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

[pnewton]

Well, you are focusing on the TLM. I’m talking about traditional catholicism versus all this Thomas Merton type stuff. A priest can teach traditional catholicism from the pulpit of his NO parish. But how many do ?

I am focusing on the TLM only here, because that is the title of the thread. The TLM is what has been touted as something will reverse all ills. I agree that it is not the sum total of all traditionalism and in my opinion not the most important. I do have a priest that is very conservative and preaches traditional Catholic doctrine. Not the bells and whistles, but the important things. Yet here in this thread I get labeled a modernist. There may be some in our parish who do not believe in the Real Presence, but no one is mistaken that this dogma is central to the teaching of the Catholic Church. There may be some that do not make confession. But no one can escape knowing that confession is a vital Sacrament in the life of a Catholic. We observe Holy Days as they were meant. We are up to 50-75 daily communicants in a 1200 family parish. And so on.

 

[pnewton]

No, but I have eyes in my head. As I said, the evidence is there for all to see. The NO has not borne good fruit.

It is not self-evident and has been debated many times. Most people that disagree with traditionalists on this topic get met with clear logic in the form of name-calling. (ostrich, head in the sand, modernist, etc) The fact is that the so called crisis is debatable. It is not that the Church has folded up shop. I be most non-Catholics barely noticed attendance drops.

It is also not as if there are not cultural issues that account for the problems we are facing. Like a lessened percentage to the priestly vocation might easily have as much to do with the sexual revolution or an increase in materialism in America as the changes in Mass. On evidence to this possibility is that areas like Africa and South America where the Church is growing has the same Mass as America. It seems the culture is more of an issue than the Mass.

 

[MrS]

In the USA:

Active Priests: 1965 - 58,000 2002 - 45,000

Ordinations: 1965 - 1,575 2002 - 450

Priestless Parishes: 1965 - 549 (about 1%) 2002 - 2,928 (about 15%)

Seminarians: 1965 - 49,000 2002 - 4,700

Sisters: 1965 - 180,000 2002 - 75,000

Brothers: 1965 - 12,000 2002 - 5,700

Nope, no problem in the church here people, move right along, nothing to see here…

add:

PiousWomen: 1965 - lots 2008 - 1

 

[I_Believe]

I am focusing on the TLM only here, because that is the title of the thread. The TLM is what has been touted as something will reverse all ills. I agree that it is not the sum total of all traditionalism and in my opinion not the most important. I do have a priest that is very conservative and preaches traditional Catholic doctrine. Not the bells and whistles, but the important things. Yet here in this thread I get labeled a modernist. There may be some in our parish who do not believe in the Real Presence, but no one is mistaken that this dogma is central to the teaching of the Catholic Church. There may be some that do not make confession. But no one can escape knowing that confession is a vital Sacrament in the life of a Catholic. We observe Holy Days as they were meant. We are up to 50-75 daily communicants in a 1200 family parish. And so on.

Fair enough. The NO shouldn’t be blamed for everything, and the TLM can’t solve everything. We can all probably agree on that without throwning “BUT…” into it. And we should agree.

VII didn’t mean to do it, but we can’t deny there is division in the Church today. Both in the Curia, and in the dioceses. Traditionalists should realize it’s been too long now, and VII isn’t going to be discarded. And those who don’t see reason for all the fuss must realize traditionalists won’t discard their understanding of Catholicism.

Once both sides accept this, HMC will be better for it.

 

[pnewton]

Once both sides accept this, HMC will be better for it.

I agree. It is why I still would like to see the TLM expanded (as per the OP). The Catholic Church is big enough both. If VII sought to evangelize and adjust to the world of the 20th century, how can we not be pastoral and at least make room for the more traditional Catholics.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, but I have eyes in my head. As I said, the evidence is there for all to see. The NO has not borne good fruit.

Let us think about what was already happening in the '60s, before the NO had a chance to do anything. I think it much more probable that the unaddressed spiritual damage done by WWII (and probably WWI as well, for that matter) has a lot more to do with the state of the Church in Europe and the Americas than does the NO. Even those wars did not come out of spiritual thin air. In fact, I would venture that both Vatican II and the NO were attempts to stanch a great wound that had to be faced up to in order to be healed.

The world lived through evils of unprecedented magnitude during the twentieth century, especially the first half of the 20th century. The suffering of the poor and destitute opened the door to communism. Modernism also did not spring up in a vacuum, but as weeds do took advantage of poor soil. And what were the veterans of WWII asked to do, having lived through atrocities of war never seen in history, having barely come into their own manhood at the time? Come home, be heroes, give thanks that it is all over by buying a lot of stuff, and don’t talk about it. I think that came out of an admirable desire to preserve the innocence of their children, but there is little wonder how ignoring those wounds came to rupture the ties between the generations, why so many of the youth of the '60s abandoned their faith in any “anyone over 30”, as well as in institutional religion of any type. Isn’t it kind of funny that in 1962, “anyone over 30” was “anyone old enough to have been an adult during WWII”? Call me nuts, but I think that evil century is where our heritage went.

