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

[CradleCath]

I never said there was no interest - I am saying that there are not as many as had been previously claimed.

The claims seriously dropped off about a year before the MP was issued which is a curious thing - maybe reality set in?

Sources for this "information???

 

[MrS]

Two more:
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8022/how-christ-changed-the-world
and
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6753/kingship-of-christ

Thanks for the links… it helps to explain a lot about why you say what you say.

 

[piouswoman]

Thanks for the links… it helps to explain a lot about why you say what you say.

Happy to clear up any erroneous thinking.

 

[Dbdurand]

Not in its DOCTRINE. The TRUTH cannot change…does it follow that TRUTH is dead? No, of course it does not.

This may seem as off the topic of the thread but I think it applies because some of the people in this thread treat the TLM as if it were DOGMA.

I was taught that there is Dogma, such as the Creed. Jesus is God and man. God is Trinity. Jesus was raised from the dead. etc. After the words of consecration the Body and Blood of Jesus are present under the appearance of bread and wine. And there are Practices.

Dogma does not change. Practices can change. For example, translating the Bible from Greek to Latin to the modern languages. Making changes in the Mass from table at one end of the building to table in the middle of the building.

The most famous “doctrinal” change - not dogmatic change - is the one brought about in the Galileo controversy. The earth was no longer the center of the everything. The “doctrine” of the centrality of the earth was so important that Galileo almost lost his life because of it. He did lose his freedom.

The Church does indeed change. The truth is the truth. We just may not know all of the truth yet.

 

[CradleCath]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday (the real one, not the rabbit trails). I realized I did not understand the rationale behind desiring the TLM in parishes where one will never attend. I get the desire to have it available for all who want it. I do not get, however, why forcing some parish in another part of the world to celebrate this particular Rite would be a source of happiness. ** Is it just the selfish desire to control others tastes? Or is it the belief that the TLM is the only proper and valid celebration possible?**

It’s neither of the above imo. I do believe that the TLM., with it’s prayers of intercession, it’s concentration on the Sacrifice of Chirst, it’s absolute reverence for the Eucharist & it’s “quiet times” when one can listen to God …is more conducive to worship. I, as a result of this belief, would like to see everyone at least learn about this Mass & attend one or two with an open mind. It is a part of their heritage.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday (the real one, not the rabbit trails). I realized I did not understand the rationale behind desiring the TLM in parishes where one will never attend. I get the desire to have it available for all who want it. I do not get, however, why forcing some parish in another part of the world to celebrate this particular Rite would be a source of happiness. Is it just the selfish desire to control others tastes? Or is it the belief that the TLM is the only proper and valid celebration possible?

At this point I would just like it at a parish anywhere near where I attend now. However, I posted this in another thread but thought it was appropriate to repost here:

Since we’ve been discussing the debates and controversies generated over these issues I want to give my own ideas on why they exist and why they will continue.

Usually when people discuss (and care enough to discuss) issues such as the liturgy, church architecture, communion in the hand and other issues they do not hold that they are a mere “preference” as if one choice or another is just as good. The positions are held because they are seen as objectively better regardless of how much “interest” is shown in one position or what someone’s preference is. I am reminded of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s writings on values and their objectivity. In other words, you give a proper response (whether it be worship, reverence, respect, agreement, etc.) to something, whether it be God, a work of art, a liturgy, etc., based on its objective value, which may or may not line up with a particular person’s preference. So I say Mozart is a better musician than Britney Spears. I realize of course there are probably more people in the U.S. who (in recent times) have bought and listened to Britney Spear’s music rather than Mozart’s. And who will say they prefer her music over “boring” Mozart. Yet according to von Hildebrand’s depiction of values one would say their response is wrong. Mozart’s music is objectively better and people should recognize that. Recognizing that it follows that one should desire that Mozart’s music have a greater dominance in our culture because it is better and thus better for our culture and our lives.

