Who would be happy if every parish had to have a TLM Mass

[Cat]

I’m not confused at all. Your terms reveal how you see the TLM. You see it as a show. You’ve never attended one, but you’ve got it all figured out based on what you’ve read on this forum huh ?

All you are focusing on is what you see as bells and whistles. Rubrics are choreographed theatrics by clergy in costumes ?
Rehearsed music ? Showbiz terms ?

So we like it because it’s fancy huh ?

Not confusing at all. We hear you loud and clear

Are you being sarcastic? I don’t understand what you are saying to me. I don’t understand the question marks and the rolleyes.

Do you disagree with my assessment of TLM? Then please come right out and say it honestly, without sarcasm or cartoons, and explain why you think I am incorrect. Thank you.

And please forgive me for not having a modern mindset when it comes to comedy. I seem to have a mental block when it comes to determining whether someone is being sarcastic, and if so, why. I need honest conversation, not clever banter. I wish I were cooler. But I’m not.

 

[laudamus_te]

(I’ve never been to a TLM.)

Enough said. Come back and discuss the TLM with me anytime after you’ve assisted at one.

 

[holdencaulfield]

(I’ve never been to a TLM.)

Heres a good link, if you want to learn.

Traditional Latin Mass Video

 

[laudamus_te]

Oh ye of little faith laudamus te… Keep hoping, maybe one day you will understand.

I have very much faith. Faith in my Church, and in the Truths that have been faithfully transmitted throughout the ages. I pray that souls which have been led astray by wolves in SHEPHERDS clothing will come to understand before it’s too late for them.

 

[laudamus_te]

Heres a good link, if you want to learn.

Traditional Latin Mass Video

Yes, that’s a lovely video. Compare and contrast the first 3 minutes of it to the first 3 minutes of this:
cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/04/liturgy-of-less-than-saintly-roger.html
and tell me which is truly Catholic, and most likely to be pleasing to God.

However, watching a video is nothing like assisting in person.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Yes, that’s a lovely video. Compare and contrast the first 3 minutes of it to the first 3 minutes of this:
cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/04/liturgy-of-less-than-saintly-roger.html
and tell me which is truly Catholic, and most likely to be pleasing to God.

However, watching a video is nothing like assisting in person.

I can’t even watch it. To blasphemous.

 

[laudamus_te]

I can’t even watch it. To blasphemous.

It is horrible, to say the least. And someone needs to tell Roger Mahony that he’s being disobedient to Rome:

In the United States, we have adequate income, why would we have to use glass or porcelain for the precious Blood and the Body of our Lord on the altar and not gold?

Oh, for the vessels. Ah! Actually, the liturgical laws forbid [this]. This is actually for bishops and priests to work out, because you cannot work out all that. But the liturgical laws are laid down about what type of vessel will be allowed at Mass.

Glass is forbidden. Yes, Forbidden. And anything that can break. Not to talk of those using baskets! Terrible things happen in this world!

adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html

Check out the video which I provided in the above post, at the 9:12 timestamp. Glass chalice, glass kool-aid pitchers, baskets.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Yes, that’s a lovely video. Compare and contrast the first 3 minutes of it to the first 3 minutes of this:
cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/04/liturgy-of-less-than-saintly-roger.html
and tell me which is truly Catholic, and most likely to be pleasing to God.

However, watching a video is nothing like assisting in person.

i have no idea what that was. I could not watch but about 1 1/2 min .

 

[holdencaulfield]

i have no idea what that was. I could not watch but about 1 1/2 min .

Satan attacking the Church.

 

[laudamus_te]

i have no idea what that was. I could not watch but about 1 1/2 min .

I suggest you try to watch the whole thing, because it gets worse. More people need to be made aware of the rampant liturgical abuse going on under our noses, and get angry enough to start speaking out about it. It will just continue on, and spread like a cancer if we don’t.

 

[Cat]

Enough said. Come back and discuss the TLM with me anytime after you’ve assisted at one.

Is this a rule? That no one is allowed an opinion on TLM unless they’ve seen it in person?

I suppose it makes sense. I’ve seen them on videos.

As far as I’m concerned, until the Vatican declares that the NO is not valid and not licit, then I am very happy in the NO. I wish all of you happiness in the TLM and I sincerely hope that a TLM becomes availabe to all who wish to have this kind of Mass. In the meantime, I beg you not to call the NO nasty names or accuse it of being heretical or any other nasty thing. In my opinion, these types of comments are anti-Catholic and show a spirit of pride of self and rebellion against the Holy Mother Church.

And that icky video–it’s not the norm in my diocese. You won’t see any NO Masses like that here. Since I’ve only been Catholic for four years, I’ve only visited about two dozen parishes in the last four years in my state and three others, and I’ve never seen an irreverent NO Mass. I really feel badly for those of you who live in such awful places in the U.S.

 

[pnewton]

Of course you have criticism of the Ordinary Form. And the Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger was also one of its critics. (Spirit of the Liturgy, supporter of Monsignor Gamber, etc.) Yet he fully supports it. Or at least in its reverent form.

I understand. But do you not see from a point outside of your self the hyporcracy of saying that you can criticize as you wish, but no one else may return the criticism? Heck, all that was said was that the TLM was theatrical and everyone goes beserk. Contrast that with the ordinary form of Mass and how it has been characterized. It is stereotyped as a clown Mass, abuse-ridden pestilence, portraying the exceptional problems as if they are the norm.

