What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[pnewton]

What was the heresy? What dogma of the faith was denied? The phrase “has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite” is too vague to be heresy, as fun as it is to throw the word around. Heresy requires a denial, a reversal, of a previous dogma. In such a case the dogma would be able to be clearly and specifically articulated. The denial would also be clearly and specifically articulated.

 

[ProVobis]

Sadly they are all too often erroneous too.

And you are infallible to make this claim?

 

[ProVobis]

What was the heresy? What dogma of the faith was denied? The phrase “has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite” is too vague to be heresy, as fun as it is to throw the word around. Heresy requires a denial, a reversal, of a previous dogma. In such a case the dogma would be able to be clearly and specifically articulated. The denial would also be clearly and specifically articulated.

PN, there was no denial in the documented definition per se, only an obvious major omission, perhaps intended, which left out the fact that the Mass was a Sacrifice, an omission which at the time was well accepted by the progressives and other Christian denominations.

 

[pnewton]

PN, there was no denial in the written definition per se, only a major omission which left out the fact that the Mass was a Sacrifice, an omission which at the time was well accepted by the progressives and other Christian denominations.

I guess that is the point. Heresy can not be by omission. By definition it is an active sin. I think the best the argument might make is that there was an attempt to mislead. A lesser point might be that it was imprudent. None of this is provable though and resides in the realm of opinion. I guess my own small opinion is that much that happened was imprudent, as it led to some poor results. Personally, I can accept that. I know hindsight is always better than foresight and the best of men still goof up sometimes.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess that is the point. Heresy can not be by omission. By definition it is an active sin. I think the best the argument might make is that there was an attempt to mislead. A lesser point might be that it was imprudent. None of this is provable though and resides in the realm of opinion. I guess my own small opinion is that much that happened was imprudent, as it led to some poor results. Personally, I can accept that. I know hindsight is always better than foresight and the best of men still goof up sometimes.

PN, you make some valid points. However, the definition of heresy has been refined through the years too. And certainly no one is burned at the stake or excommunicated for being a heretic anymore either; it doesn’t make them right though. Not to mention seriously putting into question the infallibility of the Pope in matters dealing with faith.

 

[stevusmagnus]

You can’t argue with logic like that!

Apparently you can’t.

 

[stevusmagnus]

What was heretical about it? It seems rather important to identify what it was if you’re going to make the claim.

I have to find the original definition. You can probably find it online. Don’t have time now.

 

[stevusmagnus]

The Roman Canon as we know it is no older then 590, Pope St. Gregory I.

The Roman Canon in the NO is an altered version from 69.

The original Canon goes back to apostolic times.

 

[stevusmagnus]

I think you’re referring to Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who pointed out the errors of the New Mass. The story is that the Pope changed his original definition but he didn’t make any adjustments to the text of the Mass which is what the criticism was about. In turn these two cardinals were criticized themselves for daring to stand up to the Pope.

I’m referring to the heretical definition of the Mass found in the original instruction of the NO.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the “Institutio Generalis” at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: “De structura Missae”:

“The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)”.
The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the “supper”, and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

 

[pnewton]

If we look beyond the arguements that get re-circulated in certain circles, let us look only at actual quote

“The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)”.

The part that would have been heresy would be:

None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence.

Yet these are the word of Cardinal Ottaniavni, not the actual document. The argument he makes is:

The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

It is an argument from absence. You may say in another one hundred posts that it is heresy. I will not accept it as such. When I see words such as “implicitly” and phrases like “at least in practice” I see a hedging of truth, that is, trying to make something exist in a vacuum. It is not the definition of heresy. This is the definition of heresy.

The obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (2089; cf. 465).

No denial equate to no heresy.

 

[Layman]

I think there’s the ‘official’ line and then here’s what actually happens in St. Peter and Paul’s on Sunday at 10am.

Depending on where you live on the planet you can have:

1. A Novus Ordo/O.F. in Latin, ad-orientem;
2. A Novus Ordo/O.F. in the local lingo;
3. A Novus Ordo/O.F. in the local lingo, with EMHCs, altar girls and droning hymns;
4. A Novus Ordo/O.F. in the local lingo, with EMHCs, altar girls and lively hymns with old ladies dancing around the altar;
5. A sung TLM.

