What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[otjm]

Suggesting the sexual revolution is responsible for the decline in Church attendance, seminarians, belief in the Real Presence, etc is the same thing as arguing the OF caused it all. My argument is that they are corelated, contributing factors to the general result. Call it a perfect storm if you will. Once the barn doors of Vatican II were opened the horses ran wild thus producing many of the liturgical abuses that are now norms such as CITH. I am starting to think the NO was the best thing for the TLM as the latter was protected from the rebellious 'spirit of V2/age of aquarius/baby boomer influences.

Ah well, I apparently did not make myself clear. I don’t think the sexual revolution is responsible for lower numbers of seminarians (not directly); nor failure to understand the Real Presence (the inability to identify the correct term - transubstantiation - does not in and of itself mean no belief in the Real Presence; and it was not caused by the sexual revolution but by a failure to catechize - tossed out Baltimore and replaced with feel-good).

However, the sexual revolution has had a profound and direct effect on the sacrament of marriage (which in and of itself has most likely impacted the number of seminarians - between materialism and a serious reduction in the number of children).

And as to Church attendance, while people are quick to use ABC in spite of the Church teachings - including those who still attend Mass - the sexual revolution has lead to many just shacking up, particularly in the ages of post high school until marriage, average age of which is something like 27 or 28 for the first one; it (the sexual revolution) has had an impact on the divorce rate, which shot up as no fault was brought into the various state laws; that has lead to many subsequent marriages without processing the first, and all of these are working to keep people out of Mass. People who are shacking up may not articulate that it is wrong morally, but they are not attending Mass enmasse either. Interesting relation between cause (shacking up) and subsequent choices, and I would submit there is a causal relation.

As to CITH, that is fodder for another thread.

Hope that makes the mud a little clearer.

 

[Ockham]

Hope that makes the mud a little clearer.

T’is.

Cheers,

 

[malphono]

Ah well, I apparently did not make myself clear. I don’t think the sexual revolution is responsible for lower numbers of seminarians (not directly); nor failure to understand the Real Presence (the inability to identify the correct term - transubstantiation - does not in and of itself mean no belief in the Real Presence; and it was not caused by the sexual revolution but by a failure to catechize - tossed out Baltimore and replaced with feel-good).

It’s realy not my business, but I’ll toss in my :twocents: anyway:

That’s probably not far from the truth. Along with it, I would submit, too, that the miserable lack of catechesis might just stem from the agenda of those who so fervently embraced (and continue to embrace) the hermeneutic of rupture. That touchy-feely drivel is incongruent with the EF but seems to be quite at home in the OF (and its derivatives).

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Since you do not state what you feel is the faulty causation, I would certainly invite it. I have yet to seen anyone show that the chaos we saw in the OF in the 70’s and 80’s was caused by the form of the OF; it certainly has been argued that it did, but only as a conclusion with no evidence.

I submit that what we had then was a massive amount of dissent which in turn lead to a massive amount of disobedience. And the single point of the dissent came out over HV. Once it was decided - not just by the intelligencia, but by the people in the pews - that Rome did not have a clue about the moral rightness or wrongness of the Pill, the dissent spread like wildfire. I watched it, and I am still amazed to this day how much damage spread from that.

The introduction of the OF gets blamed for all sorts of things. The amazing thing is how many priests I find saying the OF according to the rubrics, and saying it in as reverent a fashion as the EF was when I was a youth. The Mass itself - the OF - we can all agree was not organically developed from the EF, and was not what the bishops of Vatican 2 intended. We can discuss the differences between the rubrics and between the prayers of each form. I have no problem whatsoever with that. What I do have a problem with is the sweeping charges that blame the OF for all the problems we have. There are far too many well thought out people who have examined the issues and found casuation to be otherwise, and sadly, those who make such charges seem islolated from the whole discussion. People in general want simple ansers to complex questions. And when someone can provide a simple answer, they don’t want to be confused by the facts.