It is not just that Catholics don’t know their faith, you know. Fewer young Jews learned Hebrew, and more Jewish homes were secular. Every mainstream Christian domination fell off, not just in population, but in vitality. Young people looked to the East for spiritual guidance, in the mistaken belief that Western culture was more guilty of martial barbarisms than the regimes of the East, even as people now scandalized by Christianity turn to Islam. (And, by the way, the scandal of decayed Christianity is how Islam got started in the first place.)

The world was not spiritually healthy in 1962, not even the Catholic world, and especially not the European Catholic world. I think Pope John XXIII had seen enough of post-war Europe to see that the status quo was not going to bring about spiritual healing. That his Vatican II couldn’t turn that tide on a dime should not be used as evidence that Vatican II was responsible for the tide itself.

So maybe the NO wasn’t the answer. That might be true. It is too simplistic, though, to try to make it the problem.

 

[elt1956]

I hope you are not saying that the Christians in the Protestant communities will be saved in their religions. That is an heretical belief. Only if they have NO KNOWLEDGE of the Truth of the Catholic Faith can we believe they have a chance.

I wouldn’t say, either, that the TLM is the answer per se, but it is the first step towards a return to a better understanding among Catholics of what is the Truth. The TLM is the cornerstone of our Faith. It is the most perfect sacrifice which we can offer to God. It was the perfect sacrifice for 1600+ years, the canon of the Mass virtually unchanged during that time. It is pleasing to God. The NO is a banal, on-the-spot fabrication (to quote our Pope). Graces flow from the TLM which do not flow from the NO, and the proof is the decimation of our Church since VII. Watch the transformation, it will take place. Slowly, but it will take place.

Is that NO KNOWLEDGE or NO ACCEPTANCE?? Once a person has accepted a form of belief, I think it would be very hard to admit s/he is wrong. Many devout people remain with their church of choice. A bit confusing, hey?? Thanks. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

I hope you are not saying that the Christians in the Protestant communities will be saved in their religions. That is an heretical belief. Only if they have NO KNOWLEDGE of the Truth of the Catholic Faith can we believe they have a chance.

I wouldn’t say, either, that the TLM is the answer per se, but it is the first step towards a return to a better understanding among Catholics of what is the Truth. The TLM is the cornerstone of our Faith. It is the most perfect sacrifice which we can offer to God. It was the perfect sacrifice for 1600+ years, the canon of the Mass virtually unchanged during that time. It is pleasing to God. The NO is a banal, on-the-spot fabrication (to quote our Pope). Graces flow from the TLM which do not flow from the NO, and the proof is the decimation of our Church since VII. Watch the transformation, it will take place. Slowly, but it will take place.

Let us think about what was already happening in the '60s, before the NO had a chance to do anything. I think it much more probable that the unaddressed spiritual damage done by WWII (and probably WWI as well, for that matter) has a lot more to do with the state of the Church in Europe and the Americas than does the NO. Even those wars did not come out of spiritual thin air. In fact, I would venture that both Vatican II and the NO were attempts to stanch a great wound that had to be faced up to in order to be healed.

The world lived through evils of unprecedented magnitude during the twentieth century, especially the first half of the 20th century. The suffering of the poor and destitute opened the door to communism. Modernism also did not spring up in a vacuum, but as weeds do took advantage of poor soil. And what were the veterans of WWII asked to do, having lived through atrocities of war never seen in history, having barely come into their own manhood at the time? Come home, be heroes, give thanks that it is all over by buying a lot of stuff, and don’t talk about it. I think that came out of an admirable desire to preserve the innocence of their children, but there is little wonder how ignoring those wounds came to rupture the ties between the generations, why so many of the youth of the '60s abandoned their faith in any “anyone over 30”, as well as in institutional religion of any type. Isn’t it kind of funny that in 1962, “anyone over 30” was “anyone old enough to have been an adult during WWII”? Call me nuts, but I think that evil century is where our heritage went.

It is not just that Catholics don’t know their faith, you know. Fewer young Jews learned Hebrew, and more Jewish homes were secular. Every mainstream Christian domination fell off, not just in population, but in vitality. Young people looked to the East for spiritual guidance, in the mistaken belief that Western culture was more guilty of martial barbarisms than the regimes of the East, even as people now scandalized by Christianity turn to Islam. (And, by the way, the scandal of decayed Christianity is how Islam got started in the first place.)

