What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tradboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lujack said:
I don’t think you should make your argument as the EF vs. the OF. I think you should simply make the argument that the EF should be there, and that you should argue this:

“This form of the Mass is a part of our history. It is a beautiful rite, it is deeply linked to the Catholicism of our parents and grandparents, and everyone should have the opportunity to experience it, and to attend it if you so choose. Even if you don’t plan to become a regular attendee of the Latin Mass, you should come at least once, to see what its like.”

Then you can elaborate on any aspect of it you find particularly impressive, spiritual or beautiful. That’s hard to argue against, and better yet, it won’t upset anybody who loves the OF Mass. They might even become interested in it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A little bit of Charity can go a very long way.
 
tradboy said:
I have been the main mover behind starting a TLM in my parish. We have a great group of people but we are struggling to grow.

What in your experience is the best argument to support the TLM?
Click to expand...
About a week and a half ago, I attended my first TLM and was hooked. I have since attended another, and plan to go again during the coming week. I’d go every day if I could, but the nearest TLM to where I live is almost 50 miles away. (Which is a huge improvement: until recently, the nearest ones were 300 miles away.)

Here are my thoughts on my first TLM, for what they are worth. They contain a few arguments for supporting the TLM.
 
Chatter163 said:
From the website of the Latin Liturgy Association:

The use of the Church’s traditional language of worship has the following important benefits:
  1. It is a sacral language, associated with the single, exalted purpose of the worship of God. The use of Latin in this way should not surprise us for a sacral language is a feature of all the major world religions: classical Arabic in Islam, Sanskrit in Hinduism and, of course, Hebrew in Judaism - the language in which Our Lord would have prayed.
  2. Latin helps us overcome limitations of time and place, and helps us participate in the universal reality of the Catholic Church, linking us with the generations who have worshiped before us.
  3. The use of Latin in all countries and across the centuries is a powerful symbol of the Church’s unity.
  4. The use of Latin enables also the use of the great liturgical music of the Church, particularly plainchant and polyphony. Vatican II said: “The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 114)
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, from a historical point of view Latin was the language of commerce in the HRE. Hebrew was the language of religion and Greek was very common, particularly in the arts.
 
tradboy said:
I have been the main mover behind starting a TLM in my parish. We have a great group of people but we are struggling to grow.

What in your experience is the best argument to support the TLM?
Click to expand...
I’m curious and I don’t mean this rhetorically. How would you view a group in your parish who pushed the OF? A group that communicated what they believed are the betterments of the OF?

It seems like to promote the EF for the most part, you’re going to have to match it with the OF and then suggest it is somehow better?
 
ChurchTorch said:
I’m curious and I don’t mean this rhetorically. How would you view a group in your parish who pushed the OF? A group that communicated what they believed are the betterments of the OF?
Click to expand...
Seems to me it’s a non-argument. The fact of the matter is that “regular parishes” are, by default, OF, so what need is there to “push” or “promote” the OF? :confused: Now, one thing that might happen in a “regular” OF parish, though, is for a group to to push for the “reform of the reform” of the OF. (It’s not likely but it could happen.)

The few EF-only parishes are (for the most part, at least) “personal parishes” and are established that way on purpose. There are plenty of “regular” parishes for people who prefer the OF.
ChurchTorch said:
It seems like to promote the EF for the most part, you’re going to have to match it with the OF and then suggest it is somehow better?
Click to expand...
I will not get into the argument of which one is “better” but the EF is the EF. One very important way it can be compared to the OF is the difference in focus (i.e., vertical rather than horizontal).
 
ChurchTorch said:
If I understand correctly, from a historical point of view Latin was the language of commerce in the HRE. Hebrew was the language of religion and Greek was very common, particularly in the arts.
Click to expand...
The HRE? Isn’t that the Holy Roman Empire? That didn’t even exist until 800 AD (at its earliest reckoning). :confused:

In the Roman Empire, yes, Latin was generally used for commerce, and Greek was the language of the educated. Hebrew was only used by cohenim (priests) and rabbis and, to an extent, in synagogues (particularly when reading Scripture). The spoken tongue in Palestine at the time is usually referred to as Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic, which is not Hebrew but is also a Semitic language. (Certain Jewish prayers are in that language, as are certain parts of Scripture.)
 
ChurchTorch said:
I’m curious and I don’t mean this rhetorically. How would you view a group in your parish who pushed the OF? A group that communicated what they believed are the betterments of the OF?

