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

[Brennan_Doherty]

Amen, Amen, Amen.
Hello, don’t intend to be flip, but am wondering if those Mass attendees who would like to see the Novus Ordo done aways with entirely and reinstate the TLM Mass only are not more left brained (all the ducks in a row, more detail oriented etc.) than the right brained, or those with a combination of both left and right brain (more artistic, less rule oriented etc.) activity. Is it in the genes??? Sorry, ex. teacher. Studied the theory a bit, but don’t ask me too many questions about it as I don’t have many of the answers. Peace.

Hi elt1956,

That is an interesting question.

If I understand you correctly, I would say it is the opposite. It is often the more right-brained (artistic) type of people who are most likely to champion the TLM (though left-brained people can certainly champion it too ).

It is interesting to note that back in 1971 a number of artists and intellectuals signed a petition to the Pope practically begging him to continue to allow the TLM even if the New Mass were introduced. Here is a snippet:

“We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts - not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression - the word - it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms.”

latin-mass-society.org/themil.htm

I would also note that a group of French and Italian artists also wrote Pope Benedict about a year ago expressing similar sentiments and encouraging him to release the MP.

I also note that Evelyn Waugh could hardly stand the changes that were happening to the liturgy as evidenced by his letters to Cardinal Heenan.

Conversely, it seems as if it is the more left-brained, rules oriented person who seems to have the attitude that as long as the NO is celebrated without abuses that should be good enough for everyone and one should really not say one form of the Mass is better than another.

Having said all that, one of the beautiful things about the TLM is that it can appeal to both types of people. To the right-brained for its artistic beauty and inspiration and the left-brained for its doctrinal strength and precision.

 

[elt1956]

Hi elt1956,

That is an interesting question.

If I understand you correctly, I would say it is the opposite (with one caveat; I think it is the left side of the brain which is known as the more artistic and the right side as more “rules-based”).

It is interesting to note that back in 1971 a number of artists and intellectuals signed a petition to the Pope practically begging him to continue to allow the TLM even if the New Mass were introduced. Here is a snippet:

“We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts - not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression - the word - it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms.”

latin-mass-society.org/themil.htm

I would also note that a group of French and Italian artists also wrote Pope Benedict about a year ago expressing similar sentiments and encouraging him to release the MP.

I also note that Evelyn Waugh could hardly stand the changes that were happening to the liturgy as evidenced by his letters to Cardinal Heenan.

Conversely, it seems as if it is the more right-brained, rules oriented person who seems to have the attitude that as long as the NO is celebrated without abuses that should be good enough for everyone and one should really not say one form of the Mass is better than another.

WOW!! Didn’t think of the artistic beauty of TLM, just the steps. How do yu feel about the NO? I appreciate both forms. Peace.

 

[piouswoman]

:tsktsk: We talk as though Protestants are the enemy instead of brothers and sisters in the eyes of God. Do you really think God turns anyone away who truly believes in their own religion? I believe in a more understanding, loving God. . Peace.

I suggest you read this:

friarsminor.org/boston.html

What you have stated is a reflection of the damage of erroneous teaching by the church hierarchy and of the modernist popes. Catholics should have a clear understanding of what is meant by “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church”. Protestants may not be saved unless they convert to the one true religion, the Catholic Faith as established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The silliness of your faux-Catholic thinking would indicate that there was NO reason for Our Lord to die on the Holy Cross for the salvation of our souls, as anyone can be saved with or without the Catholic Faith. That is heretical.

 

[piouswoman]

Apparently God accepts and appreciates many different kinds of adoration. The Ark of the Covenant was central to early Jewish religion as the Mass is today to us. Why S/He would be so particular as to choose one kind of Mass or adoration over the other in today’s world is beyond me. Or is it US and what WE think is the one and only way???

The First Book Of Paralipomenon

Chapter 15 verses 25 through 33…

1. And ALL ISRAEL brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord with JOYFUL SHOUTING , and SOUNDING WITH THE SOUND OF THE CORONET AND WITH TRUMPETS AND CYMBALS AND PSALTERIES AND WITH HARPS.
2. And when the ark of the covenant of the Lord was come to the city of David, Michol the daughter of Saul looking out at a window, saw king David DANCING AND PLAYING, and she DESPISED him in her heart.

Maybe Michol had her own ideas of how God would like to be adored??? Peace.