Hence when I argue for the TLM, I am arguing that it is better than the NO. And once that assertion is made, it then stands to reason that these aren’t arguments over neutral items like what color we should have for the paint in the parking lot. It is an argument which at least implies that yes, since the TLM is better, I hope and pray it one day replaces the NO as I deem that ultimately better for the Church. As an aside, I recognize there are political considerations a Pope must take into consideration and thus it may not be wise to simply replace the NO with the TLM at once as that might give a number of Bishops apoplectic fits.

This is just to say that ultimately this is not really an argument about preferences, but rather what people deem to be best for the Church in the long run. And hence it will be a passionate discussion because just as people care about things like education (and not just the education of their own children unless they are rather myopic and selfish) so too people care and will debate passionately about these issues for a long time coming (or should I say, indefinitely).

 

[elt1956]

The NO has ushered in abuses which have led to errors (ecumenism - has led to Protestants receiving Communion; Communion in the hand - has led to loss of faith in the Real Presence; girl altar-boys - has led to girls wanting to become priests; EEHCs - has also led to loss of faith in the Real Presence and a diminishing of the role of the Priest; etc.). The TLM does not allow for these things.

Dear Laudamus. Would you please give a specific of a Protestant receiving communion at a Catholic Church WITH THE PRIEST’S KNOWLEDGE? Thanks. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

The NO has ushered in abuses which have led to errors (ecumenism - has led to Protestants receiving Communion; Communion in the hand - has led to loss of faith in the Real Presence; girl altar-boys - has led to girls wanting to become priests; EEHCs - has also led to loss of faith in the Real Presence and a diminishing of the role of the Priest; etc.). The TLM does not allow for these things.

Waiting for approval? Didn’t you hear? The TLM was NEVER abrogated. Just unlawfully suppressed.

Dear Woman. Who suppressed it? All I know is, I went to Church one Sunday after Vatican II and we no longer had TLM. I assumed, wrongly it appears, that this had been mandated by the Vatican. What is the story behind this? Thanks. Peace

 

[elt1956]

No, traditional Catholics fight for the truths of their faith. Modernists don’t have the stomach for it. For most, it is much easier to live the undemanding and non penitential modern Catholic life.

Dear Woman. Is this the fault of OUR CHURCH, or the fault of “faulty” interpretation by members? As far as I can see, the Catholic Catechism hasn’t changed, nor the dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that were in place before Vatican II. Explain please. Thanks. Peace.

 

[Phemie]

Dear Laudamus. Would you please give a specific of a Protestant receiving communion at a Catholic Church WITH THE PRIEST’S KNOWLEDGE? Thanks. Peace.

I’m not Laudamus but I know that when approached before a funeral at which he was presiding by the aide-de-camp to a dignitary and asked if said dignitary could receive Communion since he wasn’t Catholic, our bishop replied, “Pretend you didn’t ask the question.” Dignitary received Communion. The young transitional deacon almost had a stroke.

 

[pnewton]

CradleCath:
It’s neither of the above imo. I do believe that the TLM., with it’s prayers of intercession, it’s concentration on the Sacrifice of Chirst, it’s absolute reverence for the Eucharist & it’s “quiet times” when one can listen to God …is more conducive to worship. I, as a result of this belief, would like to see everyone at least learn about this Mass & attend one or two with an open mind. It is a part of their heritage.
Well answered. I do not have any of the above issues in the Mass I currently attend, so that is why I do not feel see things this way.

 

[elt1956]

I’m not Laudamus but I know that when approached before a funeral at which he was presiding by the aide-de-camp to a dignitary and asked if said dignitary could receive Communion since he wasn’t Catholic, our bishop replied, “Pretend you didn’t ask the question.” Dignitary received Communion. The young transitional deacon almost had a stroke.

Ah hah!! So abuse does occur!!! But would you hold the NO itself responsible, or the freer interpretation that “some” in authority felt they could get by with because they were in authority? As I said in my previous post, I have never been aware of abuse of any kind of rules and liturgy by our local priests. It seems that once Pandora’s box is opened, it keeps getting bigger and more and more ideas about freedom of interpretation just pour out. Thanks. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

I’m not Laudamus but I know that when approached before a funeral at which he was presiding by the aide-de-camp to a dignitary and asked if said dignitary could receive Communion since he wasn’t Catholic, our bishop replied, “Pretend you didn’t ask the question.” Dignitary received Communion. The young transitional deacon almost had a stroke.