The Novus Ordo is more than 80% of the reason more people have abandoned the Catholic faith since Vatican II. In fact, all of Vatican II is to blame, not just the NO. And it’s impossible to say a Novus Ordo more reverently, or even just as reverent, as a TLM.

 

[otjm]

It’s realy not my business, but I’ll toss in my :twocents: anyway:

That’s probably not far from the truth. Along with it, I would submit, too, that the miserable lack of catechesis might just stem from the agenda of those who so fervently embraced (and continue to embrace) the hermeneutic of rupture. That touchy-feely drivel is incongruent with the EF but seems to be quite at home in the OF (and its derivatives).

From what I have seen, there was some reasoning behind objections to the Baltimore Catechism that had merit. And I suspect that at least some of the people involved in attempting new catechetical instruction were trying to do right. I am also cynical enough and have been around long enough to believe that there were those who wanted to reinvent the Church in their own image and knew exactly what they were doing and why.

As to being at home with the OF, it has been parked there for some 35 to 40 years; the fact that it ended up being an overlay tends to cloud the issue. The BC had been around for a long time and I don’t think there is much question we would have had a re-write of catechesis whether we had had changes to the EF as invisioned by the Council or the OF (which they did not invision). And the people who were pushing the re-write would have been the same writers. So I don’t see that the OF had all that much impact as to the pablum kids were fed instead of truth. And we still would have had the blow-up of HV and the dissent that followed.

What seems to escape many is that the stew behind this is that the seminaries had been infected with problems long before Vatican 2 occured. There had been a lid on most of it in part because life was the way it was - most people did not have a college education let alone the percentage today having advanced degrees, and the people in the pews had not been told that they had much to do beyond the “pray, pay and obey” part. People in the pews simply did not have access to much in the way of theology (lots of religion, but not theology) and did not know what was going on in academia. And most priests were not bringing that to the pulpit. For example, Commonweal started in 1924, but has never had a significantly wide readership (they note currently a circulation of 20,000 on a good day, with readership perhaps of 60,000). The National Catholic Reporter didn’t start until 1964.

The fuse of dissent was lit with the reaction to HV. The fuse, and the explosive behind it were created long before that, long before Roncalli was made “Papa”

 

[otjm]

The Novus Ordo is more than 80% of the reason more people have abandoned the Catholic faith since Vatican II. In fact, all of Vatican II is to blame, not just the NO. And it’s impossible to say a Novus Ordo more reverently, or even just as reverent, as a TLM.

It is patently obvious that you have neither read the documents nor any comments on them by Pope John Paul 2 or Benedict 16, and it is further obvious that you have never dealt with Catholics returning Home or any of the similar programs. But thank you for expressing your opinions.

 

[Ockham]

People in the pews simply did not have access to much in the way of theology (lots of religion, but not theology) and did not know what was going on in academia. And most priests were not bringing that to the pulpit.

That may be true, and that was the way it was, but we now live in the Information Age. If it wasn’t for the Internet I’d still be a Cafeteria Catholic, receiving Holy Communion in hand while standing from an EMHC and going years between Confessions. Catechesis may still be lacking from the pulpit but the Truth has never been so accessible.

 

[Ockham]

The Novus Ordo is more than 80% of the reason more people have abandoned the Catholic faith since Vatican II. In fact, all of Vatican II is to blame, not just the NO. And it’s impossible to say a Novus Ordo more reverently, or even just as reverent, as a TLM.

The NO as originally created forty years ago is not the same as we see today. The documents of V2 didn’t call for a new liturgy. Pope Benedict XVI has correctly identified the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ as a misinterpretation. It is the cause of the abuse and trickery we are exposed to today: the smoke of Satan.

