!

I have no reverent Novus Ordos near me, but even if I did I’d still attend the TLM at all times. One of the primary problems I have with the Novus Ordo is the atmosphere in there. It’s too noisy. Perhaps reverent Novus Ordos are a bit more quiet, but the clapping, laughing, and constant talking makes it difficult to pray to God during Mass. That’s just one reason I prefer the TLM, it has a much more quiet atmosphere. And the quiet atmosphere leads to more concentration on the presence of Christ at the altar as well.

Of course, reverent or not, it’s still the Novus Ordo, and there are still some significant differences. Your parish has an altar during Novus Ordo Masses, whereas altars were replaced with tables in many parishes following Vatican II. Not to mention too much attention being payed to the people instead of the Holy Sacrifice. Clearly I can’t comment on exactly how much different the Novus Ordo Masses at your parish are from the TLM, but regardless of how reverent it is, there’s still some pretty big differences. Thus why I will always want to attend the TLM. The easiest way, of course, to tell the differences between the two Masses is to attend a non-reverent Novus Ordo and then attend a TLM.

Sure, there are real differences. And I don’t have any problem with people preferring the Extraordinary Form. I do have a problem with people (not you specifically) who talk as if the Ordinary Form is inherently some horrible travesty. I suppose that if I only had access to irreverent Ordinary Form Masses then I might feel a bit more like you do. In fact, I’ve reflected before that if a certain of the other parishes around here had been the first Mass I’d visited, I may have never gone back and not converted. And it sounds like it’s actually pretty great compared to some places.

Thank God for holy priests that celebrate the Mass reverently, regardless of form! The wonderful parish I am at is my geographical parish, the one closest to my house, and the one where I went to my first Mass ever.

 

[CradleCath]

Bbigam;6552209]Thanks for the link. I haven’t studied Archbishop Bugnini, just read a little here and there - that’s certainly an awful quote. What I do know is this: If this is the Church that Christ founded as it claims to be, an Ecumenical Council like Vatican II won’t teach doctrinal error, although men may certainly misinterpret it to teach error. I’m also pretty sure Holy Mother Church could never promulgate a Eucharistic Liturgy that is in serious error the way the SSPX claims the Ordinary Form is. Somewhat more simplified than preferable - sure, but not in error. So even if this quote was really Bugnini’s goal, the Church has been protected from him being able to accomplish it. I’ve tried to say this several times, but no one has responded to it. How can the Catholic Church, in an Ecumenical Council, fall into serious error? If we say this happened with VII, then it may just as well have happened at Trent or even Nicea.

Yes, I’m familiar with how communion in the hand came about, disobedience and all. It wasn’t from the Council or the Ordinary Form, it was later than that, and was unfortunate. For the record, I receive on the tongue.

And no, I wasn’t around at all back then, although I have read up on it some, from people who talk about it like a golden age to those who say it had plenty of problems, too. **Unfortunately, my younger age seems to mean that at least some people on this forum will completely discount anything I may have to say./**QUOTE]

That is not true, in my case anyway. However, I was taught as a child to listen (not just hear, but activley listen) to my elders. My parents really drilled that into their children. I didn’t have to “buy what they were selling”, but I was taught that they…having lived many years…had valuable experience & knowledge to give. I was absolutely fascinated with one of my Grandfathers & would follow him around all day, if allowed. He was born in Denmark, his family emigrated to this country when he was 9. His little brother died during the sea voyage but the rest of the family made it. They were put on a train &, since they spoke no English, they wore signs around their necks denoting their destination. He was a bit reticent & one had to be there when he decided to talk.

There are a few Catholics on these forums who have known the Church well through both the pre & post-Vatican II years…fewer still are those who stayed in the Church, no matter what.

