The Old Mass

[Crusader]

JNB:

Stop playing games Crusader, and stop drinking from the I Shawn McIlhenny well. The people who prefer trhe TLM should have their needs met, and providing a parish for them will meet their needs. These people like the TLM, and no matter what you and your ilk may try to force down their throats, they will still prefer the TLM. At parishes I have seen that offer both the 62 and 70 missals, the parishoners who go to the TLM and orther parishoners who go to the NO do not interact much with each other anyways, thats just human nature.

You and your ilk are so concerned about divsion, but TLM only parishes work in the few diocese that have allowed it, it is only rightful that those who prefer the old mass have their spiritual needs met. Again crusader I have no clue where you are coming from other than you drank too much from the modernist well and have been too taken in by the likes of I Shawn McIlhenny, Stephen Hand and company.

No, that’s not just “human nature”, that’s sad. It’s also something that can be avoided.

What “ilk” is that? The only thing I am certain of is that “TLM only traditionalists” do every bit as much harm to the Church as “progressive spirit of Vatican II” Catholics. Both are devisive extremes.

“Modernist.” That’s precisely the sort of devisive word I would expect to be used by a so-called “TLM only traditionalists.”

 

[JNB]

Crusader, FYI, most of the time I attend a parish that is Novus Ordo only, albiet similar to Assumption Grotto in Detroit, but I will defend people who honestly desire to worship with a TLM as long as they do not become schismatics and do not deny the validity of the NO. Most people who go to the TLM under the indult are like that, and just want to worship in a traditional manner.

Crusader, it is you that is being devisive. Again, I do not deny that some people who prefer the TLM say things they should not such as calling Rome evil, saying the Pope is not the Pope, denying the validity of the NO, but again they are in the minority, that said, it is you who is being divisive by forceing people who want to worship within the confines of a TLM together with people who do not. Would you also be the type that forces the parish I attend to rip away its altar rail, force people to stand for communion and use post 1960 hymns in the name of “unity”? Would you force St. Agnes in St. Paul MN to turn around its altar and rip away its rails in the name of “unity”? Again, both the parishes I have mentioned only use the current missal, but both parishes are almost as liturgically different from the typically celebrated NO as TLMs are.

Rome has allways recognized there are some divsions, that is why she allowed different liturguies that allready had been established for 200 years to exist with the Roman rite after Trent. Rome also allowed “ethnic” parishes to be established in the US 100 years ago. Do you think these people should have been forced to worship together in the name of unity? The largely Irish bishops in the US in the name of “unity” led about a million eastren europeans in the US to leave the Catholic church and join the schiamatic Polish National Catholic church, and in the name of “unity”, forced Latinizations of the Byzantine rite led to hundrds of thousands of these Catholics to become Eastren Orthodox Christians. The Polish National Catholic church schism only stopped growing is because the Bishops allowed more ethnic parishes, why should people who are attached to the TLM be treated with any less respect and dignity that the Polish community was?

So again Crusader, I do not know where you are coming from, you see to lack an understanding of recent church history, and you seem to want to force round pegs into square holes. Using your standards, again, trad leaning parishes that use the NO missal would be equally devisive.

 

[JNB]

Crusader:

What “ilk” is that? The only thing I am certain of is that “TLM only traditionalists” do every bit as much harm to the Church as “progressive spirit of Vatican II” Catholics. Both are devisive extremes.

."

Sorry but no. Aside from a volcal minority, trad Catholics built up, not tear down the church. I do not heard Trads denying dogmas and doctrines, I do not hear them crying for married and women priests, they do not skip confession for years at a time, they teach their children the core of their faith. To use a board example, most trads I know are like doegratias, who accept the Pope as the Pope, accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, and whose sincere desire is to worship in a traditional manner, if you want to deny them a full liturgical life that they deserve, then that is your problem.

 

[deogratias]

What “ilk” is that? The only thing I am certain of is that “TLM only traditionalists” do every bit as much harm to the Church as "progressive spirit

I said I would not reply to you again but you have distorted what the previous poster said.

but TLM only parishes work in the few diocese that have allowed it, it is only rightful that those who prefer the old mass have their spiritual needs met.

There is a great difference between TLM only parish - which is what the poster said and those radical traditionlists who say there should only be TL Mass and no NO Mass.

I don’t see many on this board any longer who are saying this. I accept the validity of the NOM as well as the TLM - I say they can co-exist in harmony - please don’t distort what people post.

On one thing I can agree and that is extremists on either side can be a problem - that SSPX and Call to Action indeed are both dissenters but so long as the Church allows the TLM, you should be as obedient about accepting that as you are about its other rules.

 

[Crusader]

JNB:

Sorry but no. Aside from a volcal minority, trad Catholics built up, not tear down the church. I do not heard Trads denying dogmas and doctrines, I do not hear them crying for married and women priests, they do not skip confession for years at a time, they teach their children the core of their faith. To use a board example, most trads I know are like doegratias, who accept the Pope as the Pope, accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, and whose sincere desire is to worship in a traditional manner, if you want to deny them a full liturgical life that they deserve, then that is your problem.

You are sadly mistaken. “Trads” (another new label) can be every bit as devisive and ultimately as destructive to the Church as the most “progressive spirit of Vatican II” Catholics. Both can be extremely heterodox.