We are not early Jews. We are Catholics. God Himself gave us the New Covenant and in doing so, the Old Covenant was revoked. Your argument is null and void.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

WOW!! Didn’t think of the artistic beauty of TLM, just the steps. How do yu feel about the NO? I appreciate both forms. Peace.

Hi elt1956. I just edited the post you commented on because I got right and left brain characteristics mixed up (maybe that’s because I am more right-brained ).

Well, as far as how I feel about the NO and its beauty, I’ve posted this quote from Fr. George Rutler a number of times, but I’ll post it again since he says it so much better than I ever could (and because I completely agree with him). It is from his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108).

God bless.

 

[laudamus_te]

:tsktsk: We talk as though Protestants are the enemy instead of brothers and sisters in the eyes of God. Do you really think God turns anyone away who truly believes in their own religion? I believe in a more understanding, loving God. . Peace.

Elt, are you Catholic? I sincerely hope not, because that is an heretical belief. This also gives me great concern about you:

Apparently God accepts and appreciates many different kinds of adoration. The Ark of the Covenant was central to early Jewish religion as the Mass is today to us. Why **S/He **would be so particular as to choose one kind of Mass or adoration over the other in today’s world is beyond me.

Do you honestly believe that God may be a “She”?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

EM will never understand it properly, because she has revealed herself as a modernist. It is common knowledge that Gregorian Chant was defined as the proper liturgical music by Vatican II, and not Protestant hymns. So, who is being disobedient?

Hey - the example given is a good one and shows how not using Gregorian Chant can still be a way to show pride of place.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Definition of “Pride of Place”
answers.com/topic/pride-of-place
“The highest or most important position”
Now do you understand it EM?

Highest position to Gregorian Chant music. Not contemporary music.

Nothing in the definition calls for actual usage - as shown by the example they use.

 

[laudamus_te]

Hey - the example given is a good one

Thanks. I figured you’d get it eventually.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Thanks. I figured you’d get it eventually.

Yeah - it is perfectly ok to not use it so long as you don’t deny it or put it down.

 

[MrS]

I suggest you read this:

friarsminor.org/boston.html

What you have stated is a reflection of the damage of erroneous teaching by the church hierarchy and of the modernist popes. Catholics should have a clear understanding of what is meant by “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church”. Protestants may not be saved unless they convert to the one true religion, the Catholic Faith as established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The silliness of your faux-Catholic thinking would indicate that there was NO reason for Our Lord to die on the Holy Cross for the salvation of our souls, as anyone can be saved with or without the Catholic Faith. That is heretical.

I suggest YOU read it.

especially the following:

*Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to his Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. *

*Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. *

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
The “desire” may suffice

*In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance. *
*The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. *

to quote you from another thread:

And as to your second question, a Catholic who does not adhere to the true doctrine of the faith, but rather follows error and that which is contrary to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, can fairly be labeled (and I coined the word myself) a faux-Catholic.

does that make you a faux ??

.

 

[Rabbititus]

Nothing in the definition calls for actual usage - as shown by the example they use.

I assume you mean the vase example? What other use is there for a vase than for it to sit, look pretty, and hold flowers?

In fact, both of the examples featured “actual usage,” since trophies and vases don’t have much function other than to sit and be looked at.

 

[CradleCath]

Is that what liberal Catholics think!. Pride of place doesn’t mean that you just throw it on the shelf and give pride of place to something else.

Right! Just to satisfy Eilish Maura, I looked up the definition of “pride of place”. Though it does seem that anyone could understand this term…here is what the dictionary says:

Main Entry: Pride of Place…**the highest of first position. **

Gregorian Chant should come FIRST before “The Gift of Finest Wheat, On Eagles Wings”, etc. It is to have the highest position within our musical selections. It doesn’t.

 

[CradleCath]

Right! Just to satisfy Eilish Maura, I looked up the definition of “pride of place”. Though it does seem that anyone could understand this term…here is what the dictionary says:

Main Entry: Pride of Place…**the highest of first position. **

Gregorian Chant should come FIRST before “The Gift of Finest Wheat, On Eagles Wings”, etc. It is to have the highest position within our musical selections. It doesn’t.

Sorry. I posted this before finishing the thread & seeing that tje definition had already been offered as an explanation of the fact that the Church says Gregorian Chant should have ‘pride of place’ i.e. come BEFORE other music in our liturgical celebrations.