**
2. 3 and 4. are odd changes to a sacred, sacrificial rite. **

I think the effect has been to **banalise the rite: **

It’s in the local lingo;
Your neighbours are up there in secular clothes;
The hymns are about 30 years old;
The altar rails are gone;
Maybe you’re in a modern, stripped-down church;
Mrs. Goodladay is handing the host into your hand …

***What’s sacred about that? ***

**Even the Lord’s Supper wasn’t a cheery event. **He knew what was going to happen to Him. His last meal with his friends on Earth and they were all going to let Him down. One was going to kiss him and then sell Him out. Then he would be tortured and killed, in a horrible manner. How terrible. How sad. How lonely.

I think the Roman Catholic Church has had something like what happens to men in their 40’s; a mid-life crisis. It’s wearing open-necked shirts and trying to ‘get down with the kids’. This will fail.

I see good in it, however. Modernism will wither and die as its adherents have no heirs. Modernist dioceses will close churches and merge parishes. The faithful remnant who need holiness in their lives will then pray for and sponsor pious priests.

This has been coming for a long time. Priests and lay-people who panted for greater populsim have got their way with ‘The People’s Mass’. You have a generation now who think they’re as good as saved while practicing contraception and breaking all of the Commandments. And why not? Because they never hear about Sin, Judgement and Hell any more.

And why not?

Because it’s hard to work notions like that into the ‘celebration’ of ‘The Lord’s Supper’.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Pnewton,

You can believe what you’d like but any definition of the Mass which makes no reference to a propitiatory sacrifice is heretical. A definition is supposed to explain what something is . The Mass at it’s heart is a propitiatory sacrifice.

Regardless, one can see that if the people had been “obedient” they would have had to accept this Protestant definition of Mass. Only because they refused to accept it was it changed. To hold up the new definition in support of the orthodoxy of the NO without mentioning that it had to be changed is misleading at best.

The worst part of this Protestant definition is that it betrays the true mindset of those who concocted the NO. They intended to create a Protestant communal meal. Bugnini even removed the Roman Canon. Paul VI had to put it back in as an option before it was promulgated.

Any Protestant can say EPII in English without a single qualm of conscience.

 

[Ockham]

So, it would seem that your opinion is trumped by the teachings of the Church Herself in it’s official writings.

The Church teaches many things the typical Novus Ordo Catholic ignores.

Words are one thing, actions another. The structure and delivery of the Novus Ordo is on communal meal instead of the TLM’s focus on Calvary.

Was the following teaching wrong?

Council of Trent, Session 22, Canons of the Sacrifice of the Mass, promulgated by Pope Pius IV in 1562:
Canon 7: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.”

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66 (1943):
“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae, par. 30 (1896):
“Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying’, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.”

“It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.”
–Pope Leo XIII, Instruction to the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, January 27, 1902; quoted by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, par. 55, 1907

 

[Ockham]

Protestants do a lot of things, and many of them not most of them. Depends on which end of the spectrum you stand. The early Mass was disjointed over two days; gradually filled out, and the OF is not a protestantization; it is a paring down of a lot of things that were tacked on over the centuries, and additions to the readings.

The direction of the ‘pairing down’ is towards the Protestant liturgy, therefore the OF is a protestantization of the Holy Mass.

 

[Ockham]

I have to clarify what I think is an urban legend here. This simply is not true. I was born bred and through and through Baptist. I know what I speak of when I speak at least of Baptist. While they have no conception of Sacramental theology, when Communion is being observed (as a symbol only), it is the Crucifixion that is the focal point: the suffering and death of our savior. I can still tell you the hymn we sang every time: At the Cross. “Alas and did my Savior bleed and did my Sovreign die. Would He devote that Sacred Head for sinners such as I?” There are many differences in Protestants, but it is a myth to think that the suffering of the cross is not a cental point.

