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

[holdencaulfield]

Forced into schism, because the valid liturgy that is available is not what they “enjoy”? Am I reading the post of a “traditional” Catholic? They are not forced into schism, except in their disobedient failure to admit that the Holy See has full authority to define what is and is not a valid liturgy. You may as well say, as some do, that those who have gone out and “ordained” women were “forced” to do it. (And no, it is not quite the same, as the TLM is valid, while ordination of women is not.)

My point was not that the NO is not valid, of course it’s valid, it was that many people left the Church because they did not like the Church changing it’s Liturgy that it had had for over a thousand years.

With attitudes like that, it is no wonder that special permission was required for the TLM as long as it was. It wasn’t that the Holy See held the TLM in disdain, but that they rightly anticipated the disobedient attitudes that would follow introduction of the NO. Had obedient acceptance of the NO as a valid liturgy been anticipated, I have to think the TLM would have continued to have been available. It is hard to argue that the Fathers of that council didn’t have the attitudes of the faithful correctly pegged.

Don’t get me wrong I agree that the NO is valid and is fine for the Church to use, however what did it accomplish. It seems to me it did more bad than good. In fact I can’t think of any good that came out of it.

 

[MrS]

Don’t get me wrong I agree that the NO is valid and is fine for the Church to use, however what did it accomplish. It seems to me it did more bad than good. In fact I can’t think of any good that came out of it.

Yes a valid and properly celebrated NO is a beautiful liturgy.

It is the abused NO, whether with only one or with a dozen abuses, that is the problem… and the only good to come out of that NO is that more and more will return to a proper liturgy be it the TLM or the NO - the ordinary or the extraordinary.

(personally, I think the designations of EF and OF should be reversed)

.

 

[laudamus_te]

You put your own thoughts into my words.

Well, that’s the problem with ambiguous statements. They’re easily misinterpreted.

P. S. How can one allow another dignity if one is beating the other over the head with what is seen as mistakes, errors, heresy? And yes, everyone is responsible for their own decisions. That is one thing wrong with this world, no one wants to take responsibilty for their actions or beliefs.

Excuse me, did you say “what is seen as” mistakes, errors, heresy? First of all, we are taught by our Church what are the mistakes, errors and heresy of the Protestant religions. This is the Truth, not just what we “see as” the Truth. Secondly, nowhere have I suggested that one must beat the Protestants over the head. That is absolutely the wrong way to go about evangelization.

 

[laudamus_te]

I find this frightening.

I attend wonderful NO Masses, although according to many of the traditionalists, I am attending a farce.

That’s NOT what my bishop says. HE is in charge, thank God, not YOU.

Please stop insulting the Mass that my bishop and my Church have approved! It is NOT lacking anything. If you like Latin and theatrical displays during worship, wonderful. I hope you all have the opportunity to serve at this kind of Mass. But PLEASE stop insisting that all Catholics must eventually "be “taken back.” That’s frightening.

LOL! It’s the NOM that’s got the theatrical displays, not the TLM! Now you can stop insulting the Mass that was the spiritual nourishment of the Saints and Popes for almost 2000 years.

 

[laudamus_te]

The “manly men” have disappeared? The ingratitude in that false statement staggers the mind. You libel thousands of holy and dedicated priests, including my pastor…thousands of holy and dedicated men, I might add, that you have never met!

If that is what you have been saying about our pastors, why is it that you are surprised that young men do not want to follow in their footsteps? Who is going to dare to follow men whom their mothers and fathers criticize so unfairly, save those who say to themselves “I can do better than that”? What a humble way to start to a holy and humble priesthood! Do you see the disservice this kind of talk about today’s priests does to tomorrow’s priests, not to mention those of today? I should say it would take a manly man, to allow his life to be consumed in exchange for treatment like that.

You will take back “your Church”, will you? I have news for you: those priest abuse scandals in the state of Oregon didn’t come from priests ordained after Vatican II, on the whole. The accusations are 30 and 40 and 50 years old, against priests who were weaned on the TLM. Those men were formed in “your Church”! I will not speak of every one, but the lion’s share of accusations came against priests raised the “traditional” way, removed from the society of women other than their relatives by the age of fourteen or so. You can ask the psychologists what that does to a man’s psychosexual development.

