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

[elt1956]

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

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

It’s a possibility God is a combination of both. Just a thought.

A further answer. Thanks for your concern, but I suggest you read the following words written by Pope Pius XII and found on the following website.
No Salvation outside the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of those not joined in the Catholic Chruch through no fault of their own. They 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.

And if Pope Pius XII who speaks for Christ didn’t throw them out of Heaven, then neither will I. Judge not that you not be judged. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Doubting myself, I turned to SarcasmSociety.com to see if perhaps you are correct that all sarcasm is rude. While there were a number of very biting examples, there were also statements like

Ogden Nash: “The trouble with a kitten is that it eventually becomes a cat.”

Woody Allen: “As the poet said, ‘Only God can make a tree’ – probably because it’s so hard to figure out how to get the bark on.”

Hard to see why the use of such sarcasm would automatically be offensive.

 

[elt1956]

Doubting myself, I turned to SarcasmSociety.com to see if perhaps you are correct that all sarcasm is rude. While there were a number of very biting examples, there were also statements like

Ogden Nash: “The trouble with a kitten is that it eventually becomes a cat.”

Woody Allen: “As the poet said, ‘Only God can make a tree’ – probably because it’s so hard to figure out how to get the bark on.”

Hard to see why the use of such sarcasm would automatically be offensive.

elt1956:
Well you have your ideas and I have mine and apparently the twain shall never meet. I could accept the two above sarcastic remarks because they aren’t aimed at anyone in particular. Personal sarcasm hurts. Peace

 

[Unitas]

I believe every parish should have both forms of the same rite. Why not have both the ordinary and the extraordinary? It’s our mass as members of the latin rite, after all; it’s ours to celebrate. Only fitting we should have the latin mass in our Churches. It’s our identity and our heritage.

I think that a big reason people try to get out of it by saying “See? no one wants it” is because most people don’t even know what it is. You can’t desire something you don’t even know exists. I know, I was one of them.

 

[CradleCath]

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

WHOOPS!! Laudamus, you spoke too soon.

 

[piouswoman]

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:

does that make you a faux ??

.

Oh come now, are you a pick and choose theologian? Let us take a look once more at the final paragraph:

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond, and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church `'only by an unconscious desire". Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

Rome has spoken, the Sovereign Pontiff has spoken, therefore it is you that appears to be faux.

 

[MrS]

You have a problem(s)… and reading with understanding is perhaps holding a place of primacy.

Your bias to be THE piouswoman is more obvious with each post you make.

I am sure others will try to weigh in here and show you what the Church means… and it ain’t Feeneyism.

.

 

[piouswoman]

“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.

Exactly. But the question was “can Protestants be saved?” The answer is no, unless they join the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation. You are dishonest if you are implying that Protestants are blissfully ignorant of the fact that Christ established His church on earth with a codicil that the schismatic protestants may also be saved whether or not they are members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Catholic church established on earth by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[piouswoman]

You have a problem(s)… and reading with understanding is perhaps holding a place of primacy.

Your bias to be THE piouswoman is more obvious with each post you make.

I am sure others will try to weigh in here and show you what the Church means… and it ain’t Feeneyism.

Why throw out insults and accusations? When faced with the hard cold facts, it would be more dignified to accept and adhere to the TRUTH.

.

Why throw out insults and accusations? When faced with the cold, hard facts, it would be more dignified to accept and adhere to the TRUTH, rather than try to argue yourself around it.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

WHOOPS!! Laudamus, you spoke too soon.

Guess he missed the example in that definition provided huh?

Or thought it meant something else?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

Hmmm - so now did the person giving the definition pick a good example?

Well it does go to show how vague the term is - how many other things does price of place mean keeping them aside for ‘special’ use and not every day use or put somewhere to be looked at rather than handled.

 

[CradleCath]

Oh come now, are you a pick and choose theologian? Let us take a look once more at the final paragraph:

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond, and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church `'only by an unconscious desire". Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

Rome has spoken, the Sovereign Pontiff has spoken, therefore it is you that appears to be faux.

I have some questions about this. Catholics, such an Martin Luther, John Calvin, Wycliffe, etc. KNEW that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ & left it because of the personal sins of some in the heirarchy of His Church. They put their souls in “grave peril” as you quoted above.

However, let’s look at today’s Baptist man for a moment. He is the product of approximately10 generations of Baptists. I doubt he’s studied the history of his Church (it’s an offshoot of the Church of England, through the Puritan/Separatist movement.) He’s probably been taught by people he considers experts that the Baptist Church is pleasing to God & that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”.

He, however, wants very badly to be the person that God created him to be & to please Christ in every way. He acts according to the Natural Law & the knowledge that God has written on the soul of every person. I was taught that this person (& those like him) are given the graces of the Baptism of Desire & because of invincible ignorance can achieve, through the grace of God, salvation. Is this wrong?

 

[MrS]

I have some questions about this. Catholics, such an Martin Luther, John Calvin, Wycliffe, etc. KNEW that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ & left it because of the personal sins of some in the heirarchy of His Church. They put their souls in “grave peril” as you quoted above.

