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

[pnewton]

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.

The document earlier stated "Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church "

It says nothing about having basic historical knowledge. Having spent a great deal of time on the other side, as a Baptist, I can assure you that there is very little knowledge that the Catholic Church was divinely established by Christ. I am no simpleton.

Back to the topic. I believe the whole issue is moot. The way the Catholic Church is organized, there is no way Rome is going to mandate such a thing. There is an inherent trust in each bishop to tend to such needs and make such judgements. Even here, it is amazing how many assume that this would be good for every parish. That somehow a love of the TLM exists unknown everywhere.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

Of course it is. Has someone here said that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t valid? If so, I must have missed that.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

CradleCath:
Of course it is. Has someone here said that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t valid? If so, I must have missed that.

Good point. No, not to my knowledge. I reiterated that point because when traditionalists are criticized it is often for such things as holding the New Mass to be invalid or being sedevacantists when in actuality such views seem extremely rare or nonexistent among traditionalists on this forum.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The Novus Ordo Mass can be valid but illicit.

Or rather, invalid but licit? As any Mass can be if not celebrated properly? I don’t know of many situations where the NO would be illicit.

 

[elt1956]

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.

It seems woman that you pick and choose the words that you think support your case. Pope Pius XII also said in the same encyclical: 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,… You have heard of Baptism of desire, haven’t you??? To me this “certain unconscious yearning and desire” to be Christ like is in the same spiritual realm. What Cradle Catholic questions below is a wonderful example of a soul’s desire to be one with Christ. Although some are so hardened in their hearts they believe they are the final authority as to who goes to Heaven, I will leave that judgement up to God.

"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?

 

[elt1956]

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.

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.

Didn’t Christ Himself “cozy up” to Jews, taxpayers and others some would consider not worth saving? How many did He turn away by brash words and rigid beliefs and comments?? Peace woman.

 

[elt1956]

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.

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! Pope Pius XII himself said in the encyclical, which you quoted with little understanding, that those outside the Catholic Faith can be joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, through DESIRE and LONGING.

 

[elt1956]

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.

It seems woman that you pick and choose the words that you think support your case. Pope Pius XII also said in the same encyclical: 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,… You have heard of Baptism of desire, haven’t you??? To me this “certain unconscious yearning and desire” to be Christ like is in the same spiritual realm. What Cradle Catholic questions below is a wonderful example of a soul’s desire to be one with Christ. Although some are so hardened in their hearts they believe they are the final authority as to who goes to Heaven, I will leave that judgement up to God.

 

[elt1956]

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?

Hello Cradle Catholic. I was taught the same thing. I don’t believe anyone is beyond salvation who truly desires to know the truth of Christ., however imperfectly we seek. We are only human and being a creation of God, I think we will be given a LOT of leeway. We must put our faith in God and trust that S/He will be the gentle God we pray to.

 

[Sure]

Or rather, invalid but licit? As any Mass can be if not celebrated properly? I don’t know of many situations where the NO would be illicit.

I think she is probably making reference to those times when “parts” of a Mass can be illicit. For instance, the action is illicit when a priest (for no legitimate reason of physical impairment) does not genuflect at the appropriate times. The Mass as a whole can remain on the whole valid and licit, although certain illicit actions may have occured.

That’s my take anyway.

 

[Richie_Nelson]

I think she is probably making reference to those times when “parts” of a Mass can be illicit. For instance, the action is illicit when a priest (for no legitimate reason of physical impairment) does not genuflect at the appropriate times. The Mass as a whole can remain on the whole valid and licit, although certain illicit actions may have occured.

That’s my take anyway.

It amazes me, that it seems so many people go to mass, looking for some form of “illicit abuse”. How can these people experience the real presence when they’re so busy looking for things that they think are wrong all the time?

 

[Richie_Nelson]

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.

I’ve heard this comment before, but it comes to mind now.

Does the phrase “good catholic, bad christian” come to mind here?

 

[pjn6444]

I do not think every parish should be required to have the TLM. I like the TLM. I think it is better than the NO. However, if you have a priest that doesn’t take the NO seriously, why would he take the TLM seriously? I think a good priest will honestly discern the parish’s call for TLM, and discern his abilities. I have seen some priests do very good NOs. It would be great if every parish had the TLM, but with some of the priests we have I will pass on every parish having it. I mean think of a clown and balloon mass mixed with the TLM.

 

[Sure]

It amazes me, that it seems so many people go to mass, looking for some form of “illicit abuse”. How can these people experience the real presence when they’re so busy looking for things that they think are wrong all the time?

When you know how it is supposed to be done it can be very distracting to have the Mass suddenly changed against the rubrics. I look at it this way: Priests who don’t follow the rules are bad priests. It’s their job, as priests, to educate themselves as the directives from Rome and make sure they are followed 100% - it’s just not that difficult. So, yeah, it’s pretty disturbing when a priest consecrates a huge jug of wine, proceeds to pour it into chalices and then assemble a small army of extraordinary ministers in the sanctuary before he has received Communion. All that is a big distraction at a time when there should be no distractions. And yes, I blame the priest, because he should know better. It’s his job to know better.

