|
Published: December 23, 2007
“This proves that prayer does work”
Return of traditional Latin Mass brings harmony to once deeply divided parish
 A stormy and divisive two years at St. Mary’s by the Sea in Huntington Beach appears to be coming to an end now that Bishop Tod Brown has approved the return of the Tridentine Latin Mass to the Orange County parish. Today marks the fourth consecutive Sunday that a traditional noon Mass in Latin has been celebrated at St. Mary’s by Norbertine priests from nearby St. Michael’s Abbey. Turnout has been near capacity.
Since the 2004 retirement of Fr. Daniel Johnson as pastor of St. Mary’s by the Sea, the parish has been mired in a very public controversy that drew attention in the secular press. Traditionally-minded parishioners found themselves at loggerheads with their bishop after he withdrew his indult for the Tridentine Mass upon Fr. Johnson’s retirement. But after Pope Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, in July allowing more widespread celebration of the Latin Mass used by the Church for centuries, an unexpected sense of harmony has returned to the once deeply divided parish.
St. Mary’s parishioner Ann Erwin says the traditional Latin Mass had been scheduled to resume in September, but was delayed because parish administrator Fr. Martin Tran was sent to Vietnam to teach at a seminary for two months. “The bishop decided that, rather than start without him, we would wait for the first Sunday of Advent,” she explained.
A rumor that the parish might use readings from the Novus Ordo Mass in the celebration of the Latin Mass brought consternation from some traditionalists, but the rumor proved to be false, Erwin said. “We are using the readings from the 1962 Missal. Una Voce, they are loaning us our Mass booklets until we get our own, and translations of the Propers for each Sunday.”
Parishioner Rachel Turicchi said the traditional Latin Mass was sorely missed. “We are extremely blessed that the Holy Father came out with the edict that all priests could celebrate this Mass,” she said. “It’s also great for the young people who haven’t grown up with it to know that there was another Mass in the history of the Church.”
Fr. Tran, who at one time appeared to be acting as Bishop Brown’s enforcer by denouncing kneeling at Mass, is now learning the older rite. Turicchi said she is not surprised: “I think that this proves that prayer does work.” Associate pastor, Fr. Eamon Mackin, is learning the traditional rite as well.
Many parishioners left St. Mary’s when the indult was lifted in 2004, a lot of them going to the unauthorized chapel Our Lady Help of Christians in Garden Grove. One of those who left was Charles Erpenbeck, but he’s now back at St. Mary’s. “Fr. Johnson always told me it was better to stay with Rome,” he said. “I thought for a while that maybe I knew better than he did, but Our Lady Help of Christians just wasn’t attached to Rome. As much as I may not like the bishop, that’s the hierarchy that the Church has. And from a financial point of view, it’s meant a lot to the parish in terms of revenue.”
High Mass is sung every Sunday at St. Mary’s by the Sea, except on the last Sunday of each month, when a Low Mass is celebrated.
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:54 AM By JPeterman
I'll never understand these churches that do away with kneelers but no matter, my knees are on the ground whether it's concrete, carpet, or kneelers. No modernist priest will stop me from doing that. Merry Christmas to all!
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 8:50 AM By Polneon
Prayer works? For what? No more lessons from the Old Testament to throw light on the Gospel; no more praying in a language that can be understood; "reading along" rather than actively participating in the Holy Sacrifice; saying the rosary during highest, most sacred act of our religion rather than actively participating; no more intercessions for the world in the spirit of the Good Friday nine Great Prayers; No more option for Holy Communion under both species and no more building of community bonds through the sharing of a sign of peace.
Prayer works? For what? Back to the elite $500 suits and $200 hats for the ladies; have the Vatican cave in to the reactionaries who refuse to understand that God speaks to us through the actions of His Church. I for one think that Benedict XVI has made a questionable decision by listening to activist reactionaries rather than the Holy Spirit. I have sent Him an email saying as much. This is not a result of prayer. It is a proof of human weakness. I love Benedict XVI very much despite the fact that I think that he has stubbed his toe on this one.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:05 AM By James
Polneon, With all due respect I think you are "stubbing your toe" on this one. Your statements have just reduced a 500 year old liturgy to acts of misinformed piety and pompous materialism. Are you speaking for every Trid Latin Mass goer when you imply that it's all about wearing "$500 suits" and "saying the rosary during highest, most sacred act"? Or is this (mis) understanding coming from your own, personal experience? Are you sure every Trid Latin Mass goer feels this way?
I am in no way an expert but I am a seminarian who is currently studying theology at the graduate level. While I do not criticizing the Norvus Ordo Mass, I do see the beauty and power in the Trid Latin Mass. You mention "actively participating", what exactly do you mean by this? Does one have to express oneself verbally or physically in order to actively participate? Is one not allowed to show active participation through silence and meditation. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of Catholicsm (arguably) says that contemplation is the highest form of worship.
I disagree about your inference of the Holy Spirit. He is working here, and very powerfully. If you accept that the Holy Spirit was involved in Vat II then you should know that the Holy Spirit through the council never intended to eliminate the Trid Latin Mass (read the Vat II documents). If anything, it has been the enemies of the TLM that have not been listening to the Holy Spirit. For the past forty years some in the Church have been trying to supress the TLM (against the dictates of Vat II). Pope Benedict is simply returning the TLM to its prominent place in the Church after years of abuse (thus fulfilling the real intentions of Vat II). He's not caving in to "reactionaries".
I admire the priests who celebrate the TLM. Quite simply, its a higher form of worship than the N. Ordo. Our world needs to return to contemplation and humility. The TLM will help us do that.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:27 AM By Ann
After Vatican II I was not fond of the Tridentine Mass for many years. I enjoyed the English hymns, especially when the priest offered the Mass in a very reverent manner. I believe that poorly sung Gregorian chant before the Council is one reason most people welcomed the Novus Ordo. This past year I went to a Priestly Ordination in an Eastern rite church, during which nearly all the prayers were sung by the choir. A lightbulb went on in my head. This is the way the Mass should be offered: sung in chant, whatever rite, Roman or Eastern, is used. I am willing to bet that much of the O.T. Hebrew worship was sung or chanted. It is so evident that the Latin Mass focuses the priest and the congregation on the worship of the Trinity, and not on the people in the pews. We are not at Mass to "feel good," but to adore, worship, petition, and thank our God. Our spirits are lifted to the heavenly realm, anticipating eternal participation in the heavenly banquet with the angels and saints.
