What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tradboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritusSanctus said:
Thus why things such as CITH, EMs, and the removal of altars among many other things took place at Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Actually the Missal of 1962 was prayed everyday during the council sessions.

That doesn’t mean the evil doers at the council weren’t working “behind the scenes” to destroy it though.
 
otjm said:
I would have to rely on malphono or aramis for that.
Click to expand...
Not “Never”, as some Ruthenian parishes adopted it in the late 19th C (I’ve seen photos but those parishes also processed to communion on their knees)… and a few parishes may have done so prior to the Second Ecumenical Council, since uniformity of posture on sundays and from Easter to Pentecost resulted in one of the early councils (1st or 2nd) forbidding kneeling* at all *on sundays and from Easter to Pentecost.
 
Timothysis said:
You do, of course, know that Archbishop LeFebvre signed the documents of Vatican II, don’t you?
Click to expand...
What is written here is not intended to be a definitive treatment of whether or not Vatican II can be interpreted in light of Tradition.2 I think, however, it worthwhile to address the notion that traditional Catholics should not hesitate to accept Vatican II in light of tradition, since the traditionalist Archbishop Lefebvre signed the Council documents. Thus, the reasoning goes, there really cannot be much wrong with the texts.
*********** The facts of the matter, however, are a bit more complex, which I will demonstrate in four quick points:
*********** 1) The Archbishop and the International Group of Fathers at Vatican II fought the liberal orientation of Vatican II throughout the entire Council, and yes, were successful in making the documents better than they would have been otherwise. The main point, however, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was well aware of the liberal spirit that took hold of the Council even before the Council began.3
*********** 2) Archbishop Lefebvre, like many other prelates at the time, felt himself under moral pressure to sign the documents. Archbishop Lefebvre was a man with a life-long career of serving the papacy. He was Apostolic Delegate to French speaking Africa and had worked closely with Pope Pius XII. In light of this filial devotion to the Holy See, the Archbishop said he believed himself “morally obliged to sign” the document if the Pope had signed it.4
*********** 3) Years after Vatican II, he said that at the time of the Council, in some ways, he was far too optimistic. Here he is referring to a statement he made toward the end of Vatican II.
*********** In 1965, just before the fourth and final session of the Council; he publicly stated his belief that despite what went on at the Council, and despite the progressivist “magisterium” at the Council that had done so much damage, “The Church in the person of Peter’s successor has not yet substituted the traditional Magisterium with this new one and neither has the Church of Rome … The majority of the Cardinals and especially the cardinals of the Curia, … do not look to the new magisterium. Neither collegiality nor the ill-conceived religious liberty, both of which are contrary to the doctrine of the Church, will succeed.”
*********** In other words, he never dreamed that the disastrous liberalism inherent in Vatican II would actually be promoted as Church policy by the Pope and the Roman Curia.
*********** More than two decades later, when re-reading his words from 1965, Archbishop Lefebvre said, “I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.”5
*********** 4) To his dying day, he never formally consented to accept Vatican II “in light of Tradition”.6 He steadfastly fought the Vatican II revolution without comprise until his last breath.
*********** That is a good model for us.
Click to expand...
 
Timothysis said:
But, as in the EF, am I not participating just by being there?!?!?
Click to expand...
Many of the Fathers of VII felt the answer (with regards to the Trent Missal) was, “No, merely attending is not participating.”

The Council DID call for more active participation by the laity, more dialogue (An easternism, really). It also called for the increased use of the OT, the use of almost all of the NT, and revisions to the calendar, as well as a commission to adapt the mass. That commission may have gone further than it should, but it did so as an after-effect of the council.
 
Timothysis said:
You do, of course, know that Archbishop LeFebvre signed the documents of Vatican II, don’t you?

Once again, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you actual took the time to read the documents you would see that none of them called for the things you describe. Perhaps you should actually know about the subject at hand before you post on it?
Click to expand...
1.- Read what stevusmagnus just posted about LeFebvre signing those documents.

2.- In case you don’t remember, I have posted several times that the Vatican II documents did not reveal ANYTHING about what happened at Vatican II. Everything was done behind closed doors. They never revealed anything they were really doing. They didn’t give any detail on what was really going on so people would accept it just because the Pope called for it. If they gave it away many people would have rejected it. Do some research on it rather than trusting the documents.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually the Missal of 1962 was prayed everyday during the council sessions.

That doesn’t mean the evil doers at the council weren’t working “behind the scenes” to destroy it though.
Click to expand...
People were working behind the scenes.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
In case you don’t remember, I have posted several times that the Vatican II documents did not reveal ANYTHING about what happened at Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you said you’ve “seen a few sentences” of the Vatican II documents and didn’t find fulfillment in them. With such depth of scholarship, I’m sure your interpretations are reliable. Oh wait, but you’ve heard what Abp. Lefebvre had to say, and he was there. You might as well say, “I don’t think the American Revolution was all that great. I’ve read a few sentences of the Declaration of Independence, and it didn’t convince me that we should have separated from England. So instead I go by the writings of Benedict Arnold; after all, he was an important general on the Colonial side.”
 
MarkThompson said:
Yeah, you said you’ve “seen a few sentences” of the Vatican II documents and didn’t find fulfillment in them. With such depth of scholarship, I’m sure your interpretations are reliable. Oh wait, but you’ve heard what Abp. Lefebvre had to say, and he was there. You might as well say, “I don’t think the American Revolution was all that great. I’ve read a few sentences of the Declaration of Independence, and it didn’t convince me that we should have separated from England. So instead I go by the writings of Benedict Arnold; after all, he was an important general on the Colonial side.”
Click to expand...
What exactly does any of that have to do with religion? I don’t find fulfillment in the documents because they aren’t honest. The Declaration of Independance is honest.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
What exactly does any of that have to do with religion? I don’t find fulfillment in the documents because they aren’t honest. The Declaration of Independance is honest.
Click to expand...
“I don’t like Chinese food. It’s gross.”