At this point I would just like it at a parish anywhere near where I attend now. However, I posted this in another thread but thought it was appropriate to repost here:

Since we’ve been discussing the debates and controversies generated over these issues I want to give my own ideas on why they exist and why they will continue.

Usually when people discuss (and care enough to discuss) issues such as the liturgy, church architecture, communion in the hand and other issues they do not hold that they are a mere “preference” as if one choice or another is just as good. The positions are held because they are seen as objectively better regardless of how much “interest” is shown in one position or what someone’s preference is. I am reminded of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s writings on values and their objectivity. In other words, you give a proper response (whether it be worship, reverence, respect, agreement, etc.) to something, whether it be God, a work of art, a liturgy, etc., based on its objective value, which may or may not line up with a particular person’s preference. So I say Mozart is a better musician than Britney Spears. I realize of course there are probably more people in the U.S. who (in recent times) have bought and listened to Britney Spear’s music rather than Mozart’s. And who will say they prefer her music over “boring” Mozart. Yet according to von Hildebrand’s depiction of values one would say their response is wrong. Mozart’s music is objectively better and people should recognize that. Recognizing that it follows that one should desire that Mozart’s music have a greater dominance in our culture because it is better and thus better for our culture and our lives.

Hence when I argue for the TLM, I am arguing that it is better than the NO. And once that assertion is made, it then stands to reason that these aren’t arguments over neutral items like what color we should have for the paint in the parking lot. It is an argument which at least implies that yes, since the TLM is better, I hope and pray it one day replaces the NO as I deem that ultimately better for the Church. As an aside, I recognize there are political considerations a Pope must take into consideration and thus it may not be wise to simply replace the NO with the TLM at once as that might give a number of Bishops apoplectic fits.

This is just to say that ultimately this is not really an argument about preferences, but rather what people deem to be best for the Church in the long run. And hence it will be a passionate discussion because just as people care about things like education (and not just the education of their own children unless they are rather myopic and selfish) so too people care and will debate passionately about these issues for a long time coming (or should I say, indefinitely).

Hello Brennan. My :twocents: I objectively think that such passions have been raised in whether the NO or TLM is better for oneself, or altruistically for the Chruch, true objectivity can play no part in this decision. If we are truthful to ourselves and others about these two forms of the Mass, how can we say, we can choose one or the other with no feeling? That one or the other is not a subjective choice? The proponents of TLM feel this form brings one closer to God because of the liturgy and ritual which is quite beautiful. I grew up with it and do miss it. The proponents of the NO think this Mass is just as beaufitul because it is the form which is most recognizable to them. It is also the style which fits our, unfortunately, too busy lives. Perhaps it is just this experience which makes one adverse to TLM which is a slower, more ponderous way of worshiping God. Perhaps some of the decisions made by Vatican II opened too many doors, but perhaps also, not enough were opened. It is just too bad TLM has not been advocated and resurrected before now. We, however, must remember that both TLM and NO Masses are approved and sanctioned by the Church. Which one is perceived to be the better form of adoration is up to the individual to subjectively choose. But there must be a choice and so I do wish each parish, or a parish within reach of everyone would re-establish TLM without abrogating the NO. We need both forms. Peace.

 

[Dbdurand]

All I know is, I went to Church one Sunday after Vatican II and we no longer had TLM. I assumed, wrongly it appears, that this had been mandated by the Vatican. What is the story behind this? Thanks. Peace

I don’t know how old elt1956 is but something was wrong if he/she did not know the Mass was changing. There was a Vatican Council II convened between 1962 and 1965. For three years ALL of the bishops of the church participated in this council. It was reported in the secular press and the religious press. Perhaps elt1956 was too young to understand what was happening at the time.

The Vatican approved all of the changes that were enacted by the National Council of Catholic Bishops according to the Vatican II “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” Perhaps elt1956 should read that document (available on the Vatican web site) to know the theology behind the changes from the TLM.