The world was not spiritually healthy in 1962, not even the Catholic world, and especially not the European Catholic world. I think Pope John XXIII had seen enough of post-war Europe to see that the status quo was not going to bring about spiritual healing. That his Vatican II couldn’t turn that tide on a dime should not be used as evidence that Vatican II was responsible for the tide itself.

So maybe the NO wasn’t the answer. That might be true. It is too simplistic, though, to try to make it the problem.

VERY WELL SAID EASTER JOY. I agree that civilization certainly changed after WWII. I think that War induced Western civilization especially, to believe we and we alone were in charge of our destiny. After all, hadn’t we just defeated the most evil man who had existed in centuries? Economy burst at the seams, we didn’t need to lean on the hereafter for our “just” rewards. We could have it ALL now, now, now. And so we moved away from our Creator and religion to secularism and a dependence on no one, but ourselves. As new scientific discoveries created by hu/mans, for the enhancement of hu/mans became more availbable, the further we drifted from the center of our being. And now many of today’s youngsters and adults want more and more of the same and beyond. They have no idea of material sacrifice, much less spiritual. But, belief in a religious system cannot be “forced” from without. It is like any knowledge, or awareness, it must come from within. It will come from within, only through being GENTLY led, or a catastrophe that will really wake us up. Only then will we as a species return to God. This is why I am saddened by the responses on this forum of some who favor to blindness either the NO or TLM and will not give an inch to either side. Talk about self destruction! we are there. Peace.

 

[I_Believe]

Let us think about what was already happening in the '60s, before the NO had a chance to do anything. I think it much more probable that the unaddressed spiritual damage done by WWII (and probably WWI as well, for that matter) has a lot more to do with the state of the Church in Europe and the Americas than does the NO. Even those wars did not come out of spiritual thin air. In fact, I would venture that both Vatican II and the NO were attempts to stanch a great wound that had to be faced up to in order to be healed.

The world lived through evils of unprecedented magnitude during the twentieth century, especially the first half of the 20th century. The suffering of the poor and destitute opened the door to communism. Modernism also did not spring up in a vacuum, but as weeds do took advantage of poor soil. And what were the veterans of WWII asked to do, having lived through atrocities of war never seen in history, having barely come into their own manhood at the time? Come home, be heroes, give thanks that it is all over by buying a lot of stuff, and don’t talk about it. I think that came out of an admirable desire to preserve the innocence of their children, but there is little wonder how ignoring those wounds came to rupture the ties between the generations, why so many of the youth of the '60s abandoned their faith in any “anyone over 30”, as well as in institutional religion of any type. Isn’t it kind of funny that in 1962, “anyone over 30” was “anyone old enough to have been an adult during WWII”? Call me nuts, but I think that evil century is where our heritage went.

It is not just that Catholics don’t know their faith, you know. Fewer young Jews learned Hebrew, and more Jewish homes were secular. Every mainstream Christian domination fell off, not just in population, but in vitality. Young people looked to the East for spiritual guidance, in the mistaken belief that Western culture was more guilty of martial barbarisms than the regimes of the East, even as people now scandalized by Christianity turn to Islam. (And, by the way, the scandal of decayed Christianity is how Islam got started in the first place.)

The world was not spiritually healthy in 1962, not even the Catholic world, and especially not the European Catholic world. I think Pope John XXIII had seen enough of post-war Europe to see that the status quo was not going to bring about spiritual healing. That his Vatican II couldn’t turn that tide on a dime should not be used as evidence that Vatican II was responsible for the tide itself.

So maybe the NO wasn’t the answer. That might be true. It is too simplistic, though, to try to make it the problem.

You are pretty close to the truth there. I think what went wrong, was the ones who wanted to fight this threat to the faith, the threat being the rapid change in society, chose to fight these changes with revolutionary changes of their own. That was a terrible mistake. It led to the confusion that now tests our faith.

 

[elt1956]

You are pretty close to the truth there. I think what went wrong, was the ones who wanted to fight this threat to the faith, the threat being the rapid change in society, chose to fight these changes with revolutionary changes of their own. That was a terrible mistake. It led to the confusion that now tests our faith.

Hello I Believe. I think I will have to agree whole heartedly with what you say. I wonder what the result would be today if we still had the “Old Church” I grew up with. I believe it is the Eastern Churches that have stayed true to form? I wonder if their congregations have remained the same, or have grown. Any one know? Peace

 

[laudamus_te]

Is that NO KNOWLEDGE or NO ACCEPTANCE?? Once a person has accepted a form of belief, I think it would be very hard to admit s/he is wrong. Many devout people remain with their church of choice. A bit confusing, hey?? Thanks. Peace.

NO KNOWLEDGE. If a Protestant has knowledge of the Catholic Faith, but chooses the false religion of Protestantism, it matters not one whit how devout they are in their false religion. Not confusing at all. The Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. End of discussion.