 

[otjm]

That may be true, and that was the way it was, but we now live in the Information Age. If it wasn’t for the Internet I’d still be a Cafeteria Catholic, receiving Holy Communion in hand while standing from an EMHC and going years between Confessions. Catechesis may still be lacking from the pulpit but the Truth has never been so accessible.

Well, I agree that it is available, and I think more people are accessing it. And if I could make a wish, it would be that 10% of all families in a parish would tread the National Catholic Register.

And interestingly we find that some love the EF; some love the OF; we see groups working to strengthen marriages (Teams of Our Lady comes to mind); we find parishes starting some form of Adoration (ours is 24 hour Perpetual); we find the John Paul 2 priests who don’t have the issues and agendas of a generation or two before and give us reverent OF Masses; we see the population of Catholics in the US growing (Primarily through Hispanics, but certainly not isloated to them) and we find, very very gradually, things like NFP surfacing and being taught.

All is not well. But neither is all falling apart. We have bishops like Chaput and others who are willing to stand up and be counted. And as abysmal as the issue of sexual abuse is, we are finally getting that out of the closet (oops, bad joke) and onto the table and clercialism is going to have to take a hit as the bishops and priests deal with what they swept under the rug for God knows how long.

What will happen to the EF? Very gradually, over a long period of time, it will be more available. And I suspect, as Benedict 16 indicated in his letter, that the EF will gain from the OF and the OF will gain from the EF. Clericalism has been alive and well in the Church in spite of V2. Perhaps this issue will knock some of the stuffings out of it. And the Church was not promised leaders would be impeccable, so we will have issues in the future. It is Easter Time and He is risen! And that is what we need to remember and celebrate, whether through the EF or the OF.

 

[Ockham]

What will happen to the EF? Very gradually, over a long period of time, it will be more available. And I suspect, as Benedict 16 indicated in his letter, that the EF will gain from the OF and the OF will gain from the EF. Clericalism has been alive and well in the Church in spite of V2. Perhaps this issue will knock some of the stuffings out of it. And the Church was not promised leaders would be impeccable, so we will have issues in the future. It is Easter Time and He is risen! And that is what we need to remember and celebrate, whether through the EF or the OF.

It will take generations for the TLM to become the OF again. It was protected as EF status during the past rebellious forty years like the Jews in Egypt or our Redeemer in the desert. It’s my belief that when the faithful are willing to live by God’s laws again (Huamane Vitae) they will also worship in the most reverent way available (SP).

 

[otjm]

It will take generations for the TLM to become the OF again. It was protected as EF status during the past rebellious forty years like the Jews in Egypt or our Redeemer in the desert. It’s my belief that when the faithful are willing to live by God’s laws again (Huamane Vitae) they will also worship in the most reverent way available (SP).

Benedict’s letter accompanying the releasing document is worth reading again. There certainly is the implication, if not outright statement that the EF will be due for some changes. He speaks of them; in addition, it would appear that the documents of Vatican 2may also speak to some eventual changes.

And that is not to say or imply that there will not be changes to the OF. Getting our English translation to a closer rendition of the Latin is a start. I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t agree that your conclusion is where we will end up (and neither of us may live long ehough to see that). I was in Viet Nam so if you are at all good at history and math, you can figure out how old I am. I talk with those a generation older than me, people who were raised in farm country, not the big city, and most of whom were lucky to get a high school education. Most of them couldn’t tell you the differences between the EF and the OF except for some of the superficials. They just are not a theologically sophisticated or learned group. And to a person they comment that the best thing that happened to the Mass was putting it into the vernacular. I know people who love Latin ( I certainly took my share) and many who used missals before Vatican 2. And none of them long for the Mass to return to Latin.