The Holy Father may make some changes, adding celebrations of feast days of saints canonized since 1962, or expand the number of readings possible. The Holy Spirit will guide him, as always. He is a musician, a REAL liturgist who will not destroy this Mass.
After decades of playing keyboard or organ to accompany bouncy rhythmic songs, some of which sound like Broadway show tunes, folk songs, I am so happy to be back softly accompanying the chant. There is no doubt in anyone's mind, when attending a Tridentine Mass, just WHO is the focus of our prayers and songs. One's heart is drawn to love God.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:02 AM By Patrick
Polneon,
Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where the priest more often delivers good homilies, based on the Fathers of the Church, which explain the Gospel reading instead of homilies consisting of pop psychology. Prayer works for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where the ritual itself is like poetic language which inspires people to belief in the Real Presence instead of banal vernacular liturgies, in bad translation, where half the people in the pews no longer believe in the Real Presence. Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where participation can mean contemplation and is not restricted to mean being talkative busy-body. Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where the prayers are essentially the same prayers and intercessions that have nourished the life of the Western Church for 1500 years. Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where we receive both the Body and Blood of Our Lord in a reverent manner under the appearance of bread. Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where people do not delude themselves into believing that a community is built from a few smarmy gestures. Prayer works for for the purpose of bringing back the Traditional Latin Mass where people need not be concerned with the cost of his fellow parishioner's clothing.
God can speak to us through the actions of His Church, and the activity surrounding the return of the Traditional Latin Mass is one such example. God bless Pope Benedict for making this important decision which will have far reaching implications for the Church in the decades to come. Pope Benedict has not done away with the Novus Ordo Mass, but the modernist elements in the Church are running scared and becoming hysterical. They know this decision means the end of their plans for the Church.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:48 PM By Sheila
I wish Catholics would quit bashing one another over which is the best mass. I recently attended a traditional mass (the first in 40 years or more) and yes it is inspiring in a way. Yet I missed the participation of the people, familiar hymns, and a general feeling of justing being there. In the Tridentine Mass I felt so disconnected with the celebrant and others at the Mass that I left not feeling as I do with the new Mass. I wish I could go back and participate in the mass as the early Christians participated. First there was probably more of a sense of community and sharing . And you have to remember it was said in the vernacular language of the day, not necessarily Latin. I think these early Christians got more from the Mass than I did from the Tridentne Mass. I know its hard for people to adjust to change but it occurs for better or worse. The problem is that like with any change there are excesses with the new Mass and the Church has every right to voice concerns about this. But I remember as a child that our elderly priest would zip through the low masses on Sunday with the Tridentine rite. There was no reverence in getting done with a mass in 30 minutes.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:17 PM By Thomas
As a wise man recently said: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place..."
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:20 PM By Maria C
Praise God for any Mass because our Lord is there but most of all praise God for the Latin mass too.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:00 PM By tom amadeo
Shiela---you describe you "feelings"at the new mass as being for you very important. Some of approach mass from another perspective:the priest in the place of Christ offers the the Father the True Body and Blood of Our Lord in a mystical sacrifice,a re-enactment of Calvary,for the remission of sins. The Mass is theocentric,not homocentric. We are in church to worship God,not man.This is not the place for hugs,handshakes or music designed to make you feel good,emotional,etc.That you feel good is not bad,but should be secondary,not the primary reason for worship.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:52 PM By Todd
Don't you love it when people say "I wish Catholics would quit bashing one another over which is the best mass" and then go on to bash the Traditional Latin Mass? We don't know much about how the early Catholic liturgy was conducted. Our knowledge of that time is sketchy. People often base their notions of the "Early Christian" community on Hollywood movies. We do know that the early liturgies in Rome were conducted in Greek. Many people spoke Greek throughout the Mediterrenan world at that time, but it was not universal among all classes. Those of you who do not care for the traditional liturgy have the option of continuing to attend the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo will not disappear anytime soon. Those of us who prefer the traditional liturgy have not enjoyed such an option. I imagine that the "Early Christian" attitude would be generosity and openess towards those of us who would like to avail ourselves of that option. How about trying to be happy for us? Unless, of course, you are afraid of something.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:52 PM By Sheila
Tom and Todd please read ---I wasn't bashing the Tridentine Mass. I am glad that Catholics have a choice of the different styles of masses.
Tom, you are too hung up on rituals, my criticism of the Tridentine Mass is that I felt disconnected from the other participants including the celebrant. Sometimes we can carry words and rituals to excess and we lose the whole meaning of the mass.
What has spring up in the Church unfortunately is one group that has gone too far in observing the letter of the law. (the ultra traditionalists)and the ultra liberal Catholics who have become too free spirited in observing the rubrics.(like the "barney blessing" masses. I think Christ would be satisfied with either method of worship as long as it was done reverently. I think Jesus was not a traditionalist in observing the Judaic law, he was more interested in the observing the spirit of the law rather than the letter. This is where he got in trouble with the authorities.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:06 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Participation is even greater when the faithful read along with the Priest by using their Missals. I strongly recommend the Lassance Missal for this purpose.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:27 PM By Polneon
James:
So you're a seminarian? Maybe you should be taught the difference between meditation and liturgy and the place that they each hold in the spiritual life of the church. Monks, for instance meditate and then they participate in the Mass, yes, verbally, just as we are asked to do when we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Like I said above, living in the world of 15 centuries back is not what God and the Church expect of us. Those who insist on doing that do not understand God nor the Spirit of the Church.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:28 PM By Julianne Navarra
To all the Novus Ordonarians who want their power, kiss of peace, altar girls, communion in the hand, Protestant worship songs, lectors, eucaristic ministers, guitars, drums, dreadful choirs, hand holding, have at it!! We don't want all that garbage it ain't Catholic let alone Roman, you had 40 years of heresy and disaster that did nothing but destroy the Holy Roman Church guess what the Holy Father knows it and is changing it!!!! By the way I speak several languages and we understand Latin very well!! It's called studying! God bless the people of St. Mary's
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:35 PM By Jannine Sanchez
Once again it proves that the Modernist's only care about themselves and how "good" they feel as opposed to worshipping the LORD, as for participation I read the Latin-English Missal with the priest as he says Holy Mass and I feel very much apart of what's happening. By the way quit saying know one understands Latin during Mass, why don't you try and learn it you'll feel very much apart of Mass!
