What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[stevusmagnus]

“On August 7, 2009, bishop Raymond Lahey announced that the diocese of Antigonish had reached a $15 million settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by victims of sexual abuse by diocese priests dating to 1950”

This is just one example in Canada, So in this case your sarcasm generator failed, as abuses took place well before the Novus Ordo. Blaming sexual abuse scandals on a valid form of Mass isn’t just a strawman argument, but also smacks of ignorance. And we won’t even talk about the middle ages and the heresies involved within, plus other items that have happened throughout the history of the Church.

During the 1950’s you began to see the cracks in the foundation which later exploded after VCII. The modernists were driven underground by Pius X and stayed there, beginning to come to the surface during Pius XII and then “came out” under the “benevolent” John XXIII.

To quote one example of a priest abusing children in the 1950’s and then equate it to the hundreds of thousands of abuse cases from the 1960’s and beyond is the real strawman.

I’m not blaming the entire sex abuse crisis on the Novus Ordo Mass, but the whole enchilada. Modernism allowed to explode through the Church via the Vatican II reforms of which the Novus Ordo was a very important part. And the sex abuse crisis and devolution of morality is only one of the legion bad fruits of VCII.

As far as the Novus Ordo goes, the absolute abdication of Rome allowing any and all deviations and abuses coupled with horrid vernacular translations and caving in to dissent practices (CITH, girl altar boys, rock Mass) has lead to a wide-scale loss of faith the Church has never before seen. The evidence is overwhelming.

The heretics used to be outside the Church, condemned by the Pope and Bishops. Now the heretics are INSIDE the Church and in “good standing” and preaching their heresy openly as the Pope allows it.

 

[Timothysis]

The heretics used to be outside the Church, condemned by the Pope and Bishops. Now the heretics are INSIDE the Church and in “good standing” and preaching their heresy openly as the Pope allows it.

You accuse the pope, the bishops and the priesthood of the Church of being heretics INSIDE the Church; so what does that make you? A heretic? A schismatic? A sede? What???

 

[ProVobis]

So in this case your sarcasm generator failed, as abuses took place well before the Novus Ordo.

Is the issue one of the actual abuses? Or is it the unpunished coverup of them? I’m sure you can trace abuses all the way back to the Apostles.

 

[stevusmagnus]

You accuse the pope, the bishops and the priesthood of the Church of being heretics INSIDE the Church; so what does that make you? A heretic? A schismatic? A sede? What???

I never accused the Pope of being a heretic. I stated that he allows his Bishops and priests to preach heresy, error, heterodoxy, etc. and get away with egregious liturgical abuses with nary a peep.

The fact that we have a fifth column of modernist clergy and prelates is not news. Where have you been recently?

 

[stevusmagnus]

Exactly, and its also worth mentioning that a large percentage of those priests who are/were involved in the sex scandals were ordained before Vatican II.

Firstly, cite statistics to back this up.

Secondly it is irrelevant when these clergy were ordained because they all went along with VCII in the end. The overwhelming number of abuse cases happened in or after the mid-60’s.

A more accurate measure would be to compare sex abuse rates among those clergy who stuck to the TLM only plus the Society and compare them to the abuse rates of Catholic Priests in the Conciliar Church. It’s not even a contest.

 

[At_Trent]

The best arguments for the TLM are found in web forum threads with TLM in the title.

 

[Layman]

What was different after Vat. II was the attitude of the hierarchy to such cases. Before it, I understand, canon law was enforced. Afterwards, it was not. ‘Therapy’ was tried instead.

1969/Vat. II is an artificial cut-off point. Modernism didn’t begin then. Changes were well underway before then e.g. the 1955 Bugnini Missal.

Drastic change makes further change seem tolerable. Obedience enforces acceptance. The only one’s who don’t have to be obedient nowadays are bishops. Post Vat. II, Bishops got more power and priests, parish priests and the Pope had less. They have reaped what they’ve sown.