I also watch the enthusiasm of those who find the EF or return to it and love it. In no way do I intend to denigrate their feelings or belittle their concerns. But their enthusiasm has a tendency to cloud their viewpoint. I liken it indirectly to music; some love the symphony, and there are always new converts to the symphony; but there are few who actively and continually support it. And just so, there are few who actively and continually support the EF. No questions about it, there are issues that make it very difficult to find an EF (try that out here; better bring your microscope and tweezers). Lack of priests to say it; intransigence on the part of those who could make way for it, costs, etc. all militate against its growth. But even where it has grown beyond international statistics (e.g. the Archdiocese of Chicago - about 3% of the parishes), it simply is not growing much, and they are not bursting at the seams where they have it in general.

A whole lot of people are simply unaware and uninterested in the differences between the EF and the OF; and a whole lot of them are far more motivated by comfort than they are by religiosity; give them their parish with a 10 minute drive and the OF and one 20 minutes away and the EF, and maybe a different time schedule, and they are not going to go to the EF regularly. Some will. A lot? It just isn’t happening.

I took RCIA classes to a Saturday night OF in Latin, tons of incense, and absolutely killer choir singing Palistrina and they loved it. It took 25 to maybe 35 minutes for anyone to drive the distance.

Did anyone go back? Not a one. It is so much easier to go to the Saturday night OF Mass at the local parish (and ours is a reverent one), or get up Sunday and go there than to actually get out of one’s tracks and go somewhere else. Even once a month.

Unless and until there is an EF in almost every parish, not a whole lot is going to happen. And that is not going to happen just as a practical matter as the pastor has to juggle the various demands of the parish, and if there is not enough support to keep it afloat, maybe we will get it once a month. Or maybe at the parish nearby - and I have already experienced that routine.

I know you think the EF is more reverent. We are not going to resolve that otherwise. However, the vast majority of people seem to feel otherwise; and little headway is being made. And why did I wade into this thread? Because I feel that anything that can turn people off to the EF absolutely has to be avoided; and I firmly believe that any approach that gets into value judgements is going to have a fast, rapid reaction in the wrong direction.

I did not make a big deal of the Latin OF Mass; it was just that I had a surprise for them (and they mostly, but not all responded positively). And then it was over… If I had approached it with a “this is better than what you have now” or some variation, I simply would have set them up for confrontation.

The short of it is that people are naturally lazy. They like what they are comfortable with. And that is going to be exceedingly hard to get past.

 

[Ockham]

The EF is a better representation of the Catholic faith. When we are prepared to accept that universally we’ll be on a better path to God. If making straight the path is the goal then there should be no debate. Hope to see you up there.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The EF is a better representation of the Catholic faith. When we are prepared to accept that universally we’ll be on a better path to God. If making straight the path is the goal then there should be no debate. Hope to see you up there.

The Pope, in the documents that Otjm has pointed out to you, does not seem to agree with you. Whether you wish to admit it or not, you’ve issued nothing more than a subjective opinion.

 

[pnewton]

The EF is a better representation of the Catholic faith. When we are prepared to accept that universally we’ll be on a better path to God.

Do not look for a universal agreement that the best path you have found for spiritual growth is THE way. Even among the Church’s Doctors and Saints there is not a single best way. The Carmelite spirituality, ala St. John of the Cross, is not the same as someone like Padre Pio. I find the best path for me is in Scriptural meditation, for example, while my wife finds better inspiration from the lives of the Saints.

I think it is important to realize that we are not all the same and the TLM may not be best for all. In this also lies the answer to the OP’s question. Namely, there are many for whom following along in the TLM Mass is the best spiritual nourishment. It is a strong argument for making it available for them.

 

[Ockham]

The Pope, in the documents that Otjm has pointed out to you, does not seem to agree with you. Whether you wish to admit it or not, you’ve issued nothing more than a subjective opinion.

Why do you think the Pope issued SP, says his private Mass in the EF, refuses to distribute Holy Communion in the hand, and is sending out a new missal with translations closer to the original Latin? Yes, the Pope is being very diplomatic in supporting the OF but his actions are all about restoring our traditions.

