To the clerics that are against the TLM

[Caveman]

Why are the bishops against it? They probably read the T.C. forum at Catholic Answers and noted that many of the TLM-ers are waaaay too divisive to unity. As I echoed Ncjohn’s feelings previously, though you many not wish to hear it, some traditionists have become their own worst enemy.

The Introduction of SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS states:

And who was it exactly who used the phrases “ignorant and bigoted rednecks”?

Suuuuuuure Rykell, tell me all about being divisive to unity. Your words ring hollow. If this is your example of Catholicism… I’ll happily pass.

Hugs and kisses all around,
The Caveman

 

[Caveman]

When you say “pound sand”, what exactly was the response in the letter? If it said, “Thank you for your concern”, “we’ll handle it”, “you’ve misunderstood”, etc., they’ve brought doubt to your claims. If you videotape the lay homilist, the berating of Pope John, etc. then there is no wiggle room. BTW, when we sent copies of letters from priests they were letters not to us. They were letters from the priests to dissident organizations/people saying things like the dissidents were just fine in there dissent, etc. It wasn’t us quibbling with them over what they said. It was dissent in a letter. Not only that, it was a hefty compilation of irrefutable evidence. Not just a single instance. If your letters were like this then I’d suggest taking you video camera to the local dissenting hotspot and collecting more evidence and putting that and these original letters on a CD. In fact, if you put the word out and you live in a diocese such as LA then you’d probably have enough to fill more than one CD.

It would be innappropriate to give word-for-word responses on this forum. Let’s suffice it to say thatthe two priests in question stated in essence “I’ll run the Mass and my parish as I see fit”, and the bishop supported them. On that, you’re going to have to take my word for it. Like I said… word-for-word would be HIGHLY innappropriate on a forum such as this

 

[Caveman]

While I can’t speak to the exact motivation of more “progressive” French and German Bishop’s, I think there is room for other motivation among Bishop’s in general.

It may not be hatred or fear. It may simply be their belief that it is unimportant and is only desired by a few vocal individuals. They may also believe (perhaps correctly) that such a move would be confusing for their largely un-catechized faithful.

I live in an orthodox parish with an orthodox liturgy. Our fairly young pastor intends on starting a NO in Latin perhaps once a week or once a month. I asked him if he had ever thought of starting a TLM. He indicated that no one had ever asked him about it and he did not see much of a demand within his parish. He is not against it. He could maybe see doing something like that down the road. He doesn’t fear it or hate it. He just doesn’t see a need for it in the parish right now. In light of everything else he is doing in the parish, I am inclined to trust his judgement.

Similarly, I believe there are Bishop’s who perhaps feel the same way. This is not to say that there are not Bishop’s who dislike the TLM or view it as a “political” hot-button. There certainly are. But, there are other Bishop’s who may have the same opinion as my pastor and I think we ought to respect that. I think it is good to note that the reputation of groups like the SSPX have in some ways hurt the spread of the TLM. There are probably some fairly good Bishop’s who automatically associate the TLM with dissent and disobedience which is definitely unfortunate. In this sense, they may “fear” the TLM because they may fear that the TLM may prove to be a breeding ground for schismatic attitudes.

Overall, I believe there are Bishop’s who fear or hate the TLM but I believe there are also some who (whether mistakenly or not) simply see it as unimportant within their jurisdiction.

Needless to say, many things you’ve written that I disagree with.

And all that aside, I asked a straightforward question, and you gave me a straightforward answer.

And for that HAM, I sincerely thank you. I honestly did enjoy reading your response.

Pax tecum, frate.

 

[Ham1]

Needless to say, many things you’ve written that I disagree with.

And all that aside, I asked a straightforward question, and you gave me a straightforward answer.

And for that HAM, I sincerely thank you. I honestly did enjoy reading your response.

Pax tecum, frate.

Thanks…what part(s) do you disagree with?

 

[bear06]

It would be innappropriate to give word-for-word responses on this forum. Let’s suffice it to say thatthe two priests in question stated in essence “I’ll run the Mass and my parish as I see fit”, and the bishop supported them. On that, you’re going to have to take my word for it. Like I said… word-for-word would be HIGHLY innappropriate on a forum such as this

Why would it be highly inappropriate? You’ve already told us what they did. We don’t have to hear any names or profanity if that’s contained in it. People print the abuses everyday with no names.

 

[Caveman]

Thanks…what part(s) do you disagree with?

That’s a can of worms I’m not going to open up!! LOL!! There’s been enough deviation on this thread!

Feel free to PM me

 

[Caveman]

Why would it be highly inappropriate? You’ve already told us what they did. We don’t have to hear any names or profanity if that’s contained in it. People print the abuses everyday with no names.

I’m of the opinion that it would be too easy to track back to the priests and bishop (who has since retired) in question. My concerns were/are with them, the Apaostolic Nuncio, and the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

I’d like to leave it there. Please respect my decision. Thanks!