 

[Ockham]

I never accused the Pope of being a heretic. I stated that he allows his Bishops and priests to preach heresy, error, heterodoxy, etc. and get away with egregious liturgical abuses with nary a peep.

The fact that we have a fifth column of modernist clergy and prelates is not news. Where have you been recently?

Sometimes I think the pope is like a quarterback: too much credit when you win and too much blame when you lose. Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, yet how many Catholics sitting in the pews on Sunday are on contraception? He ordered against CITH yet it continued anyway to the degree that it’s the norm in the West. Pope Benedict XVI tried to consecrate a ‘conservative’ bishop in Holland yet the liberal majority bishops there threatened schism so he recanted.

While true that certain clergy are Catholic in name only, I think more responsibility should be placed on the laity. As faithful Catholics we have a duty to ensure a proper Catholic Church in our parishes. If more of us raised hell when the altar rails were ripped out and the ‘wreckovation’ of the churches maybe we’d still have them. The martyr saints demand such respect for the institution they died for.

Sadly most Catholics vote with their feet and just stay home on Sunday. That’s another good argument for the TLM - the majority of Catholics don’t go to the OF anymore.

 

[ProVobis]

What was different after Vat. II was the attitude of the hierarchy to such cases. Before it, I understand, canon law was enforced. Afterwards, it was not. ‘Therapy’ was tried instead.

I agree. There was a much more relaxed atmosphere about mortal sin in general after Vatican II; in fact, there is very little mention of the term in the new catechism. So is it surprising that priests were no longer being punished for abusing young kids?

Did you see the movie “Doubt”? I think this woke a lot of people up.

 

[ProVobis]

If more of us raised hell when the altar rails were ripped out and the ‘wreckovation’ of the churches maybe we’d still have them. The martyr saints demand such respect for the institution they died for.

Yes. But it was a sin to question the authority of the Church in all matters. And the only ones who took this sin seriously were the ones who continued to be “obedient,” the very people who continued to give and encourage the Church to continue all kinds of abuses: liturgical, sexual, coverups, property, etc.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Sometimes I think the pope is like a quarterback: too much credit when you win and too much blame when you lose. Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, yet how many Catholics sitting in the pews on Sunday are on contraception? He ordered against CITH yet it continued anyway to the degree that it’s the norm in the West. Pope Benedict XVI tried to consecrate a ‘conservative’ bishop in Holland yet the liberal majority bishops there threatened schism so he recanted.

While true that certain clergy are Catholic in name only, I think more responsibility should be placed on the laity. As faithful Catholics we have a duty to ensure a proper Catholic Church in our parishes. If more of us raised hell when the altar rails were ripped out and the ‘wreckovation’ of the churches maybe we’d still have them. The martyr saints demand such respect for the institution they died for.

Sadly most Catholics vote with their feet and just stay home on Sunday. That’s another good argument for the TLM - the majority of Catholics don’t go to the OF anymore.

Ockham, I agree with you that since the Council it was (and still is) the liberal laity/ priests bishops who are calling the shots from the ground up and who have pressured the Vatican to cave on CITH/ Girl Altar Boys/ and all sorts of other madness. They have done this through widespread disobedience and ignoring anything from Rome.

The answer though, is NOT to accept the liberal principle that change happens from the ground up in the Church and that the Church is some sort of “democracy”. If so we will fight a never-ending and losing battle. The liberals pushed for this in their notion of “collegiality” enshrined in VCII. They would have the Bishops as almost co-equal to the Pope! The fruits of this can be seen in the fact that a lot of Bishops are still refusing to implement SP in their dioceses.

The answer is to REJECT this notion of bottom-up governance altogether and RESTORE the Christ-given model of a hierarchical authority in the Church. These problems were caused by weak Pontiffs in attempts to exercise a sincere but misguided “mercy” to these heretics. If Paul VI from the beginning had used the powers at his disposal to discipline these liberals, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are. Instead he was a prisoner of his own “collegiality” and “mercy”.