Interesting. I thought Baptists spent all their time bashing Catholics (or is that just Southerners). While good to see they recognize the Sacrifice at the Cross it is still merely a symbol when they receive communion. Unfortunately the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics feel the same way. I see a correlation.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting. I thought Baptists spent all their time bashing Catholics (or is that just Southerners). While good to see they recognize the Sacrifice at the Cross it is still merely a symbol when they receive communion. Unfortunately the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics feel the same way. I see a correlation.

Hope this doesn’t offend pnewton, but the majority even seemed to approve Bill Clinton’s reception of communion from a Catholic priest.

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the original question…I don’t think the best way to promote the TLM is by argument. I think the best way to promote the TLM is to promote its uniqueness. You don’t have to say, “The TLM accomplishes such-and-so and the NO doesn’t.” You only have to say, “The TLM accomplishes such-and-so in a particular and irreplaceable way. This is why the TLM is no longer being suppressed: because it is a unique treasure.”

Once you find the woman you want to marry, you do not have to put down her sister in order to justify marrying her. You only have to know why you love the one you are marrying, the unique effect she has on you. You can say that no woman can approach your wife in loveliness and virtue. That is charming. The line is drawn, though, at making deprecating remarks about another man’s wife. He would be a cad if he did not come to her defense, even (and maybe especially) if your wife was obviously the superior woman.

In fact, the only thing that happens when you cross the line is that you seem a cad for attacking another man’s wife. The beauty of your ardor for your own wife is tarnished by your lack of respect for the other man’s wife. People then do not feel your wife lucky, but rather burdened, for having married you! The same holds true for patriotism, I believe.

I think the analogy applies, and is the reason that people who love the EF should bend over backwards not to put the OF down. Treasure the Mass you treasure, let everyone know why, but respect all rites of the Mass as the gift from God that they are. Do not ever risk giving the impression that irreverence is only what the OF deserves, but make it clear how it saddens you to see it when respect is not given to her, since every Mass is worthy of all reverence. Say that you wish every Catholic would give the Mass they love the reverence every Mass deserves, regardless of whether it is EF or OF. Promote that. Then you will be taken as worthy to speak before all in favor of the one you love, and your beloved will be counted fortunate, as well!

Oh, and the analogy works both ways. No one should ever think it does the OF service to put down the EF. It only displays ignorance and ingratitude.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, and the analogy works both ways.

 

[Indyann]

Back to the original question…I don’t think the best way to promote the TLM is by argument. I think the best way to promote the TLM is to promote its uniqueness. You don’t have to say, “The TLM accomplishes such-and-so and the NO doesn’t.” You only have to say, “The TLM accomplishes such-and-so in a particular and irreplaceable way. This is why the TLM is no longer being suppressed: because it is a unique treasure.”

Once you find the woman you want to marry, you do not have to put down her sister in order to justify marrying her. You only have to know why you love the one you are marrying, the unique effect she has on you. You can say that no woman can approach your wife in loveliness and virtue. That is charming. The line is drawn, though, at making deprecating remarks about another man’s wife. He would be a cad if he did not come to her defense, even (and maybe especially) if your wife was obviously the superior woman.

In fact, the only thing that happens when you cross the line is that you seem a cad for attacking another man’s wife. The beauty of your ardor for your own wife is tarnished by your lack of respect for the other man’s wife. People then do not feel your wife lucky, but rather burdened, for having married you! The same holds true for patriotism, I believe.

I think the analogy applies, and is the reason that people who love the EF should bend over backwards not to put the OF down. Treasure the Mass you treasure, let everyone know why, but respect all rites of the Mass as the gift from God that they are. Do not ever risk giving the impression that irreverence is only what the OF deserves, but make it clear how it saddens you to see it when respect is not given to her, since every Mass is worthy of all reverence. Say that you wish every Catholic would give the Mass they love the reverence every Mass deserves, regardless of whether it is EF or OF. Promote that. Then you will be taken as worthy to speak before all in favor of the one you love, and your beloved will be counted fortunate, as well!

Oh, and the analogy works both ways. No one should ever think it does the OF service to put down the EF. It only displays ignorance and ingratitude.

Beautifully said, Easter Joy.