P
ProVobis
Guest
As opposed to the new world order?
How much more of " lousy music, lousy literature, putrid liturgical dancing" do you want?
- Status
How much more of " lousy music, lousy literature, putrid liturgical dancing" do you want?
L
Lujack
Guest
My point is that the comparison is silly. Of course what was done between 970 and 1960 is going to dwarf what was done between 1960 and 2010, because 970-1960 is a thousand years more. It took longer to build St. Peterâs Basilica than time has passed between the end of the Second Vatican Council and today, let alone to build all of western civilization.As opposed to the new world order?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Very interesting.
Regardless of whether that rumor is true or not though, the second Vatican Council, as you said, was hijacked so it was no surprise to see it continue and contain all the abuses it had.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Dwarf, shmorf. Hey look, the title of the thread is âWhat is the best argument to promote the TLM?â Whatâs wrong with bringing up the fact that the TLM has been the Mass of the West for almost as long as the West was the West?
If you think the New World Order, the one which continues experimention with nuclear weapons, which completely destroyed the gold standard, which has tried to kill all moral values, which got rid of all its old customs including its long-standing liturgies, and which has tried to put an end to large families should be given another thousand years to play itself out, then Iâm afraid youâre only encouraging the complete self-destruction of the planet in a very short time. It would be the ultimate irony if some being somewhere, someday, a billion years from now perhaps, discovered that the dinosaurs actually lasted longer than more âintelligentâ beings.
L
Layman
Guest
I think itâs a case of Mass as a celebration the Lordâs Supper vs Mass as The Propitiary Sacrifice Of Calvary. **The changes in our churches make perfect sense if itâs a feast you think youâre attending or âcelebratingâ. **
Railings? At a supper? Remove them;
Men only at the table? Surely not;
Antique language? Another barrier to the feast;
Itâs a meal, so CITH is natural âŚ
and so on.
If, however, itâs a sacrifice at an altar, a mystic rite in which a deity is invoked and whose death in re-enacted, well that puts a different complexion on things.
**All the things stripped from rite now make perfect sense. **
You have taboo areas and sacred persons. Mystic language. Sonorous, solemn ancient music. Self-effacement.
Personally, I think the latter is what we need, in these hellish times.
Railings? At a supper? Remove them;
Men only at the table? Surely not;
Antique language? Another barrier to the feast;
Itâs a meal, so CITH is natural âŚ
and so on.
If, however, itâs a sacrifice at an altar, a mystic rite in which a deity is invoked and whose death in re-enacted, well that puts a different complexion on things.
**All the things stripped from rite now make perfect sense. **
You have taboo areas and sacred persons. Mystic language. Sonorous, solemn ancient music. Self-effacement.
Personally, I think the latter is what we need, in these hellish times.
L
Lujack
Guest
Because it wonât work? Why do you need an argument with an implied insult to the OF?
What is this New World Order? Do they have headquarters at the South Pole? But seriously, show me the âOld World Orderâ that they replaced, that this âold world orderâ wouldnât have experimented with nuclear weapons, and that we should care about the gold standard.
F
Frosty
Guest
Whatâs wrong with it [if you are referring to the Mass of Pius V or the rite according to the 1962 Missal] is that it is simply not true. Until 1570 the Church had a plethora of different rites,basically from the very beginning of Christianity. I understand that the so-called traditionalists donât like to admit this but facts are facts. When the Missal of Pius V, which was more or less the papal liturgy of the Diocese of Rome, was imposed on the entire Roman Catholic Church [excepting the few rites that had been in existence for two hundred years] that was in and of itself something so despised by traditionalists, a novelty. It would be refreshing if some of the posters who constantly makes contentions such as the above did a bit of homework on the history of worship in the Christian religion.
L
Layman
Guest
And compared to any previous Catholic rite, our current vernacularised, edited, personalised, communal meal comes a poor second in terms of beauty of language, exterior reverence and expression of faith, Iâll wager.
Sarum rite, anyone?