 

[paramedicgirl]

When you say “pound sand”, what exactly was the response in the letter? If it said, “Thank you for your concern”, “we’ll handle it”, “you’ve misunderstood”, etc., they’ve brought doubt to your claims. If you videotape the lay homilist, the berating of Pope John, etc. then there is no wiggle room. BTW, when we sent copies of letters from priests they were letters not to us. They were letters from the priests to dissident organizations/people saying things like the dissidents were just fine in there dissent, etc. It wasn’t us quibbling with them over what they said. It was dissent in a letter. Not only that, it was a hefty compilation of irrefutable evidence. Not just a single instance. If your letters were like this then I’d suggest taking you video camera to the local dissenting hotspot and collecting more evidence and putting that and these original letters on a CD. In fact, if you put the word out and you live in a diocese such as LA then you’d probably have enough to fill more than one CD.

Bear does have a good point here about providing video taped footage to prove the abuses. In the thread on Mass, Mahony Style, the woman who taped the video came on the thread here and said this:

My friend talked to a secretary at the Papal Nuncio office, The Papal Nucio said that The Authorites at The Vatican want to see the laity outrage about the Liturgical abuses.They want us to take video and pictures, write letters, email, but video is what they like the best the secretary said. So when a particular bishop is called in. The Vatican Authorities have hard evidence of the particular abuse.

Letters are good too, but video taping provides evidence they can’t really deny.

 

[John_Higgins]

paramedicgirl:

…when God deserves more

PG, you’re operating under the flawed assumption that Latin is somehow better in God’s eyes than the vernacular. Where do you get that concept?

Of course God deserves all we can give him. But he really can understand us whether it’s Agnus Dei, Agnello di Dio, or Lamb of God.

John

 

[paramedicgirl]

PG, you’re operating under the flawed assumption that Latin is somehow better in God’s eyes than the vernacular. Where do you get that concept?

Of course God deserves all we can give him. But he really can understand us whether it’s Agnus Dei, Agnello di Dio, or Lamb of God.

John

Thanks John for telling me how I’m operating and what I’m assuming. You must not have read my follow up post.

I was talking about preserving the beautiful traditions of the Church that we have used to praise God with for centuries, rather than tossing them out and having them vanish. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear…

 

[John_Higgins]

PG,

Do you think that somehow Latin is a better language in the eyes of God than English, Irish, or Italian?

John

 

[paramedicgirl]

PG,

Do you think that somehow Latin is a better language in the eyes of God than English, Irish, or Italian?

John

Your words, not mine. Why would you even ask me that?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

**

More and more talk about the freeing of the Tridentine Mass. More and more whining and crying from some of the more liberal bishops of France, Germany, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.

As I’ve stated many a time in the past, I’ve come to the conclusion that these liberal bishops are so dead-set against the Tridentine Mass because either;

I agree with you but go further and say that they are afraid and hate it.

With the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass, the conciliar Mass will disappear of itself." In other words, eventually the faithful will realize what an absolute watering-down of Catholicism the New Mass is, and eventually, it’ll die on the vine. Agree, disagree or indifferent to what Fr Schmidberger said… that’s irrelevant. At least he had the guts to let the world know where he stands.

No doubt.

Now when it comes to the ultra-liberal, Modernist, “Spirit of Vatican II” bishops… why don’t they have the same guts as Fr. Schmidberger?

Excellent question.

We’re absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Catholics will reject the Latin Mass because of it’s lack of tambourines, bongos, hand holding, feel good spirit, arm raising, shaking hands during The Sign of Grope, fast-food gingle hymns, spontaneous applause, chewing gum while taking Communion, self-worship, etc

.

Most do not realize the gravity of their situation, that being the Protestantization of the Most Holy Mass (and Protestantization of the Catholic Church). If this is not evident to you initially, please by all means attend a protestant mass and let this thread know of your experience. How different, or should I say, how similar they may tend to be.

OK, all joking aside… if the rabid anti-Latin Mass crowd is so cock-sure that the Mass of Paul VI is where it’s at, then I challenge 'em to pony up and put their money where their mouth is.

Word to that. I second the motion and reiterate the Challenge to All.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.**

 

[SFH]

More and more talk about the freeing of the Tridentine Mass. More and more whining and crying from some of the more liberal bishops of France, Germany, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.

As I’ve stated many a time in the past, I’ve come to the conclusion that these liberal bishops are so dead-set against the Tridentine Mass because either;

1. They hate it
   or
2. They’re afraid of it.

I can’t come to any other conclusion.

But anyhow, I remember reading sometime back that Fr. Franz Schmidberger, first Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, was asked if the SSPX would demand the abolition of the New Mass.

He stated; “We do not demand the abolition of the conciliar Mass at first. With the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass, the conciliar Mass will disappear of itself.” In other words, eventually the faithful will realize what an absolute watering-down of Catholicism the New Mass is, and eventually, it’ll die on the vine. Agree, disagree or indifferent to what Fr Schmidberger said… that’s irrelevant. At least he had the guts to let the world know where he stands.