Just like a weak teacher in a classroom the kids began to push the limits and when they saw what they could get away with they ran wild over him. The Pope needs to take back control of the Church and start putting heads to bed. This is hopefully part of the fruit that will come from the discussions with the Society. The Pope needs to reclaim his full power, “collegiality” be damned!

 

[otjm]

TLM has produced countless Saints, martyrs, vocations, beautiful and priceless architecture, music, art, conversions, increased holiness, miracles, and vast spread of the Faith.

The Novus Ordo has produced widespread loss of faith, Catholics leaving the Church, lack of vocations, lack of reverence, sex abuse scandals, ugly churches, art, and music and countless heresies and errors.

Oh, and this.

You make a wide swath of accusations against the OF; however, the majority of your accusations are simply post hoc, ergo propter hoc statements with no foundation other than they occured after the OF was introduced; and in fact, a number of them were occuring before the OF was introduced; logically that leads to the conclusion that it was not the OF which was the causitive factor.

People hear these accusations, and without any critical examination of what foundation supposedly lays under them, they repeat the accusation and lo and behold, another urban legend is born.

Church attendance started declining in the 1950’s, long before Roncalli was Pope and well before work on the OF began. Likewise, ordinations fell off before that. Additionally, the sex abuse claims go back before Vatican 2 and a large number of the abusers were ordained before Vatican 2.

After Vatican 2, catechesis got thrown into the toilet and someone flushed, but there is no shown interconnection between the OF and the change from the Baltimore Catechism; that relates directly back to misdirection post Vatican 2 concerning catechesis itself on a separate track, because of the desire of some to get out of a doctrinal approach and into an experiential approach to teaching.

Having worked with Catholics Returning Home program and having talked with numerous others in similar programs, the people returning to the Church are not returning (nor did they leave) over issues of changes between the EF and the OF; they left over divorces, sex outside of marriage, lack of catechesis after Confirmation, relatively poor catechesis before Confirmation, going to college and getting swept up in challenges to their faith without sufficient foundation; the list goes on and on and amazingly it simply does not include people who quit over the change in the Mass. While there are some who left to go to SSPX, proportionally they are extremely small in numbers.

About the only issue you name that has any connection is the loss of reverence; and that issue has slowly been changing over the last 10 to 15 years, particularly as we have had the ordinations of the group called the John Paul priests. And granted that it has not shown everywhere in all dioceses to an equal amount, it is most definitely occuring; and if it is occuring then not all blame can be laid to the format of the Mass.

 

[Ockham]

Just like a weak teacher in a classroom the kids began to push the limits and when they saw what they could get away with they ran wild over him. The Pope needs to take back control of the Church and start putting heads to bed. This is hopefully part of the fruit that will come from the discussions with the Society. The Pope needs to reclaim his full power, “collegiality” be damned!

A very good analysis of the past forty years. I agree and pray the Pope deals with modern heretics the way Archbishop Lefevbre was dealt with for holding to tradition. I still contend that although obedience is necessary, it is to God and not to any man, book, or misinterpretation of a council.

 

[stevusmagnus]

otjm,

VCII has failed in every goal it stated and every great fruit it promised. Judging by its own standards it was a failure.

The law of prayer is the law of belief. Catholics have prayed like Protestants (and sometimes pagans) for the last 50 years and their beliefs have followed suit.

The NO Mass has helped more than anything else to destroy the Faith of Catholics.

To deny this is to deny reality and to keep yourself from coming to the solution. You are fighting symptoms and not realizing the cause of the disease.

I suggest you check the index of leading indicators to get your facts straight regarding Mass attendance, vocations, etc. The evidence is overwhelming.

The number of abuse cases before the 1960’s pales in comparison to the institutionalized homosexuality and sex abuse afterwards.

It is amazing the lengths some will go to deny the obvious causes of such destruction, all to save face and save a Council that has had no good fruit in 50 years.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Of all the posts, I think this is the best answer.

There’s no need to be combative or to rely on an “us vs. them” mentality. Better to propose than impose, as the saying goes. Too often we neglect to try the positive route.