It seems like to promote the EF for the most part, you’re going to have to match it with the OF and then suggest it is somehow better?
Click to expand...
I don’t think one has to do that. I mean, look, let’s say the parish holds three Masses on Sunday and a vigil (that’s not unusual, at least not in my experience; my current parish holds four on Sunday mornings, and a vigil on Saturday). The only argument that has to be made is that the EF is worth having, independent of any comparisons to the ordinary form. There will still be two Sunday morning Masses in the Ordinary Form. The argument doesn’t have to focus on anything but what a Tridentine Mass can bring to the table.
 
ChurchTorch said:
If I understand correctly, from a historical point of view Latin was the language of commerce in the HRE. Hebrew was the language of religion and Greek was very common, particularly in the arts.
Click to expand...
Latin is now a defunct language. It can attract no vulgar, modern connotations, unlike the vernacular. It’s a simple language and musical, thus it it is excellent for religious use. Crazy to drop it.
 
At_Trent said:
Single best argument I can make is it’s novelty proof, having it’s strict rubrics, and it builds Faith. You could also point out how H.H Paul IV wept after realizing what he had signed without reading.
Click to expand...
“Novelty proof?” That’s simply not true. When we hear about the abuses that take place in the OF it’s because the rubrics of the OF were IGNORED. The rubrics of the EF can be IGNORED as well.

“Builds Faith?” The EF doesn’t “build Faith” any more or less than the OF.

“H.H Paul IV wept after realizing what he had signed without reading?” That’s ridiculous …

The only reason I am responding is that if someone tried to use that “argument” on me, it might well dissuade me from attending the EF, particularly if others there were trying to make the same “argument.”

Be careful not to turn off the critical-thinkers, the very people who might well be attracted to the EF but will not stand for such nonsense.
 
Lujack said:
I don’t think one has to do that. I mean, look, let’s say the parish holds three Masses on Sunday and a vigil (that’s not unusual, at least not in my experience; my current parish holds four on Sunday mornings, and a vigil on Saturday). The only argument that has to be made is that the EF is worth having, independent of any comparisons to the ordinary form. There will still be two Sunday morning Masses in the Ordinary Form. The argument doesn’t have to focus on anything but what a Tridentine Mass can bring to the table.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Comparisons are counterproductive in this case.

The EF is not worth having if there is little or no demand and it impinges on the faithful.

The schedule you note is very common. Let’s say those 4 Masses are pretty full right now. And by some constraint (either facility or priest availability) they cannot add another Mass. If that were the case and if there is little demand for the EF from the people who already attend those 4 Masses (in other words they want to attend the OF), it wouldn’t be right to switch one over to the EF.

That’s sort of the situation at my parish. We have several Masses every Sunday and they are fairly full. There is very little demand for the EF (ascertained by polling.) The correct decision was made not to switch any of the existing Masses over to the EF. Those that want to attend the EF must travel about 8 miles.

Still, some people (maybe half a dozen) were very bitter and vocal about the decision.
 
ChurchTorch said:
You’re right. Comparisons are counterproductive in this case.

The EF is not worth having if there is little or no demand and it impinges on the faithful.
Click to expand...
I probably know what was meant, but the wording is poor, bordering on the offensive. Whether people appreciate the traditional form is one thing, but the EF can never “impinge” on the faithful. It is Holy Mass.
ChurchTorch said:
The schedule you note is very common. Let’s say those 4 Masses are pretty full right now. And by some constraint (either facility or priest availability) they cannot add another Mass. If that were the case and if there is little demand for the EF from the people who already attend those 4 Masses (in other words they want to attend the OF), it wouldn’t be right to switch one over to the EF.

That’s sort of the situation at my parish. We have several Masses every Sunday and they are fairly full. There is very little demand for the EF (ascertained by polling.) The correct decision was made not to switch any of the existing Masses over to the EF.
Click to expand...
The “correct decision?” The idea is catechesis. If the EF is not available, many of the faithful will never be exposed to it. If they were, they might actually learn to appreciate it. But, if people are not exposed to it, they will never learn to appreciate it. (For example, a lot of people think the idea of eating sushi is disgusting. (Eech, raw fish!) But, once they try it, many people become afficiandos.)

And if people have to go through hoops to find the EF, (even driving 8 might is a hurdle for some people) most won’t bother. For some, it’s the complacency thing. For others it may be that they don’t have transportation.
ChurchTorch said:
Those that want to attend the EF must travel about 8 miles.

Still, some people (maybe half a dozen) were very bitter and vocal about the decision.
Click to expand...
And FWIW, I would have been among those who were displeased about that decision.
 