You seem to think that there were no scandals or accusations about Catholic priests and homosexuality or pedophilia in the priesthood until now. Maybe you think child sexual abuse was invented by the clerics who came up with the NO. Guess what? It has only been in the last 50 years that anyone believed the boys (and girls) who had been abused…well, except the Catholics who left the faith because nobody believed them. They went out and told their stories, and they were believed. It was a scandal against us that we didn’t want to face. I know a family that is not Catholic because of problems the great-grandparents had with their priest and how he conducted himself around young people. There wasn’t a second Catholic parish available to them, this priest was not removed, and so they went to the Protestant Chuch. This was in the Midwest in about 1906. So let us get off of how perfect the ways were in the old days. I have another friend, converted because she married a Catholic, whose father left the Church because of physical abuse by the nuns at his gradeschool. There have always been problems.

The “traditional” way was to give Father carte blanche unless he was caught red-handed…and then, do you think he was booted out? Nope. They just moved him somewhere else and hoped he’d make good on what they did not realize was an impossible vow to resist the temptation in the future. They’d never let a thief go back to being a bank teller, but they expected a man who lacked self-control around children to be left alone with them, unsupervised, and to never sin again. They meant well, but the old days were not the good old days, when it comes to dealing with these problems.

We need to admit that if the Church had been so perfect as so many romantics want to believe, Vatican II would not have been convened. I suppose you can criticize the effort to meet the problem, but let’s not pretend that no problem existed.

May I make this observation, then? You don’t seem to show much reverence for the priesthood, except a theoretical priesthood that most of the priests you actually know apparently don’t belong to. You seem very critical of the heirarchy and contemptuous of most of the laity. You seem to imply that you and others devoted to Latin and the TLM exceed all these other Christians in holiness, that if they were just more like you, our Church would be just perfect.

Is this the fruit of regular attendance at the TLM? If all is as it seems, then frankly, the fruit doesn’t speak as well for the tree as you seem to think.

Or perhaps I am suggesting that rash conclusions might be rightly drawn from statements you don’t mean but make out of frustration or that do not mean what I think they seem to. Perhaps I take you entirely wrong. Let us hope so. Let us both take a more charitable view of the other, then, and get this conversation back on more charitable ground.

What a totally insincere thing to say after a lengthy, unfounded diatribe full of false accusations and characterizations.

 

[piouswoman]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy:
“We need to admit that if the Church had been so perfect as so many romantics want to believe, Vatican II would not have been convened. I suppose you can criticize the effort to meet the problem, but let’s not pretend that no problem existed.”

This quote is founded on erroneous thinking. If you have read anything at all on the history of the church in the century leading up to Vatican II, you would know that the progressive and modernist thinking that overtook churchmen all the way up to the church hierarchy, that the infiltration of the modernists into the church, began years before Vatican II. It can in fact, be traced back to the French Revolution. The popes( before the modernist popes) had tried to battle back and quell the tide of modernist thinking long before the turn of the last century. I suggest you acquire a better understanding of it all before making wild accusations and statements.

 

[EasterJoy]

What a totally insincere thing to say after a lengthy, unfounded diatribe full of false accusations and characterizations.

“The manly men disappeared, and the seminaries became hotbeds of homosexuality, leading to the priest abuse scandals.”

That statement libels many good and holy men, and saying so is not a false accusation. To say that blaming these scandals on today’s priests is a libel against those priests, since the vast majority of them are innocent, is not a false characterization. To say that such libel at the very least seems betray a lack of reverence for the priesthood itself is also not a false statement. To say that it does a disservice to seminarians to encourage them to look down upon their predecessors en masse is no false characterization. I am sorry you hate so much to hear that.

The priest abuse scandals did not come from the NO, nor from Vatican II. To say otherwise is the false accusation. Nor is it a false accusation to say that instances of pedophilia were, in the past, either disbelieved or swept under the rug, nor is it a false accusation to say that most of the accusations, in Oregon at least, are very old, 30 years old and older. This is a matter of public record.

Do you ask me to hear so many priests so wrongly painted with the same brush and not respond in no uncertain terms that it is unacceptable? I hope not! Do you want me to let people who are bad-mouthing the NO go on thinking that it brings no one to wonder what is going through the minds of people who prefer the TLM? Again, I hope not! Do you want the TLM widely desired, so as to become widely available, or not?

I am sorry that you found insincerity in my willingness to believe that all is not as it very much seems, that you don’t want to think I hoped I was reading these posts all wrong. I do sincerely hope that I what I seem to hear is wrong. It becomes harder and harder to hold on to that hope.

Originally Posted by EasterJoy:
“We need to admit that if the Church had been so perfect as so many romantics want to believe, Vatican II would not have been convened. I suppose you can criticize the effort to meet the problem, but let’s not pretend that no problem existed.”