 

[Ockham]

Do not look for a universal agreement that the best path you have found for spiritual growth is THE way. Even among the Church’s Doctors and Saints there is not a single best way. The Carmelite spirituality, ala St. John of the Cross, is not the same as someone like Padre Pio. I find the best path for me is in Scriptural meditation, for example, while my wife finds better inspiration from the lives of the Saints.

I think it is important to realize that we are not all the same and the TLM may not be best for all. In this also lies the answer to the OP’s question. Namely, there are many for whom following along in the TLM Mass is the best spiritual nourishment. It is a strong argument for making it available for them.

Touche. May God bless you and your family.

 

[Timothysis]

Why do you think the Pope issued SP, says his private Mass in the EF,

This has been bantered about here but I have never seen any proof that the Holy Father’s private Masses are the EF.

 

[otjm]

Why do you think the Pope issued SP

I think his accompanying letter speaks for itself. Although he has been critical of the way that the OF came about and has been particularly critical of the lack of continuity between the two, he also has not said that one is better, or holier than the other, charges that have been made by others. He also has affirmed that the OF is the mainstay format of the Mass for the Roman rite and has indicated that he does not see that changing in any reasonably foresseable future. He does, however, say that he sees botht he OF and the EF having some changes.

,

says his private Mass in the EF

and has made a point to not say it in public - what does that mean?

, refuses to distribute Holy Communion in the hand,

this question keeps coming up and I don’t see why. CITH is an indult, and what little I know of it, it is not a universal indult (either in that it was not given as a universal indult, or because if it was, it was up to individual bishops - and perhaps bishops’ conferences - to adopt or not and is not universally practiced). If it is not a universal indult (or even if it was) why would he, who leads the Roman rite, do something that only applied to part of the rite? That would make absolutely no sense. People keep trying to say “See, he doesn’t do it” when there is no reason for him to do it and the fact that it is not universal is reason to not do it. Trying to make something out of the fact that he follows the norm instead of the indult is like trying to make something out of the fact that he says the OF instead of the Maronite Divine Mysteries. He has the power, as head of the Church, to do so but he doesn’t. Trying to make something out of that makes as much sense.

and is sending out a new missal with translations closer to the original Latin? Yes, the Pope is being very diplomatic in supporting the OF but his actions are all about restoring our traditions.

and the last comment about correcting the translations has to do with the OF and not with the EF. He is not changing anything in the EF, as the Latin originals are not changing. He is simply seeing that they are correctly translated.

 

[Ockham]

he also has not said that one is better, or holier than the other, charges that have been made by others.

Correct. He is a good diplomat. My contention is one is more reverent than the other and less prone to abuse.

,

and has made a point to not say it in public - what does that mean?

Not sure. Perhaps because many liturgical liberals would go into schism.

this question keeps coming up and I don’t see why. .

He is leading by example.

 

[pnewton]

Why do you think the Pope issued SP, says his private Mass in the EF, refuses to distribute Holy Communion in the hand, and is sending out a new missal with translations closer to the original Latin? Yes, the Pope is being very diplomatic in supporting the OF but his actions are all about restoring our traditions.

Yes, he is. Tweaking the language,bringing out the literal richness in the Latin, is more helpful than some realize. Nothing like speaking these doctrines every Mass, and hearing the stilted words to sink home eternal truths. Much of the complaints of the new translation, that it is not smooth, is its very strength. The very uniqueness will he an inspiration as the years go by.

Carpe Diem
Brevity is the sole of wit
Et tu, Brute

These are not English, or are not smooth English, and the list goes on. They do more to convey a message than:

Enjoy yourself today.
Keeping posts short and to the point is a sign of intelligence.
I feel betrayed.

Give the new changes five years and they phrases that are awkward will take on a deeper meaning. This, BTW, is also a selling point to the Mass in Latin, TLM or otherwise. Phrases sink in and become part of our soul.

Deo Gratias
Gloria in excelcias deo
Dominus meum et deus meum