“Have you ever eaten any?”

“I had a bite of an eggroll once. It was greasy and tasted bad. Also, I’ve read a number of anti-Chinese websites, and they all say that the Chinese cook a lot of cats and dogs and that sort of stuff. I don’t want any part of that.”
 
dmorgan said:
Mark Thompson, try reading these minor items:

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/jun1989p17_640.html

seattlecatholic.com/article_20020828_BR_GreatFacade.html

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

If you would like more, please ask.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I’ve read the Ottaviani Intervention, Laszlo Dobszay’s book, and plenty of similar materials. I also go to Mass in the EF when I have the chance, such as this past Sunday. But the notion that the Council at Vatican II did not explain what they were doing is just utterly laughable. There’s probably never been a more open council in the history of the Church. And the idea that one would say, “I’ve read a few sentences of the documents, and they did not explain what the Council was doing, so I turned to critics for the real story” is . . . well, not an intellectually acute strategy.
 
MarkThompson said:
Thanks, I’ve read the Ottaviani Intervention, Laszlo Dobszay’s book, and plenty of similar materials. I also go to Mass in the EF when I have the chance, such as this past Sunday. But the notion that the Council at Vatican II did not explain what they were doing is just utterly laughable. There’s probably never been a more open council in the history of the Church. And the idea that one would say, “I’ve read a few sentences of the documents, and they did not explain what the Council was doing, so I turned to critics for the real story” is . . . well, not an intellectually acute strategy.
Click to expand...
I believe that it was not so much as to what the documents did not say, as to what they did say that was so ambiguous that the modernists could use the language to create the"spirit of Vatican II". This was a Pastoral Council and from the very beginning it lacked any true focus or rational for being called. It opened the door for those who would re-form the Church into mans image rather than God’s. It seems to have been successfull for a time. Pope Benedict is attempting to undue the “Spirit of V-II” while leaving the Councils resolutions on the actual V-II. Only time will tell.
As to the OP of how to promote the EF, every Catholic who wishes for more access to the EF should start a letter writting campaign to their Ordinaries. I live in SC and only four Parishes in the entire state offer the EF, and only one of those offers on every Sunday. I plan to fill up my Ordinaries’ mail box; and the ExtraOrdinary in Atlanta too! Lets put the EF and the NO in every Parish nation wide, and see what happens. Seems fair to me.
 
dmorgan said:
I believe that it was not so much as to what the documents did not say, as to what they did say that was so ambiguous that the modernists could use the language to create the"spirit of Vatican II".
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s absolutely true. Every time the rubrics say, “in these or similar words,” it’s just an invitation to use words of the priest’s own invention no matter how dissimilar. But that kind of criticism can be made without having to trot out quotations about “the smoke of Satan in the Vatican,” Bugnini wanted to make the church Protestant, and the sort of thing that so often comes up as a way to criticize both the Council and postconciliar reforms without having to do any of the intellectual heavy lifting.
 
Timothysis said:
You have been proven wrong on this little tantrum before. Do us all a favor and grow up.
Click to expand...
You have offered no proof or affirmation whatsoever.

You have ignored the question that was presented in the original post and continued your tirade against the TLM.

I have done neither.

Are you bound by some Protestant code of conduct that prohibits you from surrendering to Catholicism as long as you have the means to resist?
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
1.- Read what stevusmagnus just posted about LeFebvre signing those documents.
Click to expand...
What stevusmagnus posted was a “traditionalists” excuse to let the hero of the movement off of the hook. The fact remains that the good Archbishop signed the Vatican II documents.
SpiritusSanctus said:
Do some research on it rather than trusting the documents.
Click to expand...
I will, when you actually read the documents and can reasonably describe what is contained in them. Do you realize how foolish you look railing against something you have not even read?
 
Timothysis said:
What stevusmagnus posted was a “traditionalists” excuse to let the hero of the movement off of the hook. The fact remains that the good Archbishop signed the Vatican II documents.

I will, when you actually read the documents and can reasonably describe what is contained in them. Do you realize how foolish you look railing against something you have not even read?
Click to expand...
1.-The fact remains that Archbishop LeFebvre soon afterwards realized he should never have signed them.

2.- What is contained in those documents speaks nothing of the changes that took place at Vatican II, that I can assure you of. Those documents are not honest. How about for one minute stop sticking up for the documents and actually do some research on what really took place at Vatican II?
 
Timothysis said:
You have been proven wrong on this little tantrum before. Do us all a favor and grow up.
Click to expand...
I take it, then, that you have not and will not attend an Extraordinary Form Mass. I ask you, do you not see the absurdity in denouncing things you have not ever seen? Your penchant for conspiracy theories is fine for a laugh but it does not make you appear as one who is knowledgeable or consistent in the things you write.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
1.- Read what stevusmagnus just posted about LeFebvre signing those documents.
Click to expand...
What he wrote may or may not be true. It was copied from an article (which he noticeable did not reference) by John Vennari, formerly of the Most Holy Family Monastery. You can read a report on him at Souther Poverty Law Center here.
splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/the-dirty-dozen?page=0,1

This took a little research, but if one is really wanting to promote the TLM, it is best to avoid those extremists who will kill the effort of attracting mainstream Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top