This quote is founded on erroneous thinking. If you have read anything at all on the history of the church in the century leading up to Vatican II, you would know that the progressive and modernist thinking that overtook churchmen all the way up to the church hierarchy, that the infiltration of the modernists into the church, began years before Vatican II. It can in fact, be traced back to the French Revolution. The popes( before the modernist popes) had tried to battle back and quell the tide of modernist thinking long before the turn of the last century. I suggest you acquire a better understanding of it all before making wild accusations and statements.

Uh huh. OK. There were no problems in the Church before Vatican II. No pedophiles. No abuses. No rhetoric that led to religious wars and pogroms. No little Protestant girls shoved in the mud by the Catholic kids, no Catholic girls terrorized by the Protestant kids. No Popes who led personal lives that led to scandal. The word “nepotism”, referring to clerics who gave special favor to so-called “nephews”…no problem there. As long as the Church held on to Latin, as long as the faithful thought every cleric to be a totally celibate “manly man” and refused to hear a word otherwise, there were no problems within the Church. No, until the Holy Spirit saw fit to let modernists become cardinals and Popes, or fell asleep at the wheel, or whatever the problem was that made God let Vatican II happen, there were no problems. Furthermore, it was a mistake to go back to letting the laity ever touch the Eucharist, St. Peter shouldn’t have done it, the early Church Fathers shouldn’t have done it, the world was a better place with altar rails and mantillas, and losing all that stuff is what is wrong with the Church and therefore what is wrong with the world, period, end of conversation, and that is that.

There, another “diatribe.” I give up…not on the TLM, but on this conversation. It is only pushing us farther apart, and nobody needs that. Please forgive me, please know I still want to believe the best of you, but I need to bow out. I’m only straining *your *charity. I don’t think there’s a chance I’ll change your mind.

 

[piouswoman]

“The manly men disappeared, and the seminaries became hotbeds of homosexuality, leading to the priest abuse scandals.”

That statement libels many good and holy men, and saying so is not a false accusation. To say that blaming these scandals on today’s priests is a libel against those priests, since the vast majority of them are innocent, is not a false characterization. To say that such libel at the very least seems betray a lack of reverence for the priesthood itself is also not a false statement. To say that it does a disservice to seminarians to encourage them to look down upon their predecessors en masse is no false characterization. I am sorry you hate so much to hear that.

The priest abuse scandals did not come from the NO, nor from Vatican II. To say otherwise is the false accusation. Nor is it a false accusation to say that instances of pedophilia were, in the past, either disbelieved or swept under the rug, nor is it a false accusation to say that most of the accusations, in Oregon at least, are very old, 30 years old and older. This is a matter of public record.

Do you ask me to hear so many priests so wrongly painted with the same brush and not respond in no uncertain terms that it is unacceptable? I hope not! Do you want me to let people who are bad-mouthing the NO go on thinking that it brings no one to wonder what is going through the minds of people who prefer the TLM? Again, I hope not! Do you want the TLM widely desired, so as to become widely available, or not?

I am sorry that you found insincerity in my willingness to believe that all is not as it very much seems, that you don’t want to think I hoped I was reading these posts all wrong. I do sincerely hope that I what I seem to hear is wrong. It becomes harder and harder to hold on to that hope.

Uh huh. OK. There were no problems in the Church before Vatican II. No pedophiles. No abuses. No rhetoric that led to religious wars and pogroms. No little Protestant girls shoved in the mud by the Catholic kids, no Catholic girls terrorized by the Protestant kids. No Popes who led personal lives that led to scandal. The word “nepotism”, referring to clerics who gave special favor to so-called “nephews”…no problem there. As long as the Church held on to Latin, as long as the faithful thought every cleric to be a totally celibate “manly man” and refused to hear a word otherwise, there were no problems within the Church. No, until the Holy Spirit saw fit to let modernists become cardinals and Popes, or fell asleep at the wheel, or whatever the problem was that made God let Vatican II happen, there were no problems. Furthermore, it was a mistake to go back to letting the laity ever touch the Eucharist, St. Peter shouldn’t have done it, the early Church Fathers shouldn’t have done it, the world was a better place with altar rails and mantillas, and losing all that stuff is what is wrong with the Church and therefore what is wrong with the world, period, end of conversation, and that is that.

There, another “diatribe.” I give up…not on the TLM, but on this conversation. It is only pushing us farther apart, and nobody needs that. Please forgive me, please know I still want to believe the best of you, but I need to bow out. I’m only straining *your *charity. I don’t think there’s a chance I’ll change your mind.

It is very difficult to make headway when people refuse to face FACTS. The church today is in a mess like no other time in history.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Oh, yes, I would be happy to have the TLM available in my parish but my pastor already has said that he has no intentions of ever learning to offer the Holy Sacrifice that way. He also has invited a protestant to conduct our annual parish mission so I do believe he will not offer the TLM ever.