I was in my mid twenties when Vatican II changed the Mass & the Church. I was totally prepared to LOVE this Novus Ordo. Why not, the Church had always provided me with a sacred liturgy. After trying for many years to accept “new Church”, I found tears in my eyes at Mass more than once. I watched the herd of EEM’s jockey for the “best” positions in the Sanctuary, I listened to sermons on the feast of the Holy Family, that told us to pray for ALL families including homosexual “couples & their children”. I watched priests bring props for their sermons & stroll up & down the aisle during same. I sat, trying to decide whether to laugh or cry as 50 yr. old “liturgical dancers” performed the “ballet of the Great Flood”. AND I STAYED.

So, while no one is “discounting anything you say”, because you didn’t live in both Churches, I believe that it would be wise for those of you who have known only the Novus Ordo Church, to listen to those who have known both, who have researched the events within the Church during the 60’s & 70’s. You may ignor their thoughts, but only after giving them due consideration. There aren’t many of us left, you know. Approximately 70% of pre-Vatican II Catholics just quit attending Mass & silently drifted away.

BTW., Vatican II was a PASTORAL Ecumenical Council. No doctrine or dogma was promulgated.

 

[Ockham]

I’m glad I have access to both.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all Catholics could say that?

 

[Ockham]

Why can’t Traditional mean fidelity to the Magisterium, regardless of which form of Mass or rite of the Liturgy we prefer?

Because fidelity to the Magisterium is what all Catholics are called to do. Sadly, many of the complaints with the Novus Ordo come from infideility.

Although I generally shy away from labels as they tend to pigeon hole, there is still a purpose to them. I consider those promoting liturgical dance, women’s ordination, and other changes to be Progressives. Those who prefer the Novus Ordo but aren’t looking to make changes don’t require adjectives. Those who prefer the TLM and the pre-V2 Church in general are Traditional Catholics. Does this seem helpful?

Sadly, I completely agree with this part of your post. But I don’t think it’s accurate to tie huge cultural upheaval, inside and outside the Church, to the Ordinary Form and Vatican II. Sure, they happened around the same time, and the OF and VII were used as excuses for tons of illicit and irreverent practices, terrible catechesis, and the like. But the documents of Vatican II, and the prayers of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, do not by any means call for or encourage all this.

At this point I’d be happy to never have to debate this issue again. If the TLM was made accessible to every Catholic each would be able to vote with their feet. It would make the Novus Ordo more reverent and hopefully lead to a restoration of Catholic culture and identity. It will probably get more peole to heaven too.

Putting things in perspective the past forty years have certainly been highlighted by change. There has been more change in the past hundred years than any other time in civilization. Today we are much removed from the cycle of life with our busy schedules, need for instant gratification, bombarded by marketing, ultar-choices, materialism, and debt. The baby boomer/Me generation society is short sighted and narcistic.

Looking forward, Christian birth rates and personal and national debt loads are not sustainable, but Muslims are. In one hundred years time from now the world will be very different unless we reverse the cultural and religious changes of the past forty years.

 

[wisdomseeker]

A good first step is to let others see that beauty manifest in us. One can not win over others be belittling them, calling them ignorant and hurling insults. If one is wanting to reach out to one’s fellow parishoners to see the beatuy and reference of the holy worship, it does not do to blind them with our own ugliness.

did i say anything bad?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Looking forward, Christian birth rates and personal and national debt loads are not sustainable, but Muslims are. In one hundred years time from now the world will be very different unless we reverse the cultural and religious changes of the past forty years.

True, but remember the three days of darkness will be what ends the modern changes of the Church and everything else bad that is going on.

 

[dmorgan]

Oakham Said
“At this point I’d be happy to never have to debate this issue again. If the TLM was made accessible to every Catholic each would be able to vote with their feet. It would make the Novus Ordo more reverent and hopefully lead to a restoration of Catholic culture and identity. It will probably get more peole to heaven too.”

I really pray for this. I live in South Carolina( Native) , and in our Diocese we have four parishes in the entire state that offer the EF. Only one offers every Sunday and that parish is 75 miles one way. I am trying a letter writting campaign to our Bishop for more offerings.

catholic-doc.org/index.php Look at the parish listing and you will see the Parishes that offer the EF.

 

[pnewton]

did i say anything bad?

Not that I am aware of. I just thought your question was good and answered it. I am sorry if you misunderstood.