 

[elt1956]

I suggest you read this:

friarsminor.org/boston.html

What you have stated is a reflection of the damage of erroneous teaching by the church hierarchy and of the modernist popes. Catholics should have a clear understanding of what is meant by “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church”. Protestants may not be saved unless they convert to the one true religion, the Catholic Faith as established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The silliness of your faux-Catholic thinking would indicate that there was NO reason for Our Lord to die on the Holy Cross for the salvation of our souls, as anyone can be saved with or without the Catholic Faith. That is heretical.

“No salvation outside the Catholic Church??” WRONG!!! So Christ died only for the faithful/catholics?? There IS salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church as long as one believes in the teachings of Christ AS THEY KNOW THEM without a doubt. There IS salvation outside the Catholic Faith as long as one searches for the truth when in doubt. Ask any priest.

I suggest you go back and re-read the site you suggested. No Salvation outside the Catholic Church with a more open heart. The words of Pope Pius XII regarding the salvation of those not joined in the Catholic Chruch through no fault of their own are:

THEREFORE, THAT ONE MAY OBTAIN ETERNAL SALVATION, IT IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED THAT HE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CHURCH ACTUALLY AS A MEMBER , but it is necessary that at least he be UNITED TO HER (CHRIST) BY “DESIRE AND LONGING.” .
However, this desire NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE, God accepts also an IMPLICIT DESIRE, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul WHEREBY A PERSON WISHES THEIR WILL BE CONFORMED TO THE WILL OF GOD. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1948, “On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed”.
Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire”, and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.

Pius XII does say:
Therefore, no one will be saved who, KNOWING the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, NEVERTHELESS REFUSES to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

We are not early Jews. We are Catholics. God Himself gave us the New Covenant and in doing so, the Old Covenant was revoked. Your argument is null and void.

How can you and you alone null and void it? Wishful thinking. We have as our basis the Jewish Religion. If God didn’t strike David dead for his exuberance, how can anyone say that will happen to someone who attends only the New Mass, or TLM because one or the other is not approved of by an individual? Peace.

 

[elt1956]

We are not early Jews. We are Catholics. God Himself gave us the New Covenant and in doing so, the Old Covenant was revoked. Your argument is null and void.

Hi elt1956. I just edited the post you commented on because I got right and left brain characteristics mixed up (maybe that’s because I am more right-brained ).

Well, as far as how I feel about the NO and its beauty, I’ve posted this quote from Fr. George Rutler a number of times, but I’ll post it again since he says it so much better than I ever could (and because I completely agree with him). It is from his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108).

God bless.

I can relate to this very well. Where has the appreciation of beauty gone? I grew up with TLM and do miss it. I just have a verrrrry difficult time with people who say the Mass HAS to be TLM, or the New Mass, or it isn’t Mass. I would hate to think that all these years, since the sixties, I haven’t been attending Mass. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

We are not early Jews. We are Catholics. God Himself gave us the New Covenant and in doing so, the Old Covenant was revoked. Your argument is null and void.

Hi elt1956. I just edited the post you commented on because I got right and left brain characteristics mixed up (maybe that’s because I am more right-brained ).

Well, as far as how I feel about the NO and its beauty, I’ve posted this quote from Fr. George Rutler a number of times, but I’ll post it again since he says it so much better than I ever could (and because I completely agree with him). It is from his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108).

God bless.

I can relate to this very well. Where has the appreciation of beauty gone? I grew up with TLM and do miss it. I just have a verrrrry difficult time with people who say the Mass HAS to be TLM, or the New Mass, or it isn’t Mass. I would hate to think that all these years, since the sixties, I haven’t been attending Mass. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

We are not early Jews. We are Catholics. God Himself gave us the New Covenant and in doing so, the Old Covenant was revoked. Your argument is null and void.

Hi elt1956. I just edited the post you commented on because I got right and left brain characteristics mixed up (maybe that’s because I am more right-brained ).

Well, as far as how I feel about the NO and its beauty, I’ve posted this quote from Fr. George Rutler a number of times, but I’ll post it again since he says it so much better than I ever could (and because I completely agree with him). It is from his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108).

God bless.

I can relate to this very well. Where has the appreciation of beauty gone? I grew up with TLM and do miss it. I just have a verrrrry difficult time with people who say the Mass HAS to be TLM, or the New Mass, or it isn’t Mass. I would hate to think that all these years, since the sixties, I haven’t been attending Mass. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Elt, are you Catholic? I sincerely hope not, because that is an heretical belief. This also gives me great concern about you:

Do you honestly believe that God may be a “She”?/QUOTE

I thought that would get a rise. I see no reason why God could not be a combination of both. How else can S/He put up with us with such understanding??? Peace.