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:19 PM By John L. Sillasen
The early liturgical forms do not seem to be all that tightly regulated, and likely varied considerably. But who can really complain, since the Church prospered through several extreme persecutions, and grew to form western civilization.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
Sheila, can't you have good feelings without being "connected" to others at Mass? Why not try isolating yourself from others, during just one single Mass, and focusing on Jesus? Jesus used to go into the desert to pray alone. This is a cherished act throughout Church history ... not that you have to do this always for the rest of your life, but you owe it to yourself to try it at least once, in my opinion.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:31 PM By John L. Sillasen
Polneon, what you mean by understanding God and the Spirit of the Church? Also, why do you have such a statuesque concept of meditation?
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:45 PM By John L. Sillasen
We're supposed to feel good, although often for many reasons we don't. That's life. The concept I've come to on this "horizontal" "feel good" behavior at Mass is this: I call it "gluing onto someone else". Personally this sort of thing is really annoying. It is something that many people simply do not like, although many do. But it is out of place at Mass ... at Mass we have the access to the Real Presence ... we have to allow our neighbors to try and achieve that relationship during that sacred time in our week. It is only about one hour. Why not save the "gluing" for the shopping mall, or whatever? One good analogy: I see this sort of "gluing" behavior in school classes ... kids team up to learn something ... as a result each of them knows a fragment of the whole, and they end up cheating on tests because they didn't study it themselves but as a group. Instead, it is possible for individuals to each do their own study and come up with an understanding of the whole. Especially during Mass, when we have that momentary access to the closeness of God in the Host and the Chalice ... why not allow yourself and your neighbors to concentrate on the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ while you are near. Later you can visit God in His omnipresence in all other times and places. But at Mass He is there among us and then within us at Communion in a full but hidden way ... this is radically different from His omnipresence in creation. It boils down to "get alone with the Real material Presence of God", and don't interrupt your neighbor as they attempt this.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:37 PM By Polneon
An attentive reading of the Bible will show that our salvation is tied to helping God manage creation. To understand that, we have to read the whole Bible. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is meant to give us a moment to offer sacrifice in adoration, repentance, thanksgiving and intercession. If I am not mistaken this truth is part of the Baltimore catechism. Not a single one of you has addressed the spiritual statements that I made in my first post...None of you seems to care about the harmony that exists between the Old Testament and the New; none of you thinks that it’s important to pray publicly, with and for one another in an open discourse of spiritual relationship. Even the seminarian says that meditation is the peak expression of participation at Mass! For the person who said that I should learn Latin I say, “Don’t worry, I’ve done that and am very comfortable in the language, thank you.” It’s not a question of study, it is a question of praying in a language that expresses the faith that we say that we have. Latin is not it. Do you have a faith that is appropriate to 2007, as the Church expects? Or do you have a faith that is appropriate to 1500, which the Church has long since developed to help us understand more clearly the relationship that we should have with God today? I could go on, but I only have 1,500 characters. Remember my name. We will have to shake hands and make nice in God's presence when we meet at the pearly gates.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:50 PM By Wm Hamilton
Seems to me that a major aspect of this story is being missed by virtually every commenter so far. And that is that the return of the Tridentine Mass at St. Mary's By the Sea brought a long missed since of harmony at the parish. Looked at another way, if bishops would be more open to more and more Latin Masses of the extraordinary rite, they could heal wounds across Catholicism, and bring an end to this senseless bickering.
|
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:08 PM By Polneon
Julianne:
Catholicus non est, minus dicente Romano. Nunc loquimur de detructione sanctae ecclesiae Romanae. Devina, Sanctus Papa noster iste non ignorat et nunc probat creare cambium.
In re opinioni tua secundum vim studiorum fidelium lingua Latina ut adoperatur in Sancta Misa. Opus non est fieri idonei in lingua sed construire relationem profundam cum Jesu Cristo secundum fructem fidei qua nobis culmet. Responsam tuam adventuram inter unam feriam, de veritate? Etiamsi debes adoperare dictionarium.
Dica, quantae liguae dominasne? Qua lingua adoperas in orationibus quotidianis tuis? Quare non vis adoperare istam liguam in orationibus tuis liturgicis?
Sit nomen domine benedictum.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 12:11 AM By Patrick
Polneon, our salvation was made possible by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Christ's sacrifice is ever present before God the Father. It exists outside of time. According to the Baltimore Catechism, "The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross." It is the supreme act of Catholic worship. The Traditional Latin Mass expresses this truth of the Faith (Christ's sacrifice) quite beautifully. The entire Old Testament was preparation for this mystery--this truth. Possibly, it is you who should re-evaluate your understanding of the harmony between the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, there is more to praying than spoken words. One must also take into account just what sort of interior disposition is being cultivated through the use of gestures, ritual, music, etc. The ethos surrounding the Traditional Latin Mass is quite different from that of the average Novus Ordo Mass in this country. Personally, I prefer Gregorian Chant (or silence) to people turning to one another in the middle of Mass to say things like "Hello ya ole bean! How'z Trix?" With regard to Latin, it is our liturgical language, and it lends a certain dignity to the liturgy. It is also a dead language which does not change or contain the ambiguities of our modern spoken languages. Latin has also developed a theologically precise vocabulary over its many centuries of use in the Church. It is also the universal language of the Western Church. Traditional Latin Masses are the same the world over. Most of us do not need to hear the prayers of the Ordinary of the Mass too many times before we recognize them. When we hear "Pater noster" we know it is the start of the Lord's Prayer. When we hear "Sanctus, Sanctus" we know it is Holy, Holy, etc. As far as the Faith is concerned, my faith is the same as it was in my grandmother's time and that of my Catholic ancestors in 1500 and that of the early Church. The Faith is not relative to time. It is constant.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 5:37 AM By Sheila
John L. I know the perfect setting for all Catholics who don't like to be bothered by the their neighbors at Mass. Why don't we build partitions for each person at Mass so we are not distracted by one another so we can concentrate on the priest. Didn't Jesus talk to the crowds? Wasn't he visible to the people?
He wasn't a hermit or a monk. He gave his mesages to the crowds.