Now when it comes to the ultra-liberal, Modernist, “Spirit of Vatican II” bishops… why don’t they have the same guts as Fr. Schmidberger?

Why don’t they just call the pope’s bluff? Why don’t they just come out and say "we believe that the Tridentine is just for dinosaurs and a very small minority of cranks. If The Holy Father wants to liberalize the Latin Mass… then go right ahead! We’re absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Catholics will reject the Latin Mass because of it’s lack of tambourines, bongos, hand holding, feel good spirit, arm raising, shaking hands during The Sign of Grope, fast-food gingle hymns, spontaneous applause, chewing gum while taking Communion, self-worship, etc.

OK, all joking aside… if the rabid anti-Latin Mass crowd is so cock-sure that the Mass of Paul VI is where it’s at, then I challenge 'em to pony up and put their money where their mouth is.

But I doubt they will.

I’ve often wondered if the bishops opposition isn’t tied to money in some way. We used to have three approved scriptural translations to be read at Mass – Jerusalem Bible, RSV, and NAB. Now, only the NAB is permitted. Guess who owns the copyright on the NAB and guess who doesn’t own the copyright on the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV?

I think there’s a similar issue going on with the Novus Ordo. All those translations into the vernacular get copyrighted and generate some big bucks for the bishops. If you went back to the Latin Mass, they wouldn’t get the royalty fees from all the copyrighted material.

 

[Uxor]

.

God, and Jesus, made it very clear what they desire: “What I desire is mercy, not sacrifice”. It is the intent and devotion in our hearts, and how we manifest that to each other, that God is looking for rather than the external trappings–the burnt offerings–that we would rather give Him because it’s much easier for us than turning over our hearts or expending the effort to see to the wellbeing of the “widows, orphans, and strangers” among us.

Peace,

What you are referring to is outward Sacrifice not done with the heart.

Priests, Nuns, Contemplatives, parents etc. is a life of sacrifice.

 

[BobP123]

I’ve often wondered if the bishops opposition isn’t tied to money in some way. We used to have three approved scriptural translations to be read at Mass – Jerusalem Bible, RSV, and NAB. Now, only the NAB is permitted. Guess who owns the copyright on the NAB and guess who doesn’t own the copyright on the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV?

I think there’s a similar issue going on with the Novus Ordo. All those translations into the vernacular get copyrighted and generate some big bucks for the bishops. If you went back to the Latin Mass, they wouldn’t get the royalty fees from all the copyrighted material.

Methinks you’re onto something here. As most copyright laws expire after 27(?) years unless the author renews the copyright (which most don’t), songs and such become public domain. Thus much of the pre-Vatican II stuff has become public domain which means anyone can copy those old hymnals and other texts. Not much money there.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

PG, you’re operating under the flawed assumption that Latin is somehow better in God’s eyes than the vernacular. Where do you get that concept?

Of course God deserves all we can give him. But he really can understand us whether it’s Agnus Dei, Agnello di Dio, or Lamb of God.

John

I would agree with you here, if the Novus Ordo Mass was the same as the Tridentine Mass. They are not the same. A better question to you is why not in Latin as it was used by so many for so long? Surely it is not because language is a barrier, for that would not hold true for most of the worlds populace, where it is the norm to read, write, and speak more than just one language (Europe, Africa, Asia, South America to name a few). Another question to you, why not a standardized language such Latin, in that way the mass is the same no matter where you are on earth? It seems to work for other religions such as Islam, which happens to be the fastest growing religion, where Arabic is the standard language. Also Hinduism, the oldest religion, enjoys Sanskrit as the official sacred language of their faith.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

 

[Ham1]

That’s a can of worms I’m not going to open up!! LOL!! There’s been enough deviation on this thread!

Feel free to PM me

I thought you started this thread to debate the subject??? Or was it just to post your question and see different answers?

 

[BobP123]

Why are the bishops against it? They probably read the T.C. forum at Catholic Answers and noted that many of the TLM-ers are waaaay too divisive to unity. As I echoed Ncjohn’s feelings previously, though you many not wish to hear it, some traditionists have become their own worst enemy.

LOL. This message board wasn’t around in 1988 when they set up Lefebrve after the TLM had been officially allowed after 1984.

The Introduction of SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS states:The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.

Like a sunken treasure chest in the middle of the Pacific, there just HAS to be something there worth getting. Poor analogy, I know. And I shouldn’t laugh at this attempt to get things right. Not to mention the frustration of this Tower of Babel called the vernacular Mass.

 

[BobP123]

A further thought on the entire matter.

It really doesn’t make sense that the majority of bishops are opposed to the TLM. After all, they voted Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, at least the Cardinals did, knowing fully well that he was a strong and active supporter of the TLM. Why would they have voted him into the Papacy if they were so anti-TLM?