In the contrasting link above, a reverent TLM is contrasted with a terrible ordinary form Mass. This type of tactic is propaganda and is an offense against the truth. There are enough valid reasons to prefer the TLM form that I see no reason for such a tactic.

 

[laudamus_te]

Is this a rule? That no one is allowed an opinion on TLM unless they’ve seen it in person?

I suppose it makes sense. I’ve seen them on videos.

As far as I’m concerned, until the Vatican declares that the NO is not valid and not licit, then I am very happy in the NO. I wish all of you happiness in the TLM and I sincerely hope that a TLM becomes availabe to all who wish to have this kind of Mass. In the meantime, I beg you not to call the NO nasty names or accuse it of being heretical or any other nasty thing. In my opinion, these types of comments are anti-Catholic and show a spirit of pride of self and rebellion against the Holy Mother Church.

And that icky video–it’s not the norm in my diocese. You won’t see any NO Masses like that here. Since I’ve only been Catholic for four years, I’ve only visited about two dozen parishes in the last four years in my state and three others, and I’ve never seen an irreverent NO Mass. I really feel badly for those of you who live in such awful places in the U.S.

I wouldn’t be so smug about your diocese. I saw my normal NO parish church change almost overnight. All it takes is a new pastor with a liberal bent. And really, what kind of an attitude is that for any Catholic to have? “Oh, it doesn’t affect me…” Does it not bother you in the least that it is happening somewhere? It should. Sitting around “feeling bad” and then accusing those who speak out about it of “pride” and “rebelliousness” is doing nothing to help the crisis in our Church.

My only consolation from that horrid video is that I doubt the consecration was valid, because Mahony used prohibited, invalid, unconsecrated glass vessels.

 

[pnewton]

When Catholics are fighting for the true doctrines of our faith, we are not only fighting a just war, but we are fighting for Our Lord, Jesus Christ. We are here on earth, engaged in constant warfare against our enemies. Here is an excellent description of the meaning of the Church Militant:
seattlecatholic.com/article_20011123_True_Soldiers_in_the_Church_Militant.html

" I Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I attended a pretty reverent NO in Santa Fe, at the Cathedral of St. Francis of Assisi. The only real bad thing was that they had those people who had out the Eucharist. I forgot what they are called, I wouldn’t attend a Church that had those anyways. However it was a nice NO compared to some in my city. None are overtly blasphemous in my city that I know of, however there just not great.

 

[pnewton]

My only consolation from that horrid video is that I doubt the consecration was valid, because Mahony used prohibited, invalid, unconsecrated glass vessels.

FYI - The type of vessel does not invalidate the consecration, as it is in no way changed. The only valid matter that is critical is that of the bread and wine. Grape juice, for example, could not be validly consecrated. The chalice itself is unchanged.

 

[I_Believe]

I have no idea what point you are making. I was referring to the TLM, you remember the topic here.

Yet you give a prime example of how to twist a quote out of context. The entire quote had zero to do with the form of Mass, but referred to the ordinary form.
latin-mass-society.org/ratz.htm
And, just like I said, I would adapt to any change.

It’s not out of context. I says what it says. “We have a problem Houston” is how I read it.

Something Sacred was set aside for something that fails to satisfy those who condoned it, revision after revision.

There is not one error to be found in the pre VII Mass. There is no error in Catholicism before VII.

Like you say, we have a choice. Adapt to revolutionary change, or hold on to Tradition. VII isn’t going to go away, and I pray Rome sorts it out. In the mean time, I’m sticking with the way it was for century after century.

BTW, 90 % of the threads here stray off topic after about 15 posts or so.

 

[laudamus_te]

FYI - The type of vessel does not invalidate the consecration, as it is in no way changed. The only valid matter that is critical is that of the bread and wine. Grape juice, for example, could not be validly consecrated. The chalice itself is unchanged.

Chalices made of glass, wood, copper, or brass are not permitted, and cannot be consecrated by the bishop (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 September, 1865).

The chalice loses its consecration when it becomes unfit for the purpose for which it is destined. Hence it becomes devoid of consecration: (1) when the slightest break or slit appears in the cup near the bottom. This is not the case if the break be near the upper part, so that without fear of spilling its contents consecration can take place in it. (2) When a very noticeable break appears in any part, so that it would be unbecoming to use it. (3) When the cup is separated from the stem in such a manner that the parts could not be joined except by an artificer, unless the cup was originally joined to the stem, and the stem to the base, by means of a screwing device. If, however, to the bottom of the cup a rod is firmly attached which passes through the stem to the base, under which is a nut used to hold the different parts together, then, if this rod should break, tutius videtur to reconsecrate it. (4) When it is regilt (Cong. Sac. Rit., 14 June, 1845). A chalice does not lose its consecration by the mere wearing away of the gilding, because the whole chalice is consecrated; but it becomes unfit for the purpose of consecrating in it, for the rubric prescribes that it be gilded on the inside.

-Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[piouswoman]

" I Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

What’s your point? If one truly* loves,* then they will tell the*** truth***, it may not be popular, but it is TRUTH.

You can find a scriptural quote to give a great impression for just about anything…but to stand and defend** truth **is the more important endeavor.

 

[laudamus_te]

And again, I would be greatly consoled to believe that consecration was not valid, after seeing the wine being toted from EEM to EEM in a kool-aid pitcher, to refill glasses. A blatant liturgical abuse, by the way.