We need a separate forum for arguing about religion because everyone on all sides is too amateur to speak authoritatively on this. I'm an FSSP partisan and agree 100% with what you said, but this isn't going to help him. If people want to engage respectfully about religion then that deserves to be handled elsewhere. Shooting back and forth half baked apologetical devices buried seven layers deep in a thread strikes me as approaching taking the Lord's name in vain. Not that that's what y'all are meaning to do, but this method does not do your discussion justice. Take it to general, maybe, or PM.
Edit: actually I read your comment about "Latin/Mary worshippers" which sounds barely different from the left's "Easter worshippers." I rescind what I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You say you assist at the Latin Mass on occasion but are calling devout people "Mary worshippers" presumably for praying the Rosary or kneeling in front of statues and praying to saints. You are ignorant of far too much to be claiming to be an authority on the history of the Church. You are doing more harm than good.
No, that is a losing strategy. That is what we've been doing for far too long. We have allowed Christ to be jettisoned from normal conversation and that is a mistake.
The devil would prefer we continue to retreat into our safe, contained little side conversations. Like the schisms, this has been a trap fallen for over the last few hundred years. If only the people of previous generations had not retreated. If only they had not started reserving conversations of theology to only those who are intellectually curious.
Let us talk about Christ, anytime, always. Do not turn Christ away when He arrives naturally in conversation.
As for Mary, I fully understood what I said - I fully understand the difference between worship and veneration. There are those that venerate Mary and there are those that worship her. I'm not worried about those that venerate Mary or any saint.
But you aren't making any progress on the Protestants. It's like arguing with anyone on the internet with firmly held beliefs. You are just black text on a white background.
I'd like to hear you definition of a Mary worshipper. They do exist in Catholicism, but they aren't the devout ones. They tend to be very low information Hispanics who vote Democrat and don't go to mass or confession. They receive Our Lord on the hand. They treat Mary (as they say "the Virgin") like a good luck charm. They don't think about Jesus. Yes, those are Mary worshippers. Mary worshipping is a phenomenon that exists among the liberals (usually it is the sly influence of feminism), not the conservatives. Believe me there are wacky folks in the FSSP but our issue is pretending we know everything, doomsdayism, and sedevacantism (not me, but many dabble in it, as you can see in many of the replies here).
The types that assist at the Latin Mass are not Mary worshippers. Nor do we worship the Latin language. There are very good reasons for retaining the traditions which would take much more space to address with justice.
It's harder to communicate online - that's true - but that doesn't mean it's hopeless. I don't see how segregating ourselves would not help, it would only lessen the chances of the truth spreading.
There is a lot of Mary worship among the followers of the Latin rite, certainly more often than in novus ordo. I think you're correct that the phenomena is even more prevalent in the Hispanic communities, but just because it is worse elsewhere doesn't mean it's not a problem.
I have heard a lot of arguments about the Latin language and some elements of the rite like receiving on the tongue (a practice which would have baffled the Apostles.) Having studied the history of those things, I am not convinced that they are all too meaningful.
If the Church is restored again before Christ's return, I believe we will see a new form. The Latin rite is superior in some ways - that it is performed ad orientum, and the lack of "extraordinary" ministers in particular - but too often the followers of the Latin rite ignore improvements made by the novus ordo.
For example, much much more of Scripture is proclaimed in the modern reading cycle. That is a good thing. And when it is read, the congregation understands it. This cannot be brushed aside. I have asked my grandparents about the pre-Vatican mass (described in near Garden of Eden terms by modern Latin proponents) and their response was basically that it was confusing and they didn't really connect with mass until the language was English. What am I to do with that information? Ignore that the novus ordo engaged their faith, where the Latin rite had failed?
I believe the revival of the Latin rite is playing a part in the restoration of The Church. I do not think returning to the Latin rite or relying on the Latin rite can be that restoration. Either a new form is coming, or Christ Himself. Beware schism, we should follow tradition yes but it is even more important to follow Christ.