At long last, it looks like we are going to move! Yeah! And leave this spiritual and liturgical desert. They are telling us that our county of 150,000 souls will soon only have one priest. I can believe that threat too.

But where we hope to go there is presently a monthly TLM with plans to start a new TLM community with the blessings of the bishop and the staffing of the FSSP! Oh, I wish to be a part of that.

To endure the abuses at Mass, I began to pray with an English/
Latin missal and to grow to love the holy prayers and to enter into the spirit of the liturgy in this way. I cannot sing all those songs that begin with ‘we’-you know: we are the light of the world, we come to tell our story, we gather together, we are called and so on. So now I read my missal and pray and prepare to receive Our Lord as opposed to singing praise about how wonderful ‘we’ are.

And, yes, I would be willing to go to a TLM parish. I do hope it is in my future. I long for reverence; I long for true teachings. I do not fit in with the social hall atmosphere of the gathering of the assembly to praise ourselves. I am ready to leave it behind.

 

[pnewton]

IMO., the whole theology of the Novus Ordo has become people-oriented, not God oriented…We now see an emphasis on the memorial supper, NOT a recreation of the Last Supper & the Crucifixion which followed it. … “The mass is **not a sacrifice **but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.”

Perhaps here we see some ot the reason for Vatican II. There is simply no reason to make all these issues either/or, when they are both. The desire to denegrate changes by setting a false dichotomy were no conflict should exist. If anyone thinks that the sacrifice of Calvary is not about people, then Christianity 101 is in order. The Mass is a memorial and a re-presentation of Calvary.

In the past the Church has always moved when it seems that stagnation and tunnel vision results in doctrine not being properly understood.

 

[piouswoman]

Perhaps here we see some ot the reason for Vatican II. There is simply no reason to make all these issues either/or, when they are both. The desire to denegrate changes by setting a false dichotomy were no conflict should exist. If anyone thinks that the sacrifice of Calvary is not about people, then Christianity 101 is in order. The Mass is a memorial and a re-presentation of Calvary.

In the past the Church has always moved when it seems that stagnation and tunnel vision results in doctrine not being properly understood.

The one not understanding the doctrine is you I am afraid.

The Mass is the very same sacrifice which was offered up at the Last Supper, and consummated on Calvary; it is the living renewal of the sacrifice on the Cross.

The Mass is no mere remembrance or memorial of Calvary; it actually renews, in the separate consecration of the bread and wine, the death of the Lord, the separation of His Body and Blood.

 

[elt1956]

I find this frightening.

I attend wonderful NO Masses, although according to many of the traditionalists, I am attending a farce.

That’s NOT what my bishop says. HE is in charge, thank God, not YOU.

Please stop insulting the Mass that my bishop and my Church have approved! It is NOT lacking anything. If you like Latin and theatrical displays during worship, wonderful. I hope you all have the opportunity to serve at this kind of Mass. But PLEASE stop insisting that all Catholics must eventually "be “taken back.” That’s frightening.

Thats not what we were implying merely that the Church should require each parish to have one service in the Traditional Mass that has been used for thousands of years because it is a more reverent show of faith and we shouldn’t continue to force people to schism that enjoy the Traditional Mass. Many people have left the Church because of this and turned to the SSPX or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

\

Dear Holdencaulfield most Catholics who call themselves “Traditional” are those who want to tell the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops and any who speak for the Church, other than they, how to run it. I don’t think this is going to happen. Nor are Traditionalists going to be able to convince many others to join their “cause” by being dogmatic and throwing the “I believe, and if you don’t believe the same, you’re wrong argument” at people.

I didn’t know the Church that the Apostles formed was “lost” and has to be “taken back” by those who have a more traditional belief. I admit, there is much confusion in the Church today, not in Rome, but in various dioceses around the world. The only way we can get our church “back” is to work together. But we can’t work together unless we LISTEN to one another. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

What a totally insincere thing to say after a lengthy, unfounded diatribe full of false accusations and characterizations.

My point was not that the NO is not valid, of course it’s valid, it was that many people left the Church because they did not like the Church changing it’s Liturgy that it had had for over a thousand years.

Don’t get me wrong I agree that the NO is valid and is fine for the Church to use, however what did it accomplish. It seems to me it did more bad than good. In fact I can’t think of any good that came out of it.

Go to the people. NOT the church.!!! Peace.

 

[elt1956]

It is very difficult to make headway when people refuse to face FACTS. The church today is in a mess like no other time in history.