However, let’s look at today’s Baptist man for a moment. He is the product of approximately10 generations of Baptists. I doubt he’s studied the history of his Church (it’s an offshoot of the Church of England, through the Puritan/Separatist movement.) He’s probably been taught by people he considers experts that the Baptist Church is pleasing to God & that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”.

He, however, wants very badly to be the person that God created him to be & to please Christ in every way. He acts according to the Natural Law & the knowledge that God has written on the soul of every person. I was taught that this person (& those like him) are given the graces of the Baptism of Desire & because of invincible ignorance can achieve, through the grace of God, salvation. Is this wrong?

You are pretty much right on. The great loss which the Baptist experiences is not having the fullness of the faith, the sacraments, etc… and of course the theology of a pious woman.

Heaven, however, is still attainable.

 

[Rabbititus]

Hmmm - so now did the person giving the definition pick a good example?

Well it does go to show how vague the term is - how many other things does price of place mean keeping them aside for ‘special’ use and not every day use or put somewhere to be looked at rather than handled.

Even if chant were “put aside for special use,” it would still require that everyone learn some of it and that hymn books feature a lot of it - otherwise nobody will know how to sing it when special occasions come along. After all, keeping fine china for special use requires maintaining it until a special occasion requires its use.

But my point was that a vase has the function of sitting on objects, like pianos, so to give a vase “pride of place” by putting it on a piano is to use the vase to the fullest of its functionality.

To give Gregorian chant “pride of place” requires singing it - because that is how you actually use a piece of music. Music, which is sound, cannot be displayed like an object can be. There’s no way to put Gregorian chant up on a shelf and admire it, or to never use it and never even include it in hymnals and still be giving it a special position - because the only way to use a piece of music is to actually sing and listen to it.

So giving a vase “pride of place” means putting it in a prominent spot, while giving a piece of music “pride of place” means actually learning and singing it.

 

[piouswoman]

I have some questions about this. Catholics, such an Martin Luther, John Calvin, Wycliffe, etc. KNEW that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ & left it because of the personal sins of some in the heirarchy of His Church. They put their souls in “grave peril” as you quoted above.

However, let’s look at today’s Baptist man for a moment. He is the product of approximately10 generations of Baptists. I doubt he’s studied the history of his Church (it’s an offshoot of the Church of England, through the Puritan/Separatist movement.) He’s probably been taught by people he considers experts that the Baptist Church is pleasing to God & that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”.

He, however, wants very badly to be the person that God created him to be & to please Christ in every way. He acts according to the Natural Law & the knowledge that God has written on the soul of every person. I was taught that this person (& those like him) are given the graces of the Baptism of Desire & because of invincible ignorance can achieve, through the grace of God, salvation. Is this wrong?

Unless he is a simpleton, he will understand that his religion is nothing more than an offshoot of the Church of England, which is in schism with Rome. Many of their principles are those of the early Protestant reformers and the Protestant Refomation. They do not accept Papal Supremacy. It would be a stretch to think that they are simply ignorant of these facts.

Your scenario is indicative of the thinking of the modernist hierarchy of the Catholic Church today, and their futile attempts at “political correctness” at the expense of the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Hi elt1956,

Yes, I also have a problem with people saying that the NO is invalid. Pretty much anyone I read who is more traditionally minded regarding the liturgy, and favors the TLM, such as Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in my signature link below), will nevertheless consider the New Mass to be valid.

 

[piouswoman]

You are pretty much right on. The great loss which the Baptist experiences is not having the fullness of the faith, the sacraments, etc… and of course the theology of a pious woman.

Heaven, however, is still attainable.

No, the great loss is that the pope, bishops and priests of the Catholic Church will no longer teach these TRUTHS, and in so doing, they are leading many souls into hell. Christ instructed His apostles to go out in to the world and teach the ONE, TRUE FAITH, He did **not **teach them to go out into the world and cozy up to false faiths, pagans and infidels, promising them salvation in their false religions.

 

[piouswoman]

Hi elt1956,

Yes, I also have a problem with people saying that the NO is invalid. Pretty much anyone I read who is more traditionally minded regarding the liturgy, and favors the TLM, such as Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in my signature link below), will nevertheless consider the New Mass to be valid.

The Novus Ordo Mass can be valid but illicit.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The Novus Ordo Mass can be valid but illicit.

That seems like a bit of word play.

But then the TLM can be valid but illicit as well.

 

[elt1956]

I believe every parish should have both forms of the same rite. Why not have both the ordinary and the extraordinary? It’s our mass as members of the latin rite, after all; it’s ours to celebrate. Only fitting we should have the latin mass in our Churches. It’s our identity and our heritage.

I think that a big reason people try to get out of it by saying “See? no one wants it” is because most people don’t even know what it is. You can’t desire something you don’t even know exists. I know, I was one of them.

Thank you for your very open minded Christ like answer. I attended TLM in my childhood and the NO in adulthood. I can still see through the eyes of a child. God Bless. Happy Easter Peace.