We need a separate forum for arguing about religion because everyone on all sides is too amateur to speak authoritatively on this. I'm an FSSP partisan and agree 100% with what you said, but this isn't going to help him. If people want to engage respectfully about religion then that deserves to be handled elsewhere. Shooting back and forth half baked apologetical devices buried seven layers deep in a thread strikes me as approaching taking the Lord's name in vain. Not that that's what y'all are meaning to do, but this method does not do your discussion justice. Take it to general, maybe, or PM.
Edit: actually I read your comment about "Latin/Mary worshippers" which sounds barely different from the left's "Easter worshippers." I rescind what I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You say you assist at the Latin Mass on occasion but are calling devout people "Mary worshippers" presumably for praying the Rosary or kneeling in front of statues and praying to saints. You are ignorant of far too much to be claiming to be an authority on the history of the Church. You are doing more harm than good.
No, that is a losing strategy. That is what we've been doing for far too long. We have allowed Christ to be jettisoned from normal conversation and that is a mistake.
The devil would prefer we continue to retreat into our safe, contained little side conversations. Like the schisms, this has been a trap fallen for over the last few hundred years. If only the people of previous generations had not retreated. If only they had not started reserving conversations of theology to only those who are intellectually curious.
Let us talk about Christ, anytime, always. Do not turn Christ away when He arrives naturally in conversation.
As for Mary, I fully understood what I said - I fully understand the difference between worship and veneration. There are those that venerate Mary and there are those that worship her. I'm not worried about those that venerate Mary or any saint.
But you aren't making any progress on the Protestants. It's like arguing with anyone on the internet with firmly held beliefs. You are just black text on a white background.
I'd like to hear you definition of a Mary worshipper. They do exist in Catholicism, but they aren't the devout ones. They tend to be very low information Hispanics who vote Democrat and don't go to mass or confession. They receive Our Lord on the hand. They treat Mary (as they say "the Virgin") like a good luck charm. They don't think about Jesus. Yes, those are Mary worshippers. Mary worshipping is a phenomenon that exists among the liberals (usually it is the sly influence of feminism), not the conservatives. Believe me there are wacky folks in the FSSP but our issue is pretending we know everything, doomsdayism, and sedevacantism (not me, but many dabble in it, as you can see in many of the replies here).
The types that assist at the Latin Mass are not Mary worshippers. Nor do we worship the Latin language. There are very good reasons for retaining the traditions which would take much more space to address with justice.
It's harder to communicate online - that's true - but that doesn't mean it's hopeless. I don't see how segregating ourselves would not help, it would only lessen the chances of the truth spreading.
There is a lot of Mary worship among the followers of the Latin rite, certainly more often than in novus ordo. I think you're correct that the phenomena is even more prevalent in the Hispanic communities, but just because it is worse elsewhere doesn't mean it's not a problem.
I have heard a lot of arguments about the Latin language and some elements of the rite like receiving on the tongue (a practice which would have baffled the Apostles.) Having studied the history of those things, I am not convinced that they are all too meaningful.
If the Church is restored again before Christ's return, I believe we will see a new form. The Latin rite is superior in some ways - that it is performed ad orientum, and the lack of "extraordinary" ministers in particular - but too often the followers of the Latin rite ignore improvements made by the novus ordo.
For example, much much more of Scripture is proclaimed in the modern reading cycle. That is a good thing. And when it is read, the congregation understands it. This cannot be brushed aside. I have asked my grandparents about the pre-Vatican mass (described in near Garden of Eden terms by modern Latin proponents) and their response was basically that it was confusing and they didn't really connect with mass until the language was English. What am I to do with that information? Ignore that the novus ordo engaged their faith, where the Latin rite had failed?
I believe the revival of the Latin rite is playing a part in the restoration of The Church. I do not think returning to the Latin rite or relying on the Latin rite can be that restoration. Either a new form is coming, or Christ Himself. Beware schism, we should follow tradition yes but it is even more important to follow Christ.