Sarum rite, anyone?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
1.- Itâs no worse than an argument some non-traditionalists here often use that insults the TLM.
2.- The New World Order is everywhere. If you did some research on it you would actually see that this âEarth dayâ non-sense that is being celebrated today is part of the New World Order. Satan is the mastermind behind this order. Not only is this order present in the modern part of the Church today (thanks to the modernists that have took over in the Church today) but itâs especially present in our government. If you did research on it, youâd be shocked at what all is planned with this order.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
So the best argument to promote the TLM is . . . something that is not the TLM?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Ummm, there is no history of a top Cardinal of the Church ever calling the Mass of Quo Primum a âbanal fabrication.â
Fact is that during the 60âs the TLM was being degraded, attacked, butchered, vulgarized, modernized, all in the name of the âspirit of Vatican II.â It was if everyone was waiting at his chance to jump all over the Catholic Church traditions all at once. I said it before and Iâll continue to say it, the Novus Ordo was necessary to squelch the gross insanity of the liturgical innovations of the 60âs following Vatican II. Now I myself attend the Novus Ordo and I respect it as a valid liturgy of the Church but one must not forget the circumstances surrounding its inception. Rather than being a leader, the new âwelcomingâ Church chose to take its cues from a secular society. Need we have to wait a thousand years or even 400 years to find out how this plays out when in less than 50 years since its inception, the English Mass is being changed? How could it possibly inspire anything at this rate? Imagine the outcry if the actual text of the Latin Mass had been changed to the same extent anytime during the last 400 years. The Pope didnât call it a Novus Ordo for nothing.
T
Timothysis
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
For the answer to that, you need to read more Jack Chick publications. It is a global conspiracy in which the Illuminati, secretly lead by the Jesuits control the whole world, right down to how much starch your shirts get.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
LOL!
O
otjm
Guest
I am going to hope and pray you are not some sort of conspiratorialist by that first comment.1.- Vatican II didnât admit anything about what they were REALLY doing so there wonât be anything like that in public documents.
2.- Actually, itâs time to work away from Vatican II.
And as to the second, when two Popes disagree with you, it is time to start listening.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, for starters, it is not exactly the truth. In the West, there were a number of Canons flaoting around in use, which is why there is reference in Trent to suppression of them. Furthermore, the farther back you go, the fewer accretions there were to the Mass, and the simpler the form. The EF as we have it today may not have had major modifications at any given time since Trent, but modifications were made along the way; and the same is true before Trent. The Mass wasnât even set as we know it at the time of the Apostles, as they met in synagogue on Saturday, and then met on Sunday for the âbreaking of the breadâ. Somewhere between there Iwhich was part of the West becomeing the West) and Trent we finallly came up with something that looked fairly similar to what we have today in the EF. Referring to a specific form of the EF and then equating it with all of the changes that have occured without acknowledging them is not exactly a complete articulation of what we have today.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I try not to insult the OF as I attend it myself. I have pointed out and will continue to point out that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo was a necessary thing to do at the time.
I think I first heard the term from one of our ex-Presidents. Itâs not official but then neither is the era of Western civilization an official period. I just tried to separate the two. Sorry if it offended you but I was trying to point out that 40 years, especially in these times where your computer speed doubles every two years, is not all that insignificant. As you pointed out, it might have taken decades to build cathedrals. But last year I saw them having completed a grand mosque in less than a month. You could build a heck of a lot of churches in 40 years. And next year we will have a new English Mass; that didnât take too long now, did it?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
All I was saying was that Vatican II never gave any detail or description of what they were doing.
And in this situation, letâs devide the number of Popes into two sections. The pre-Vatican II Popes, and post-Vatican II Popes. That would be more than 200 Popes against 5 Popes, (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII, and Benedict XVI). Pre-Vatican II Popes were against a second Vatican II Council, 5 were with it. Both sides canât be right here. Who do you think is right? 200+ Popes or just 5 Popes?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Mind telling me what this is supposed to mean? Iâm a bit confused.
P
pnewton
Guest
Right about what, specifically?
- Status