And the the comments of Julianne, I really enjoy the "Protestant songs" (What ever that means) in the Mass. I really like "Amazing Grace" over some of the Gregorian chant.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 6:34 AM By tom amadeo
Fr.M.P. and JLS--as I have posted before:--"Eucharistic devotion such as noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God.This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects." I don't think you can challenge this statement!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 6:38 AM By Alecia
I was raised in the Latin Mass and have seen the loss of Spirituality and Reverence since Vatican II. People come into the pew without bowing or genuflecting. They visit openly with friends and pew mates, not caring whether someone may like to pray before Mass begins. I find that even with the so-called ease of the vernacular, that there are few people who really know and understand the Catholic Faith. Even as Mass continues, there are people still reaching for a handshake or hug. And why can't we have silence after reception of the Holy Eucharist? The music is so loud that it is impossible to commune with the Lord. Since Vatican II vocations have dropped dramatically, churches and schools have closed and our church has become Protestanized. Let's get back to Orthodoxy.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 6:54 AM By Albrecht
I'm always struck by how hardened people are in their positions on this matter. Is polneon blind to the miserable liturgies carried out today in english, the saccharine broadway tunes, the "innovations" on the canon of the mass? On the other hand, does anyone have a fair rebuttal for the points that Polneon made, with rather amusing acuity, in critiquing the pre-Vatican II liturgical (and, we must add, cultural) environment?
Sacramental liturgy is an astonishing mystery for presenting such a strange intersection between transcendental theological realities and human historical culture. To imagine that liturgy is utterly petrified (no pun intended) is both ahistorical and contrary to the spirit of the living body of christ. On the other hand, to fail to acknowledge that our tradition comprises both magisterium and cultural history is like failing to see the various types of meaning in sacred scripture.
Seeing the virtues and vices of each of the "duelling liturgies" is not stubbing one's toe: it is being clear-eyed about our ongoing and ineluctable frailties. Benedict appears to recognize this--he has given the Tridentine liturgy its place while recognizing that it is unlikely to become widespread--even if the rest of you don't.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 8:08 AM By George M.
I was an altar boy in the fifties and early sixties and served many many daily and Sunday Latin masses, including funerals and weddings. I welcomed the change to the Novus Ordo Mass in the sixties and a more inclusive and understandable liturgy. However, I was dismayed with the abuses just like any other sensible Catholic and this Mass will be reformed under the current Pope but it will never return back to the old Latin rite. As I have stated in many other posts, there have been many other rites in the Roman Catholic Church coexisting with the Latin Roman rite....Byzantine, Carmelite, Maronite, Sarum, etc. The Latin rite probably was the right choice in a different era. I think it is a good thing for both rites to coexist if only to heal divisions caused by Vatican II. However, to be in good standing as a Catholic you must acknowledge the legitimacy of ALL rites sanctioned by the Holy See. If you don't, you can call yourself a real Catholic but in reality you are not. There are many ways to express worship in the Holy Mass as long as it is done with reverence and true intent and the remembrance of Christ in the Last Supper, His Passion and Resurrection. God bless you all and Merry Christmas.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 8:38 AM By John L. Sillasen
Polneon, you're making up a lot of accusations and characterizations which indicate that you have not read much on this site. Why don't you read the site first, and then make your comments? For example, a significant portion of my posts integrate both Old and New Testament into my opinions. Others have done the same thing. You're laying out some good points, but then claiming that you are the only one who posts on them. Your most critical point seems to be your definition of faith, and that it changes over the centuries. What's that all about?
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 8:41 AM By John L. Sillasen
Why do some people refer to argumentive attempts to get to the truth as "senseless bickering"? If an aspect is being missed, then why complain about it instead of explaining about it?
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 8:53 AM By Cody
My wife and I have been attending the Tridentine Mass for about 2 months now. We attend the Ordinary form on Saturday and the Extraordinary form on Sunday. At the Ordinary form Mass we get to see liturgical abuses, 30% of the people sitting around us disappear at Communion, people walking away with the host in their hands and not consuming, 15 EMs standing around creating quite a crowd and not allowing someone to receive on the tongue, people not knowing when to stand/kneel/sit at the proper time, bosoms, miniskirts, shorts on men, flipflops, dirty shoes on altar servers, loud talking, lenghty appeals by a lay person about some secular topic during Mass, cellphones playing music, dirty diapers/not consumed consecrated hosts/litter left in pews, breastfeeding of babies in pew, etc, etc. At the Extraordinary form Mass none of the above applies. We see people following the Mass with their missals, nicely behaved families, reverence, long Confessional lines before Mass, proper dress, etc. When we went to the Latin Mass yesterday I had on a 15 year old shirt, an $8 pair of slacks, and a $35 pair of shoes. No one at Mass looks 'rich' but all are dressed properly. There is a big difference between the 2 Masses we attend every week. Any questions????
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:08 AM By Georgia
I would like to present a meditation for the day from The Magnificat Advent Companion. Bringing Christ to Others There is in every heart the desire to do something great. We try to suppress it as a pipe dream but i t persists. John the Baptists role in history was to usher Christ into the world. No human endeavor can come near to the magnitude of that achievement. In my small and limited way I can emulate John's achievement by bringing Christ into the lives of others who thrist for him without clearly understanding who or what it is they crave. Is there anything I could do in life more meaningful, more rewarding than bringing Christ to others? In still another way John the Baptist serves as a model for me - in his humility vis-a-vis Jesus. John could bring himself to say of Jesus: "HE must increase; I must decrease" (Jn 3:30) and, His "sandal strap I am not worthy to untie" (Jn 1:27). What a profound regard for Jesus breathes in those words. John died a hero's death for upholding God's law. I must not be dismayed at being put down for upholding Christ and his teaching in the market-place not an unusal reaction in these times.
Reflection based on Luke 1:67-79 Monsignor James Turro
Loving Father, give me the courage to witness to my faith before others and to bring Christ to those who have need to know him.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:12 AM By Monica N.
