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.
I’m not going to engage on the merits of retaining the tradition in this forum because it is far too important a subject and neither of us really knows the other’s place in life such that the conversation is unlikely to bear fruit (especially if you seem to favor Communion on the hand in principle—there is basically nothing I can say that wouod convince because that reveals we are poles apart). But I will say that it is fascinating that, almost like clockwork, conservative Catholics who see the value of ad orientem, some use of Latin and chant, the priest distributing communion instead of laypeople, almost like clockwork the default defense of the Novus Ordo is the 3 year cycle of readings.
I suspect, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that you just like all the rest give this response because you’ve heard it from someone else not because you really though it through yourself. Are you aware of how the 3 year cycle works? On a particular Sunday (which is when most people go to Mass) on any given year you will hear more or less the same Gospel reading. Matthew one year, Mark the next, and Luke the next. But these three are mostly the same. Further this means for two whole years at a time, one of the Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) is locked out of the liturgy. The one year cycle, many parts of which have existed in the Roman Church for 1600 years, had the sufficient amount of Scripture to praise God and instruct the people. If the argument is that that was sufficient then, but more is necessary now, I truly cannot fathom that argument. Since people are more literate now, you’d thinkthe liturgists would be clamoring for less Scripture during liturgy, since now they can do that at home. But that would also be ridiculous. The stuffing with more Scripture was an olice branch to protestants. That is literally the only reason.
Nothing in nature exists on a three year cycle. The three year cycle is inherently disorienting—perhaps intentionally, to say nothing of the naive assumption that Mass exists even in part as a vessel for communicating Holy Scripture to the people. No, Mass exists (in a secondary sense—first it is the Holy Eucharist, full stop) to teach the people true doctrine, for which use Scripture is very apt.
The “my parents thought it was dumb” anecdote is ubiquitous. It is ubiquitous because for two whole decades thet were fed to be prejudiced against the traditions. Of course they now believe they hated it. They were brainwashed. They were sheep.
The fourth commandment is to honor our father and our mother. This by extension compells us to defer to tradition. We like to think we’re more civilized and more knowledgable than our ancestors but this is hubris. I don’t patronize the Latin Mass because I “like it more.” If a friggin rock band guitar mass were what our ancestors had handed down to us I’d be defending that and conforming myself to that. I patronize the Latin Mass because it is tradition; it is my mother; it is stable. Novelty is unstable. You warn of schism but it’s the liberals who are approaching schism by changing doctrines. I don’t suppose you think the attitude of German bishops toward all sorts of liberal topics like homosexuality and divorce are acceptable? They started with Communion in the hand and ecumenism toward Lutherans and now they are barely Christian anymore. Trads are not the source of “schism.”
You praise tradition but advocate communion on the tongue, something never seen until hundreds of years after The Resurrection.
You praise tradition but promote using not local language (as the disciples did things) not Greek, not Aramaic...but Latin.
You praise tradition but seem to believe the Rosary is important, even though such a practice would have baffled the Apostles.
I encourage you to learn more about the history of the Church. I honor my mother and father, they are not sheep. Also I said my "grandparents" not my parents, and they are not sheep either. They are faithful Catholics.
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.
I’m not going to engage on the merits of retaining the tradition in this forum because it is far too important a subject and neither of us really knows the other’s place in life such that the conversation is unlikely to bear fruit (especially if you seem to favor Communion on the hand in principle—there is basically nothing I can say that wouod convince because that reveals we are poles apart). But I will say that it is fascinating that, almost like clockwork, conservative Catholics who see the value of ad orientem, some use of Latin and chant, the priest distributing communion instead of laypeople, almost like clockwork the default defense of the Novus Ordo is the 3 year cycle of readings.
I suspect, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that you just like all the rest give this response because you’ve heard it from someone else not because you really though it through yourself. Are you aware of how the 3 year cycle works? On a particular Sunday (which is when most people go to Mass) on any given year you will hear more or less the same Gospel reading. Matthew one year, Mark the next, and Luke the next. But these three are mostly the same. Further this means for two whole years at a time, one of the Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) is locked out of the liturgy. The one year cycle, many parts of which have existed in the Roman Church for 1600 years, had the sufficient amount of Scripture to praise God and instruct the people. If the argument is that that was sufficient then, but more is necessary now, I truly cannot fathom that argument. Since people are more literate now, you’d thinkthe liturgists would be clamoring for less Scripture during liturgy, since now they can do that at home. But that would also be ridiculous. The stuffing with more Scripture was an olice branch to protestants. That is literally the only reason.
Nothing in nature exists on a three year cycle. The three year cycle is inherently disorienting—perhaps intentionally, to say nothing of the naive assumption that Mass exists even in part as a vessel for communicating Holy Scripture to the people. No, Mass exists (in a secondary sense—first it is the Holy Eucharist, full stop) to teach the people true doctrine, for which use Scripture is very apt.
The “my parents thought it was dumb” anecdote is ubiquitous. It is ubiquitous because for two whole decades thet were fed to be prejudiced against the traditions. Of course they now believe they hated it. They were brainwashed. They were sheep.
The fourth commandment is to honor our father and our mother. This by extension compells us to defer to tradition. We like to think we’re more civilized and more knowledgable than our ancestors but this is hubris. I don’t patronize the Latin Mass because I “like it more.” If a friggin rock band guitar mass were what our ancestors had handed down to us I’d be defending that and conforming myself to that. I patronize the Latin Mass because it is tradition; it is my mother; it is stable. Novelty is unstable. You warn of schism but it’s the liberals who are approaching schism by changing doctrines. I don’t suppose you think the attitude of German bishops toward all sorts of liberal topics like homosexuality and divorce are acceptable? They started with Communion in the hand and ecumenism toward Lutherans and now they are barely Christian anymore. Trads are not the source of “schism.”
You praise tradition but advocate communion on the tongue, something never seen until hundreds of years after The Resurrection.
You praise tradition but promote using not local language (as the disciples did things) not Greek, not Aramaic...but Latin.
You praise tradition but seem to believe the Rosary is important, even though such a practice would have baffled the Apostles.
I encourage you to learn more about the history of the Church. I honor my mother and father, they are not sheep. Also I said my "grandparents" not my parents, and they are not sheep either. They are faithful Catholics.