I’m sorry, but if you would return to my original post which you quoted here, you will see that I bolded your words “then don’t judge them,” as well as elt’s words about “intolerance.” Those quotes were what I was responding to when I said that this was an example of liberalism. It is not in any way judgmental to believe what Christ taught us… that no one comes to the Father except through Him. And it is not “intolerant.” Accusations of “judgmental” and “intolerance” are modernist catchwords. You keep saying you believe what the catechism teaches about salvation of non-Catholics, and I’m sure you do since you are going to great pains to convert your family. I know it is not easy to think about what fate awaits those who do not embrace the Truth.

See what I bolded? That is not charitable. That is what I mean by “turning your head.” Also, it is great to have respect for the dignity of other humans, but it is NOT right to have respect for their false beliefs.

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

 

[pnewton]

The one not understanding the doctrine is you I am afraid.

The Mass is the very same sacrifice which was offered up at the Last Supper, and consummated on Calvary; it is the living renewal of the sacrifice on the Cross.

The Mass is no mere remembrance or memorial of Calvary; it actually renews, in the separate consecration of the bread and wine, the death of the Lord, the separation of His Body and Blood.

I sure get tired of your insults. Is it in your nature to make every post a personal attack? I do understand theology very well and your profound ignorance of who I am would be better answered with silence if you can not keep from making assumptions about others. I never said the Mass is a “mere remberence” However it is a memorial, as commanded by Jesus, “Do this in memory of me.”

 

[pnewton]

," as well as elt’s words about “intolerance.” Those quotes were what I was responding to when I said that this was an example of liberalism. It is not in any way judgmental to believe what Christ taught us… that no one comes to the Father except through Him. And it is not “intolerant.” Accusations of “judgmental” and “intolerance” are modernist catchwords.

You may like to demonize ideas by using words like modernist and liberalism, but the idea of tolerance is 2000 years old. It was our liberal Savior that warned us not to judge one another. On a practical note, for us all to remember, is every time we get personal, we detract from the positive we have to say.

 

[elt1956]

Thats not what we were implying merely that the Church should require each parish to have one service in the Traditional Mass that has been used for thousands of years because it is a more reverent show of faith and we shouldn’t continue to force people to schism that enjoy the Traditional Mass. Many people have left the Church because of this and turned to the SSPX or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Here I ago again. I did say I wouldn’t do this because it does no good to talk to a Traditionalist. :banghead: It is said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, so here I am.

I agree, there should be a return to the TLM, but not at the full absence of the NO. The NO did not FORCE anyone to go elsewhere to take part in TLM. It was only those whose so called sensitvities and FAITH could not stomach what was said at Vatican II that left the church. They exercised their free will to deride the teachings of the church after Vatican II. Again, they were not FORCED to leave. Traditionalists claim to hold to the older form of the Magisterium before Vatican II, but not afterward. Are the abuses occuring in the church that the Traditionalists perceive after Vatican II “self revelation”. Heretical!! as they want to call others who have followed the Church in Faith and Prayer through ALL its ups and downs.

I also love the way Easter Joy’s statements/questions as to when the sexual abuse in the church occurred was completely ignored. Oh yes, many of the abuses"reported" did occur pre-Vatican II. Anathama!! And yes, sniping at today’s church is not going to bring any of us one whit closer to agreement that some in religious orders were no more, nor no less saintly Pre-Vatican II, as they are no more, nor no less saintly today. We are NOT Perfect pre-Vatican II, nor Post-Vatican II and if that is not agreed upon, then someone is veeeeeeeeery stubborn.

 

[piouswoman]

I sure get tired of your insults. Is it in your nature to make every post a personal attack? I do understand theology very well and your profound ignorance of who I am would be better answered with silence if you can not keep from making assumptions about others. I never said the Mass is a “mere remberence” However it is a memorial, as commanded by Jesus, “Do this in memory of me.”

There is no insult there, it is that you perceived one to be there. Why do you return a perceived insult with an insult?

The last two sentences I wrote are from the Catechism.

 

[piouswoman]

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

One thing I am not…is angry…nor am I watching over others with any kind of fervor, I am repeating the truths of our faith, without compromise, without ambiguity. And really, you could apply that quote from St. John of the Cross to thyself…

 

[piouswoman]

It was only those whose so called sensitvities and FAITH could not stomach what was said at Vatican II that left the church. They exercised their free will to deride the teachings of the church after Vatican II.

Ever stop to think that the church did not begin with Vatican II? No, some could not stomach the errors and contrary teachings that were foisted upon them, those are the souls that I will be counted among. If you weigh nearly two thousand years of traditional Catholic doctrine against forty years of error and novelty, it is quite a lopsided scale. How can one disregard that fact? Why are the conciliar “celebrity” popes hallowed and the pre-conciliar popes ignored?