Great post Patrick it says it all. To bad they just don't or will not get it, well one thing is certain this Holy Father knows what must be done to undo what Bugnini and the Prostestant minsters did over 40 years ago!! Deo Gratias Holy Father for giving our Holy Mass back to us!!!!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:17 AM By Jozef Goldmann
Sheila, my goodness your venom is quite harsh, I truly think you are in the wrong Church please join an Protestant sect our something of that nature, it only goes to prove the Devil hates LATIN as do the NOVUS ORDONARIANS!!!! God bless Benedict the XVI!!!! Savior of the Holy Faith
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:30 AM By Mary-Ann Neely
Nicely said John Sillasen, I for one must say the reason I became a Roman Catholic and left the Anglican Church is the very fact of the Traditional Latin Mass. Remember the Church of England was founded by an sinful King called Henry the VIII who murdered scores of priests, nuns, monks and destroyed their convents, churches and so on. I always find it funny how converts like myself are the most ardent defenders of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith and people like Sheila who were baptized Catholics want it to be something other than what it is. And please stop saying the priest has his back towards the people during Holy Mass, it's better than having his back towards God during the Novus Ordo service!!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:50 AM By Joe
Cody I agree that the attire some people wear to Mass is unbecoming. I blame it on the priests who allow shorts,mini skirts and other types of recreational wear. Its not the fault of the type of mass. The Tridentine Mass draws from a more conservative crowd and I would expect those to wear appropriate clothing and act accordingly
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 9:59 AM By YouthReform
Wow. Why is there so much anger here? I am a proud supporter of both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. Of course the Novus Ordo is subject to many abuses, and it is easy to see those because 1. the mass in the local language, so its easier to hear them, and 2. its the more common form (at least for now) and so we have a much a better chance of encountering them.
However, the Tridentine Mass has also experienced periods where it was filled with abuses. One of my law school professors (who is a big supporter of the Tridentine Mass) likes to tell of a priest he served for when he was a youth. The priest said daily masses that were 10 minutes or less and would not even wait for the servers responses to the prayers before continuining on. But because much of the Mass is silent and in Latin, and because of the limited, but very very devoted priests who say the Tridentine Mass, abuses in the Tridentine Mass have nearly disappeared in the last 40 years. However, that does not mean abuses never existed.
Benedict XVI has created something very special by loosening the restrictions on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The two Masses compliment each other very well. Sure we can talk about looking nice or great music at Tridentine Masses, but if that had remained the only form of the Mass at every parish for the last 40 years, might we not have seen jeans or people leaving after communion creep in as a common occurence at those masses as well? I hope not, but we simply just don't know!
We must be careful not to argue without first making sure we are comparing apples to apples. Let us send prayers of Thanksgiving to God for Benedict XVI! We are blessed to have such a holy man guiding us.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:02 AM By Patrick
Albrecht, liturgy can change and adapt through time (albeit slowly). The Second Vatican Council called this change "organic development." "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." However, the change which occurred to the liturgy after Vatican II was not organic development. It was a sudden jolt and wide sweeping change imposed artificially by "committee." It was the product of academic theory. Our current pope, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger, has pointed out this problem. Furthermore, the TLM may become more widespread than you think. During the mid-90s I often expressed my wish to see Cardinal Ratzinger become the next pope, and I expressed my wish that he would issue a Motu Proprio type document regarding the TLM. Fellow Catholics told me I was crazy. If the TLM does become more commonplace I expect it will take years. But, with the MP, this pope has let the cat out of the bag, and he is in no mood to be put back in. George M., I suspect most here acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. However, according to Canon Law it is our right and duty to make known our concerns (respectfully) regarding church issues. Many of us believe Church leaders have made some imprudent decisions regarding the liturgy. Furthermore, many of the criticisms of the Novus Ordo, which have been expressed here, have also been expressed by our current pope.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:06 AM By Gary H.
Since when does a Bishop "APPROVE" Latin Mass?
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:34 AM By Albrecht
Patrick,
I don't disagree with what you've said. Rather, my comments are pointed at the fantasy of a pre-Lapsarian era before Vatican II in which everything was right with the church. The church has been infested with vice and complacency and petty self-interest from the time that Judas made his special deal on the side. I personally like Latin, but the church is a vessel for the transmission of sanctifying grace and a message of salvation, not good taste. I certainly don't mean to belittle the serious liturgical abuses that are committed--they are a major source of preoccupation for me. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM: both the abuses and my preoccupation. I have the same patience for the charlatans of modern liturgy as I do for my own self-righteousness about it. We should both rather attend to our failures of generosity, purity and humility. When you consider that most American Catholics, from any part of the spectrum, are preoccupied, in large ways and in small, with the security they and their families are afforded, not by God, but by money, military power, and contraception, it is hard to think that Latin, or any liturgical change is the fix-all for a fat, happy and pagan culture. Like Judas, modern Christians have traded the Holy Spirit for an acceptable politics.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:55 AM By Monica
My family attends the TLM for many reasons. But one reason I haven't seen posted here is the fact that the Novus Ordo does not seem to pass on the Catholic faith to the next generation. My husband and I both attended Catholic school through high school and N.O. masses growing up. None of our siblings nor former classmates practice the faith. Most even have a contempt for it. This is the experience of virturally every other traditional Catholic we know who grew up in the New Mass. My 14 and 6 year old sons are altar servers, they understand what the Mass is and they both are considering the priesthood. Regardless of what happens, they have a love for the Mass and their Catholic faith which manifests in their behavior. In 40 years in the Novus Ordo I rarely saw children with a deep love and understanding of the Catholic Faith.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 11:08 AM By Shirley
I don't pretend to know what God wants in the Mass but as a born into the Latin Rite Catholic I have raised 3 children into a very poor substitute of a Mass, since the 60's. Their CCD education was worse than poor and it took a good look at the older Mass and church to bring back 'one' into the fullness of the faith. My example of faith, devotion and love of God was given to me by my grandmother and guess where she learned it. Latin and all. She probably had no more than an 8th grade education. Both masses have validity but the latter has suffered such abuses that some Pope had to speak up for the peace and quiet devotion we got from a Latin celebration. As for the music - please - people won't even stay until the last recessional song is finished - that's a pretty good clue where that lies. By the way I've attended Mass from coast to coast since the 70's.