Arguments for the TLM:
  • It’s quieter and it induces quiet in the congregation;
  • The prayers and hymns are beautiful;
  • There are fewer distractions: Everyone is the sanctuary is vested and facing ad-orientem or to the side most of the time;
  • It’s less social. You feel you don’t have to greet people there;
  • Much less likelihood of personal innovations by participants. You can relax;
  • Fewer responses from the congregation. You can collect your thoughts;
  • A sense of Something Important Happening;
 
Lujack said:
I don’t think you should make your argument as the EF vs. the OF. I think you should simply make the argument that the EF should be there, and that you should argue this:

“This form of the Mass is a part of our history. It is a beautiful rite, it is deeply linked to the Catholicism of our parents and grandparents, and everyone should have the opportunity to experience it, and to attend it if you so choose. Even if you don’t plan to become a regular attendee of the Latin Mass, you should come at least once, to see what its like.”

Then you can elaborate on any aspect of it you find particularly impressive, spiritual or beautiful. That’s hard to argue against, and better yet, it won’t upset anybody who loves the OF Mass. They might even become interested in it.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent strategy; don’t argue on how bad the OF is or may be or whatever, simply make the case for the TLM to be included *as well as *the OF in a parish’s weekend Mass schedule. Appeal to the pastor’s sense of Catholic tradition and how wonderful it would be if the Mass our parents and grandparents and recent ancestors who brought the Faith with them from Europe worshiped the Lord with the TLM, and use similar approaches. Play up the positive aspects of the TLM without touching on comparisons with the OF - this can advertise and spark interest in the TLM without looking like you’re attacking the OF.

The next best thing to having the TLM alone is to have the TLM offered as often as the OF, at least on weekends. That gets it in the door and gives the people a chance to see what it’s like. Serious interest can skyrocket from there.
 
Layman said:
Arguments for the TLM:
  • It’s quieter and it induces quiet in the congregation;
  • The prayers and hymns are beautiful;
  • There are fewer distractions: Everyone is the sanctuary is vested and facing ad-orientem or to the side most of the time;
  • It’s less social. You feel you don’t have to greet people there;
  • Much less likelihood of personal innovations by participants. You can relax;
  • Fewer responses from the congregation. You can collect your thoughts;
  • A sense of Something Important Happening;
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true.
So are the OF’s.
Not necessarily true.
That’s too bad. It’s also not necessarily true. Relax? You’re on edge to begin with?
Not necessarily true.
What?
Same at the OF – the miracle of miracles.
 
malphono said:
I probably know what was meant, but the wording is poor, bordering on the offensive. Whether people appreciate the traditional form is one thing, but the EF can never “impinge” on the faithful. It is Holy Mass.
Click to expand...
It impinges when a large number desire the OF and they have to settle for the EF because of the demands of a handful.
malphono said:
The “correct decision?” The idea is catechesis. If the EF is not available, many of the faithful will never be exposed to it. If they were, they might actually learn to appreciate it. But, if people are not exposed to it, they will never learn to appreciate it. (For example, a lot of people think the idea of eating sushi is disgusting. (Eech, raw fish!) But, once they try it, many people become afficiandos.)
Click to expand...
No, the idea is nourishment at the foot of Calvary.
malphono said:
And if people have to go through hoops to find the EF, (even driving 8 might is a hurdle for some people) most won’t bother. For some, it’s the complacency thing. For others it may be that they don’t have transportation.
Click to expand...
A toughie indeed.
malphono said:
And FWIW, I would have been among those who were displeased about that decision.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
ChurchTorch said:
What?
Click to expand...
I think what the poster meant by this one is that there is a lot of chatter at the NO, whether it is myriad lay people moving in and out of the sanctuary for one reason or another to address their peers, or the required talking and answers in the NO that are often answered by the choir in the TLM (or are simply just not part of the traditional mass).
 
ChurchTorch said:
It impinges when a large number desire the OF and they have to settle for the EF because of the demands of a handful.
Click to expand...
People would have to “settle” for the EF? Funny, thing: when some (perhaps overly zealous) posters have said “settle for the OF” (or words to that effect), the proponents of the OF consistently jump down their throats for denigrating it. :hmmm: Anyway, the word “impinge” is still very much out of place. Whether one likes it or not, the EF is Holy Mass.
ChurchTorch said:
No, the idea is nourishment at the foot of Calvary.
Click to expand...
The implication there is that somehow the EF is not. That goes beyond offensive. Whether one likes it or not, the EF is Holy Mass.
ChurchTorch said:
Be careful not to turn off the critical-thinkers, the very people who might well be attracted to the EF but will not stand for such nonsense.
Click to expand...
It seems clear that the EF is of no interest to you. No reason to continue on this particular carousel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top