 

[MrS]

When you know how it is supposed to be done it can be very distracting to have the Mass suddenly changed against the rubrics.
… And yes, I blame the priest, because he should know better. It’s his job to know better.

This might be the heart of the problem. It is much easier to see who is responsible for the error. But convincing uncatechiszed Catholics that an error even exists has become the bigger problem.

And the “bad priests” as you rightly call them, know this… and are secure in their error. It is no wonder they deny adult education unless provided by them or their fellow Catholics who are really uneducated in the Faith.

We probably all know some RCIA director or Faith Formation Leader who has caused more concerns with their “personal” thinking and how many new Catholics are corrupted in the faith before they even have a chance.

Tonight many (I think 65,000 in the country) will enter the Catholic Church. The problem of weak catechises would be more evident if more of us knew that nearly half will have left, fallen away, or become inactive by this time next year!

.

 

[Phemie]

I voted no.

While I would dearly love an EF Mass, making it mandatory would be a hardship in a small parish that has neither the resources nor the priests to celebrate it. It would take a great expense to have the necessary vestments & sanctuary furnishing that are mandatory to the celebration of the EF.

Not to mention that there are priests who have absolutely no desire to celebrate that form and shouldn’t have to celebrate it against their wishes.

 

[Rabbititus]

BTW, I voted “no” to the original question. I think mandating the TLM will cause animosity towards it that is unnecessary.

Personally, I think the TLM will grow quite a bit on its own over the next few decades. Since the MP, the number of TLMs has increased quite a bit. No, it isn’t giving the NO a run for its money, but compared to what it was pre-MP, it has grown a lot. I’ve heard that younger priests generally are more interested in learning it, and I think by letting it grow on it’s own, one can then argue that the TLM really is a “people’s mass,” contrary to what so many who dislike it may say, since it will have been a grass roots movement of the faithful asking for it.

I think within 50 years, we’ll probably have an interesting cross section in this country of liturgy in the Latin church, roughly paralleling the low-high church movements found in Anglicanism. We’ll have completely un-traditional NO masses (low church), more traditional NO and low TLMs (broad church), and then very traditional TLMs and some NOs (high church). I should mention that I use the low/broad/high terms only for liturgical style, not doctrine or beliefs.

Now, I would not object to making it mandatory that every diocese have enough TLMs that everyone has reasonably easy access to one. But to mandate, say, three rural parishes that share one priest to all have one TLM apiece, would be impractical and would probably set the “TLM movement” back more than it would push it forward.

 

[elt1956]

It amazes me, that it seems so many people go to mass, looking for some form of “illicit abuse”. How can these people experience the real presence when they’re so busy looking for things that they think are wrong all the time?

Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?? Found this quote which I think you will appreciate. Peace.

Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive." St John of the Cross

 

[elt1956]

BTW, I voted “no” to the original question. I think mandating the TLM will cause animosity towards it that is unnecessary.

Personally, I think the TLM will grow quite a bit on its own over the next few decades. Since the MP, the number of TLMs has increased quite a bit. No, it isn’t giving the NO a run for its money, but compared to what it was pre-MP, it has grown a lot. I’ve heard that younger priests generally are more interested in learning it, and I think by letting it grow on it’s own, one can then argue that the TLM really is a “people’s mass,” contrary to what so many who dislike it may say, since it will have been a grass roots movement of the faithful asking for it.

I think within 50 years, we’ll probably have an interesting cross section in this country of liturgy in the Latin church, roughly paralleling the low-high church movements found in Anglicanism. We’ll have completely un-traditional NO masses (low church), more traditional NO and low TLMs (broad church), and then very traditional TLMs and some NOs (high church). I should mention that I use the low/broad/high terms only for liturgical style, not doctrine or beliefs.

Now, I would not object to making it mandatory that every diocese have enough TLMs that everyone has reasonably easy access to one. But to mandate, say, three rural parishes that share one priest to all have one TLM apiece, would be impractical and would probably set the “TLM movement” back more than it would push it forward.

I agree. I don’t think proponents of one, or the other need become rabid in their opinions. I am just hoping both TLM and NO will be offered in enough parishes everyone can experience both before the next 50 years fly by. Of course it did take almost 40 years for TLM to fall into disuse, so I guess 50 years might be the average before it is accepted again by those who prefer the NO. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

I’ve heard this comment before, but it comes to mind now.

Does the phrase “good catholic, bad christian” come to mind here?

Okay, Ritchie would you clarify this for moi? The only thing I can relate it to is that before I married my non-Catholic (horrors) husband of 45 years he wanted to know if Catholics were Christian. There seems to be a mystic around the RCC that confuses Protestants. And some Catholics keep it that way by their holier than thou attitudes. (YES TO ALL WHO ARE KEEPING SCORE, WE WERE MARRIED IN THE ONE AND ONLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT WE WEREN’T PERMITTED BEYOND THE ALTAR RAIL AND THE PASTOR REFUSED TO MARRY US. THE ASSISTANT PASTOR WAS THE ONE TO BLESS OUR MARRIAGE. IT SEEMS HIS BLESSING WORKED. ) PEACE