There is little difference just sadness at where we have gone since.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 11:16 AM By Jason
According to the late Cardinal Stikler and Pope SAINT Pius V, no Catholic priest needs permission to do the Traditional Latin Mass nor can he be forced to do a mass other than the Traditional Latin Mass. See: http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/latinmass_cfn.shtml
and
http://www.dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 11:42 AM By John Wasser
To YouthReform, to compare the minor problems of the TLM prior to Vatican 2 is absurd, please tell me where were the abuses such as clown masses, dancing girls, clapping, kissing each other during Mass, priests making up their own words of consecration, using kool aid pitchers instead of gold or silver for Holy Communion, gay masses, mariachi masses, altar girls, not kneeling, leaving before Holy Communion, wearing shorts, strapless tops, sandles, and you can only say a priest rushed thru a Mass? The TLM is "Truly a Sacrifice" the N.O. is simply a Broadway production void of any salvation for the soul!!!!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 11:43 AM By Patrick
Albrecht, you correct in pointing out that things were not perfect during the pre-Vat II era. I am not one who simply wants to turn the clock back to the 1950s. However, with regard to our liturgy discussion, I would like to point out that this is not simply a matter of Latin vs. the vernacular. There is much more to the differences between the TLM and the Novus Ordo than the language used to celebrate them. I have often said that I would prefer to attend the old Mass celebrated in a good English than the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin. Nor is this simply a debate about good taste. There is an old saying in the Church: "lex orandi, lex credendi." Translated it means "the law of prayer is the law of faith." Some of us are concerned with the effect that the liturgy has on the Faith. Some of us believe that the changes to the liturgy since Vatican II have brought about negative consequences for the Faith. I believe our current pope is inclined to agree with this position. I am sorry if this sounds self-righteous, but I feel there is a need for discussion. I won't ignore the issue. It has been the elephant in the room for 40 years.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 12:24 PM By Gary H.
The article mentioned a "unauthorized chapel",
Our Lady Help of Christians in Garden Grove, California..
Insofar as this Church is not part of the Diocese of Orange, Bishop Brown has no say in approving or disapproving
Our Lady Help of Christians.
This is a beautiful Tridentine Latin Mass community and Church.
The three OLHC Catholic Priests conform and comply to ALL of the directives of the Vatican.
I am at a loss how OLHC became a "unauthorized chapel",
Is it necessary for a Catholic Church or Chapel in Los Angeles or Orange county (or the State of California) to be "approved" & by whom?
It appears some Priest's remove themselves (or are removed) from a Diocese to express their viewpoint----not in defiance to a Bishop, but to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass without conflict. It works at OLHC!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 12:28 PM By Steven M.
True there is nothing wrong about Our Lady Help of Christians parish, they are only doing what ever true Roman Catholic should do and that is to attend Holy Mass!! Funny but if a Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Episcopalian, Unitarian, or other un-Christian pagan group were to ask to use an Church or Cathedral from say Bishop Brown or any Novus Ordo Bishop for that matter the answer would be of course you can!!! But God forbid should belong to the F.S.S.P. or S.S.P.X. and want to have a TLM the answer would a resounding NO!! And you wonder why we Traditionalists are so ardent about the Traditional Latin Mass. Talk about "unauthorized" every one of the sects mentioned above would have been "unauthorized" 40 years ago prior to the Hurricane called Vatican 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 12:35 PM By K.W.
The High Chuch Anglicans have a wonderful Mass said in Elizabethan English quite nice as a matter of fact and very devout, along with smells, bells, chant, altar-boys, rosary, and other Roman elements, but now a number of Anglo-Catholic, are changing to the TLM in Latin, after all this time it seems as if Henry the VIII could not destroy the Roman Mass after all!!!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 1:06 PM By Cody
If the Latin Mass was the only game in town for the last 40 years, would people dress like they were at the beach, I have no clue, my crystal ball still is broken! All I can do is observe what I see today when I attend the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass. I don’t see the English/Latin language argument holding water because the liturgical abuses I see all the time have little or nothing to do with the changing of liturgical verbiage in the Ordinary form, besides those in the pews are seldom following along using a missal. I have never taken a poll of the people attending the Extraordinary form so I have no clue if they are conservative, liberal, or just plain old pew potatoes (my wife did talk to a Baptist lady attending yesterday). If anyone wants to be educated in abuses, read the liturgical abuse document put out by Pope JP II in March of 2004 titled REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM. Also read the GIRM and various liturgical directions put out by the USCCB. These documents can be found on the USCCB website. The introduction written by Pope JP II and Cardinal Arinze in the Redemptionis document is very clear. Basically in a nutshell it says “Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”, it is Jesus’s Mass. If you are dealing with a specially egregious abuse, take it to your pastor, quote the section from Redemptionis that deals with it, then DUCK! I wouldn’t have a clue whether a Priest was committing a liturgical abuse in saying a 10-15 min long Latin Mass 40 years ago. Back then we expected that things were done correctly. If anyone knows of a document addressing Tridentine liturgical abuses put out by the Pope 40, 50, or whatever years ago, please post the document’s name because I would be interested in reading it. My personal opinion on these matters is meaningless. All I can do is observe and weigh these experiences against the standards put out by those with authority, be that Church Magisterium, Pope, Bishop’s conference, local Bishop, etc and pray that they are guided by the Holy Spirit in what they say.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 1:32 PM By Alexander Smith
I praise all the parishioners who remained faithful to Roman Catholic Tradition. I hope the local Ordinary will make this parish of a good passed-away traditional Roman Catholic priest into a Personal Parish for the Tridentine Rite (extraordinary form of the Roman Rite). Deo gratias and Blessed Christmas to you all! Puer natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 1:41 PM By Vitus M.
I must say we Trads in this site do get a lip full from the N.O.'s but I love this site anyway! Just goes to show you there is something mighty powerful about this thing called the Traditional Latin Mass and thank Pope Benedict the XVI for it!! Merry Christmas to all!