 

[jonpd]

I agree with Lujack and Joe. I know from my own experience my son grew up with the OF and prefers it, however he has tried the EF that I attend and loves many aspects of it, especially the reverence.

 

[otjm]

otjm,

VCII has failed in every goal it stated and every great fruit it promised. Judging by its own standards it was a failure.

The law of prayer is the law of belief. Catholics have prayed like Protestants (and sometimes pagans) for the last 50 years and their beliefs have followed suit.

The NO Mass has helped more than anything else to destroy the Faith of Catholics.

To deny this is to deny reality and to keep yourself from coming to the solution. You are fighting symptoms and not realizing the cause of the disease.

I suggest you check the index of leading indicators to get your facts straight regarding Mass attendance, vocations, etc. The evidence is overwhelming.

The number of abuse cases before the 1960’s pales in comparison to the institutionalized homosexuality and sex abuse afterwards.

It is amazing the lengths some will go to deny the obvious causes of such destruction, all to save face and save a Council that has had no good fruit in 50 years.

The original purpose of this thread was to ask what an individual could do to assist in getting people to know more about the EF and how to go about educating them about it. There have been ample discussions about Vatican 2, sexual abuse by priests, changes within the Church since Vatican 2 and other issues that you bring up in other threads, and those discussions really belong there, and not here. Sexual abuse has nothing to do with teaching people about the EF. I would be happy to respond to you concerning these other issues on another thread or several of them, because they are all important issues. However, they are totally off topic for the OP and really need to be addressed elsewhere. NOTE: I am not trying to be short or dismissive, but this thread is starting to wander seriously off topic. Helping people to learn about the EF is important as we now have two generations and starting on a third who have never seen one and know nothing about it. It is my firm opinion that approaching people who only know the OF and attacking that, or appearing to attack that by means of comparison is going to have the same results that most discussions have where someone is only familiar with one thing, and by means of introduction to something else, that one thing they know is attacked. the natural reaction is to become defensive.

The EF can stand on its own merits without making references to the OF, and there should be ample material to do so. It is somewhat akin to introducing someone to the Maronite rite or the Byzantine rite; one can do so without having to reference either the OF or the EF as both of those rites can stand on their own merits.

 

[stevusmagnus]

otjm,

The original post was not as you describe. It was as follows:

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?

I responded with a simple “fruits” argument that is obvious but one with which you take issue with.

It is not hard to see how the Novus Ordo and accompanying liturgical travesty has contributed to sexual promiscuity and other immorality. I think you vastly underestimate the law of lex orendi, lex credendi. The clothing which modern teens and others wear to the Novus Ordo is but one example of the laxity in modesty which leads to immorality. This is apparent in most NO churches. It leads to a loss of Catholic sense and a breakdown and laxity of faith and morals.

 

[eucharisteo]

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?

It’s not Protestant. Rolling eyes for me being the court jester.

 

[otjm]

otjm,

The original post was not as you describe. It was as follows:

I responded with a simple “fruits” argument that is obvious but one with which you take issue with.

It is not hard to see how the Novus Ordo and accompanying liturgical travesty has contributed to sexual promiscuity and other immorality. I think you vastly underestimate the law of lex orendi, lex credendi. The clothing which modern teens and others wear to the Novus Ordo is but one example of the laxity in modesty which leads to immorality. This is apparent in most NO churches. It leads to a loss of Catholic sense and a breakdown and laxity of faith and morals.

Perhaps you have not read the entire thread ( I don’t always either); however, the OP is interested in teaching people about the EF. As I said, the discussion about tother issues belongs elsewhere.

Again, I do not disagree with you that the Church as well as society in general faces a lot of serious issues. I msot strongly disagree with you ;that the OF is the source of these problems, and I would invite you to start one or mroe threads on the issues if you wish. However, the intent of the thread started with the fact that the OP has the EF in his parish and wants to do something to support it and grow the attendance. Attacking the OF is not going to do that, and you can take that to the bank.