What’s tragic is that many “trads” think they are ultra-orthodox when in fact are not. Many place their own ideals ahead of what the Church actually teaches. Traditionalism does not equate to orthodoxy in many (most?) cases.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

I said I would not reply to you again but you have distorted what the previous poster said.

There is a great difference between TLM only parish - which is what the poster said and those radical traditionlists who say there should only be TL Mass and no NO Mass.

I don’t see many on this board any longer who are saying this. I accept the validity of the NOM as well as the TLM - I say they can co-exist in harmony - please don’t distort what people post.

On one thing I can agree and that is extremists on either side can be a problem - that SSPX and Call to Action indeed are both dissenters but so long as the Church allows the TLM, you should be as obedient about accepting that as you are about its other rules.

Rightfully allowing the indult and championing “TLM only parishes” are two different things.

 

[deogratias]

Would you force St. Agnes in St. Paul MN

I know a man who swears he went to a TLM there - Not - and I think if this sort of NOM were available everywhere, not so many folks would be longing for the TLM -

But after attending that Mass at St. Agnes, he could no longer feel spiritually fulfilled at the abusive NOM that his particular parish celebrated. He then turned to the TLM.

One does have to wonder where we would all be spiritually today if the NOM was celebrated as intended and that the NOM as celebrated at St. Agnes and elsewhere were the norm,

I probably won’t live long enough to see it, but I suspect that it is not over yet and that there will be a reform of the NOM - not a return to the TLM but to a NOM that has less abuse, a return to at least some Latin and more consistency. I guess it will all depend on who next sits in Peter’s chair.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Crusader:

You are sadly mistaken. “Trads” (another new label) can be every bit as devisive and ultimately as destructive to the Church as the most “progressive spirit of Vatican II” Catholics. Both can be extremely heterodox.

What’s tragic is that many “trads” think they are ultra-orthodox when in fact are not. Many place their own ideals ahead of what the Church actually teaches. Traditionalism does not equate to orthodoxy in many (most?) cases.

Not most.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Crusader:

Rightfully allowing the indult and championing “TLM only parishes” are two different things.

Well, I guess you know more than our bishop.

 

[deogratias]

He knows more than anyone - or at least that is what he thinks. I suggest we just quit responding to his posts because we are talking to the wind.

 

[deogratias]

Well, I guess you know more than our bishop.

And more than Rome no doubt who totally approves of the FFSP and Institute of Christ the King -

I see the Bishop in St. Louis has invited Christ the King to have a parish there -

 

[deogratias]

Not most

Don’t you just love the way he throws around things like “most” and “many” without any documentation to back up his premise.

It’s like someone with no children trying to tell you how to raise kids - like they know more than those involved LOL

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

deogratias:

And more than Rome no doubt who totally approves of the FFSP and Institute of Christ the King -

I see the Bishop in St. Louis has invited Christ the King to have a parish there -

What!!! Another bishop being “devisive”!!!

(attempt at humor )

 

[deogratias]

humor appreciated.

 

[HagiaSophia]

And some of them are posters in forums methinks.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

I know a man who swears he went to a TLM there - Not - and I think if this sort of NOM were available everywhere, not so many folks would be longing for the TLM -

But after attending that Mass at St. Agnes, he could no longer feel spiritually fulfilled at the abusive NOM that his particular parish celebrated. He then turned to the TLM.

One does have to wonder where we would all be spiritually today if the NOM was celebrated as intended and that the NOM as celebrated at St. Agnes and elsewhere were the norm,

I probably won’t live long enough to see it, but I suspect that it is not over yet and that there will be a reform of the NOM - not a return to the TLM but to a NOM that has less abuse, a return to at least some Latin and more consistency. I guess it will all depend on who next sits in Peter’s chair.

Some old stuff. Suggesting the “TLM” as a panacea for an “abusive NOM.” Interesting how he did not find fulfillment at a non abusive Novus Ordo Mass.

The very first posting on this forum shows the “TLM” is not immune to liturgical abuse. That’s a fallacy that some people use as a foundation for their faith and it’s difficult to watch.

A “return” to a “NOM that has less abuse?” No need to change things or “return” – just enforce what already in place.

The Novus Ordo Mass is encouraged to include some Latin already. Watch EWTN for a prime example.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

Don’t you just love the way he throws around things like “most” and “many” without any documentation to back up his premise.

It’s like someone with no children trying to tell you how to raise kids - like they know more than those involved LOL

I’m still waiting for documentation that shows the so-called “Traditionalism” to be a recognized movement within the Church.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

He knows more than anyone - or at least that is what he thinks. I suggest we just quit responding to his posts because we are talking to the wind.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks as above shows something. An inability for one to make and/or defend their position.

 

[Crusader]

IrenkaJMJ:

Well, I guess you know more than our bishop.

Sadly, that could very well be the case.

 

[Crusader]

IrenkaJMJ:

Not most.

How do you know?

Most self-described “trads” (LOL! gotta love these labels) I know whine about a host of things that contravene what the Church actually teaches. A quick half dozen things to mind include:

That the Novus Ordo Mass is either invalid or “protestantized.” The Church says different.

The celebrant MUST face east during the Mass. The Church says otherwise.

They feel women MUST cover their heads in church. The Church says otherwise.

All altar servers MUST be male. The Church says otherwise.

No use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion under ANY circumstances. The Church says otherwise.

That one MUST receive Holy Communion on the tongue, rather than in one’s hand at Mass in the USA. The Church says otherwise.

Want me to list more?