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 2:15 PM By Terik Ororke
To hold onto the so called " traditional" Mass as if it were the only valid Mass is in itself sinful and an object that is sadly an "idol." If we really want to celebrate a "valid" or traditional Mass, then it must be very simple and in the language that Jesus used, and not Latin or any other language.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 2:35 PM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo, your cosmic christ religion is not Catholic. Jesus, if you bother to read what He says, and not just what your Enlightenment authors have said, Christ says of the consecrated Bread and Wine, "This is my Body ... This is my Blood": This is the living God in a confined space in a timeframe. He is there under the form of material elements ... in the way he was present for Peter, John, Thomas, Andrew, His Blessed Mother, et all. The cosmic christ is not. Even Martin Luther had a better understanding of the Eucharist than you, tom amadeo: Luther's doctrine is defective, in that it says Christ is "in" the bread and wine, instead of "is" the bread and wine; but it is closer than the cosmic christ thing, which is more like unitarian or pagan ... not even Jewish tradition. It's actually a new age set up in our time. We can, indeed, converse with God in the Eucharist, whether in the depths of adoration or meditation or howsoever else we might be inclinded. Yes, God is omnipresent, but the only way to Him is through Jesus Christ, which is not available other than in the Sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 2:46 PM By John L. Sillasen
George M.: I agree with how you've expressed your 8:08 post. Although you're still sliding in that prognostication about the future of the TLM. I recall reading one of then Cdl Ratzinger's books where he says not to expect the TLM to make a powerful comeback ... The English translation, per the nature of translations, might have made his actual thought vague, or it could be he was intending to be less than absolute in his speculation, but the way it was worded did not close the door. The bottom line really is this, that unless the Second Coming is just down the road, the Church will provide liturgy that gets the Will of God done. After all, what really is the Will of God by having the n.o. set into motion? I haven't read or heard much on this idea, but see a lot of assumption in the various arguments.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 2:47 PM By Albrecht
Patrick, I certainly don't mean to suggest that you are self-righteous, just that I am. Allow me to demonstrate ;)
I don't deny the importance of lex orandi..., but it is also important not to ignore Tridentine deficiencies there as well: no epiclesis, which the eastern Orthodox looked askance at (with some justification on precisely a "lex orandi.." basis); a suggestion that Jews are to blame for Christ's suffering; and a general tendency towards superstition that the mystery of the latin rite--despite all the good effects--tended to inculcate. The fact that the "reform" has been, in many cases, a disaster, doesn't mean that it was unnecessary.
By comparison, on "lex orandi" scales, the "pro multis" debate doesn't amount to much. Even Trent, in suggesting that multis refers to the elect, nevertheless says that it would be true to say that the grace of salvation was poured out for everyone. Trent says it is more fitting to think that multis refers to the elect, but the reason the question arose is that neither interpretation presents a theological error. Surely there are other points (memorial acclamation, etc), but the larger problem is really the freelancing that crept in post Vatican II. Now you have to suffer through whatever liturgical fashion swept the seminary during Fr X's schooling.
Perhaps I am wrong and the Tridentine rite will reestablish itself broadly; but I have to imagine that the Holy Spirit has something less expected--by either "camp"--in store for the church and world. Best regards and Merry Christmas.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 3:15 PM By Grisha
John Wasser: I wonder how essential some of the things you outline really are to the true sacrifice of the mass, whatever form it may be in. In World War II my father attended mass,in between Japanese artillery attacks, wearing only a pair of fatigue trousers and boondockers. My cousin Terry probably wore a similar outfit 25 years later at mass in Vietnam. I wouldn't be surprised if rather than gold or silver vessels communion was distributed from half a mess kit or a canteen cup. Somehow, I believe Jesus was just as present as at a TLM celebrated by a SSPX, FSSP or LSMFT priest, in a great cathedral, with everyone decked out in their finery. Similarly, in 1984 I was traveling in the late, unlamented Soviet Union with a group of Catholics including two priests. We had masses in the hotel rooms using a very good Georgian wine and either Russian black bread or matzoh given to us by a Jewish refusenick. Yes I agree that we all ought to dress appropriately to the time, place and circumstance, but to get hung up on some of the things you've listed strikes me a mistaking the sizzle for the steak. (PS: we're leaving for mass in about an hour and a half. I'll wear .. I think .. my nice blue dockers, loafers, an oxford shirt without a tie and a tweed sport coat. If I were at St. Louis in Moscow or Our Lady of Lourdes in St. Petersburg I'd wear a suit and a tie. I just want to conform to, and respect, local customs.)
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 4:04 PM By Pete
My wife and i just attended a Christmas vigil Mass and I am glad none of the self rightous traditionalist Catholics were not there. They would have been shocked by what went on.Why the pastor (he's no young liberal) actually recited a secular poem
which condemned the secularization of the holidayas a part of his homily.He even walked out in the aisle suring the homily and interacted with the congregation.He even invited a family to the altar with the offertory gifts. We even had female acolytes in the procession and a female lector and heaven forbid a lay person giving out communion. People actually shooks hands with their neighbors and couples actually hugged one another in church (isn't that terrible), people even smiled at one another.
And to top off we ended the Mass with that old protestant black spiritual "Go Tell it on the Mountain". Yes you can have your old Tridentine Mass where the female population couldn't even participate and had to wear head coverings (be submissive to your husbands, etc) people sat with their prayerbooks while the priest spoke a language which most of the world today cannot even relate to.
I'll take the modern mass over the Tridentine mass any day.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 4:50 PM By Patrick
Albrecht, I have just a few final thoughts. 1) The Roman Canon was the sole Eucharistic Prayer, in the West, for 1500 years. It has proven its worth (lex orandi) during its long history. It is not deficient for lack of an explicit epiclesis. The fact that the Eastern churches look askance at the lack of an explicit epiclesis is irrelevant. They have their rite we have ours. 2) The prayer which some Jews find offensive is used only on Good Friday (one day out of the year). It is more or less a quote from Cor 2, 3:15. 3) In the 15 years that I have been studying this issue I have not heard anyone make the argument that the TLM inculcates a general tendency toward superstition. The miracle that is taking place on the altar is a great mystery. What you are saying is that the Church has been inculcating needless superstition for most of its history. Above, you mentioned the Eastern Churches. Have you attended Eastern liturgies? Do you think they also inculcate superstition? 4) Even the normative Latin edition of the Novus Ordo Missal states "pro multis" not "pro omnibus." "For all" is merely a bad English translation which the Vatican as ordered to be corrected. Scripture states "for many" not "for all." The authors of the Gospels could have used the term "for all," but they used the term "for many." "Pro multis" is what has always been used in the liturgy. The term "for all" requires an explanation like the one you were attempting to provide above. The liturgy is not a place for ambiguities. 5) The problem is not merely freelancing. Pope Benedict, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote that one of the main problems with the Novus Ordo Mass was that the priest was turned around to face the people. This, in effect, turned the priest into a performer. His personality became an issue. Also, many of the prayers were watered down and Protestantized. 6) Some people believe that the pope is hoping the two liturgies will undergo a synthesis.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 5:35 PM By John L. Sillasen
Pete, that's the difference. The n.o. crowd seems to do that only at Mass, while the TLM crowd acts neighborly the rest of the week, reserving that one hour on Sunday for one on one with God. You see, we have everything you've got PLUS the one on one with God. When do you do your one on one with God?