 

[elt1956]

NO KNOWLEDGE. If a Protestant has knowledge of the Catholic Faith, but chooses the false religion of Protestantism, it matters not one whit how devout they are in their false religion. Not confusing at all. The Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. End of discussion.

OKAY!!! Still not clear though. I have KNOWLEDGE of some Protestant beliefs, but I don’t ACCEPT them. To me there is a difference. Maybe just semantics, but a difference??? Thanks. Peace.

 

[piouswoman]

Oh for Pete’s sake!!! The following website was given on this forum by YOU. Give me a break!!

This was written by Pope Pius XII and found on the following website. I think he was Pope BEFORE Vatican II wasn’t he? I seem to remember seeing his picture when I was in Grade School.

www.friarsminor.org/boston.html
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 I will say again, 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. BUT OH MERCY. Was he really talking about folks who are not Catholic??? Was he really talking about my neighbor or relative who is not Catholic, but could have as much faith in Christ as you do? OH FOR SHAME!!!, Will the horrors never end???,:ehh:

What’s the problem?
The bolded in red says it all. One cannot remain a protestant, a Jew, a pagan and expect eternal salvation while knowing that the Catholic Church as established on earth by Our Lord Jesus Christ exists. Give me a break and stop trying to apologize for the infidels who refuse to join the one true faith because the modernists told them they can be saved in their false religions. Surely you are smarter than that. I’m tired of those who skulk around and twist the truth to suit their own apologist and politically correct agenda.

 

[laudamus_te]

OKAY!!! Still not clear though. I have KNOWLEDGE of some Protestant beliefs, but I don’t ACCEPT them. To me there is a difference. Maybe just semantics, but a difference??? Thanks. Peace.

This is off topic of the OP, but just to clear it up… turn around what you just said to this (as a Protestant speaking): “I have KNOWLEDGE of some Catholic beliefs, but I don’t ACCEPT them.” That is someone who we, as Catholics, cannot believe will be saved. What’s not to understand about that?

 

[MrS]

Well, p/w, I see that you are softening your position and making some “concessions”.

That’s a start. and a small sign of some understanding developing.’

.

 

[piouswoman]

OKAY!!! Still not clear though. I have KNOWLEDGE of some Protestant beliefs, but I don’t ACCEPT them. To me there is a difference. Maybe just semantics, but a difference??? Thanks. Peace.

YOU DON’T NEED TO ACCEPT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE. How easy is that to understand? Have you forgotten? Our Lord came to establish His Church on earth, the ONE, TRUE FAITH for the salvation of our souls…hence, all other religions are FALSE religions. Maybe the flouride in the water really has affected the ability to think clearly and logically.

 

[piouswoman]

Well, p/w, I see that you are softening your position and making some “concessions”.

That’s a start. and a small sign of some understanding developing.’

.

I have made no concessions that are contrary to the dogma that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[piouswoman]

add:

PiousWomen: 1965 - lots 2008 - 1

That last statistic, that you so whimsically inserted, further supports the evident conclusion of the destruction that has occurred in the church since Vatican II.

 

[I_Believe]

Hello I Believe. I think I will have to agree whole heartedly with what you say. I wonder what the result would be today if we still had the “Old Church” I grew up with. I believe it is the Eastern Churches that have stayed true to form? I wonder if their congregations have remained the same, or have grown. Any one know? Peace

We’ll, I don’t know much about the Eastern Rites. It’s a good question though.

I’m not sure it would be a fair indicator. Rome stands between us and them. Geographically, I mean. Roman Catholicism is quite a bit more widespread.

The question of what if there had been no revolutionary changes or Council since, say, about the time the “show biz” had their “sex sells” epithany, is a better question. A very good one.

I have searched the net for a Traditional Catholicism forum that actually has discussions on catholicism itself, as it was before around 1950 or so. One where the discussions really dig deep into the hearts and minds of Catholics. The closest thing I’ve ever found was those old enough to have become adult catholics before VII, sharing their story amid the same old bickering we all can’t resist lol.

If traditional catholics could put everything that happened after VII out of their minds, just assume it never happened, then I think we could have some very interesting discussions, and all who participate in or follow these threads would benefit. I firmly believe these discussions would build faith.

Being the internet of course, there would be some who would rather be discussing something else, and instead of moving on, would disrupt the thread. The traditionalists would have to be very diligent in ignoring them. Those who have questions on what is being discussed would be welcome of course, but after being answered, should they question the answer, again, they would have to be ignored. Cold, but the only way to ensure a productive discussion.

If it were possible to have these discussions, then we would soon be able to offer educated opinions on how the Church would look today, as far as statistics and indicators.

 

[MrS]

That last statistic, that you so whimsically inserted, further supports the evident conclusion of the destruction that has occurred in the church since Vatican II.

You are so much fun. You just don’t get it … my humor/sarcasm, that is…