I happened to be in the Diocese of Omaha when the liturgical changes first took place. Our pastor preached for weeks before the changes explaining what was going to happen; how the way Mass was celebrated would change. When the changes came the congregation was prepared and participated in the Mass.

elt1956 seems to know a lot about what the TLM is about but is apparently in some kind of a time bubble as regards anything OFFICIAL in the church since 1962.

Read the documents - there are 16 of them.

 

[elt1956]

I don’t know how old elt1956 is but something was wrong if he/she did not know the Mass was changing. There was a Vatican Council II convened between 1962 and 1965. For three years ALL of the bishops of the church participated in this council. It was reported in the secular press and the religious press. Perhaps elt1956 was too young to understand what was happening at the time.

The Vatican approved all of the changes that were enacted by the National Council of Catholic Bishops according to the Vatican II “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” Perhaps elt1956 should read that document (available on the Vatican web site) to know the theology behind the changes from the TLM.

I happened to be in the Diocese of Omaha when the liturgical changes first took place. Our pastor preached for weeks before the changes explaining what was going to happen; how the way Mass was celebrated would change. When the changes came the congregation was prepared and participated in the Mass.

elt1956 seems to know a lot about what the TLM is about but is apparently in some kind of a time bubble as regards anything OFFICIAL in the church since 1962.

Read the documents - there are 16 of them.

I think the term is “time warp”. Peace.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hello Brennan. My :twocents: I objectively think that such passions have been raised in whether the NO or TLM is better for oneself, or altruistically for the Chruch, true objectivity can play no part in this decision. If we are truthful to ourselves and others about these two forms of the Mass, how can we say, we can choose one or the other with no feeling? That one or the other is not a subjective choice? The proponents of TLM feel this form brings one closer to God because of the liturgy and ritual which is quite beautiful. I grew up with it and do miss it. The proponents of the NO think this Mass is just as beaufitul because it is the form which is most recognizable to them. It is also the style which fits our, unfortunately, too busy lives. Perhaps it is just this experience which makes one adverse to TLM which is a slower, more ponderous way of worshiping God. Perhaps some of the decisions made by Vatican II opened too many doors, but perhaps also, not enough were opened. It is just too bad TLM has not been advocated and resurrected before now. We, however, must remember that both TLM and NO Masses are approved and sanctioned by the Church. Which one is perceived to be the better form of adoration is up to the individual to subjectively choose. But there must be a choice and so I do wish each parish, or a parish within reach of everyone would re-establish TLM without abrogating the NO. We need both forms. Peace.

Hi elt1956,

While certainly people may subjectively prefer one form of Mass or another, I would argue that objectively speaking, while both are valid, one does not necessarily convey the Faith as fully as another. If you wish, you may read my signature line, “The Case for the Latin Mass.” Even if one disagrees with von Hildebrand, he is certainly making the case on objective terms and not mere preference.

God bless.

 

[elt1956]

Latin is the language of the church. Before the vernacular was introduced, one could go to ANY Catholic Church, in ANY country and the Holy Mass would be the same, he would feel at home and understand the Mass regardless of what country he would be in. That, sadly is not the case today.

Believe it or not, once upon a time Latin was the vernacular of the people attending Mass.

AND believe it or not, so was Aramaic and Hebrew. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Latin is the language of the church. Before the vernacular was introduced, one could go to ANY Catholic Church, in ANY country and the Holy Mass would be the same, he would feel at home and understand the Mass regardless of what country he would be in. That, sadly is not the case today.

Believe it or not, once upon a time Latin was the vernacular of the people attending Mass.

There is more to tradition than just the Latin Mass. If the doctrines are not Catholic, all the smells and bells, Latin and lace, will mean nothing. No, it goes deeper that just appearances, it takes dedication and effort to practice our Catholic faith as it has always been practiced by countless faithful for two thousand years.

It amazes me that the modernists could undo it all in a mere forty years, leaving in their wake the majority of Catholics who are so poorly catechized and possessing such ignorance of their faith.

Dear Woman, I think 2000 years is a bit tooooo far back. Peace.

 

[Like]

Sources for this "information???

I second this. Please supply your source.

 

[Freshman88]

Latin was only the vernacular for a very short period in Church history.