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 5:46 PM By John L. Sillasen
Why is it so hard for Catholics to refuse to get down and read the Bible? I constantly see all this study reflected in various Church documents with a whole lot of unanswered questions ... it's all in the Bible. That is where the explanations are found. I've never heard or read anything in other Magisterial documents that does not connect with Scripture. I read a whole lot of Scripture before I even knew what the Catholic Church was ... upon being received into the Church and to date I have yet to be surprised at anything in the Magisterium.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 5:56 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Yourthreforn,
The prayers at the foot of the Altar help set a much more profound atmosphere for both the priest celebrant and those celebrating the Mass with him. I don't think you would have seen so much abuse if the Mass had never been changed by Bugnini, Casaroli(both reported Masons), and SIX PROTESTANT MINISTERS!
Had Vatican II been implemented properly, the Mass form would not have been changed, just the allowance of the vernacular for some Masses.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 6:04 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Patrick, the Evangelist could not have used "all" because they were quoting or recording what Our Lord Himself said! He used "many" because he knew not all would be willing to give up the world and its "pleasures' for Him!
I have had priests at weekday Masses ask me to sit so that they can see the people behind me. He never had that problem before because he was always fixed on Our Lord physically present in the Tabernacle.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 6:05 PM By John L. Sillasen
Pete, sounds like you had a great time with singing such songs as Old MacDonald Had a Farm and such. We usually go for the songs such as O Holy Night, Silent Night and so forth, although, and this ought to surprise you, not in Latin. For the record, I once was two years in a black parish, the only white in the Gospel choir, and in church about eight times per week ... that was a great time for me ... one of the priests even chanted the n.o. in "New Orleans Blues" style. Those were priceless years for me; the charity of God worked powerfully among us. But I moved along to where I am now, in a TLM crowd. I think it's the one on one with the Eucharist, the respect of the fellow parishioners for one another's "private time" and focus during Mass (after all, one day each of us will face the Lord alone ... it is good to get the hang of it now), and the absense of any kind of hype. You don't have to conform to someone else's mood, nor they to yours. The festivities are outside, after or before Mass. The n.o. crowd at this parish is great, no confrontation, no friction, large cross over between the two liturgies. But there also is nothing but reverence at the n.o. Masses at this parish ... no friviolities, no innovations, no grandstanding, no bizarre choir nonsense, no dancing, no prancing (we leave that up to the reindeer) ... best of both worlds. Lots of tables outside with food and religious goods, and hugging for those who are disposed to such actions. Suits, fancy hats, and all that can be seen at the TLM, but you also find the logo t-shirts ... no shorts or leotards though, no mini-skirts, no nonsense, because the pastor and other priests are respected for the devout, and self sacrificing men of God they are. They do nothing but speak up the hardships of the priesthood, because they love to give their all to God for the salvation of souls.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 8:58 PM By John L. Sillasen
Correction: " upon being received into the Church and to date I have yet to be surprised at anything in the Magisterium". "Surprised" is the wrong word. I have actually been surprised by many things ... I have never seen any contradiction between Scripture and other Magisterial documents. Scripture has to be read with humility, with a heart, mind, soul and strength open to the truth. All the words do is refer us to the truth ... there is more involved than merely reading the words, or even memorizing the Bible ... It is said, eg, that Martin Luther had memorized the Bible, both Old and New Testaments; but, somehow he got it messed up and started his own religion. Ask, seek and knock and the door shall be opened for you, as Jesus says in the Gospel ... To respond accordingly to the command is responding to faith. God plants the seed, and we respond. Abraham did, and Blessed Mary Ever Virgin did ... The Fall put many obstacles in our way and thus our responses vary, yet we each still have the capacity to respond to the call of God. Some say yes, some no.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:13 PM By Mac
Has anyone noticed that the Tridentine Mass was mostly SILENT? And in really large churches completely silent because priests didn't use microphones. Listening to Latin was not a part of ordinary worship. Sung Masses were of course a different matter. (I am told that the present Holy Father favors the Masses of Mozart and
Verdi.
|
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 10:16 PM By Patrick
Pete, When I was attending the indult Tridentine Masses in a major U.S. city, I felt a great deal of camaraderie with my fellow Mass-goers. This was despite the fact that we did not get all touchy-feely during Mass like some Novus Ordo crowds. In my experience, the hand-shakes, hand-holding and other gestures at Novus Ordo Masses are most often nothing more than empty gestures. People go on their merry way after Mass, and the person who sat next to them in the pew can drop dead for all they care. If girl altar boys and talk show homilies turn you on--good for you! I bet you all clapped. The pope and bishops allow it, and it isn't my job to shut your Mass down. But, I'll take the old Tridentine Mass, thankyou. You don't have to come, and you don't need to get in a snit about. By the way, the young priests tend to be more conservative than the older priests. The average liberal priest is probably in his sixties.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 3:14 AM By Doc
There was an Mass called the Dialog Mass at one time. Instead of the altar boys being the only ones to respond to the Priest, everyone did. The Mass retained the deep reverence of a Sacrifice of the Son to the Father on our behalf all the while permitting the participation of the people whom the altar boys represented.
As the term altar boys is really a misnomer, originally Acolytes were used at Mass, real Acolytes. Remember, the seminarians used to go through minor and major orders before being ordained a Priest. As part of their liturgical responsibilities, they served Mass. As the numbers of Acolytes in seminaries dwindled, non-seminarian males were employed.
We must remember that it is not what 'we get out of Mass', whether we are sufficiently entertained, or moved to tears by the homily.We, through the singular grace of Almighty God, are privileged to be present at Calvary - not in a symbolic manner - but truly present as a witness to the events taking place there. The Son of God is being offered on a cross for us - on our behalf and in our place. He is redeeming mankind as only He can do and we are there.If we could see the actions taking place at Calvary and the presence of Our Blessed Lady and Saint John standing beneath the Crucifix on Calvary; if we could hear the jeering crowds and curses of the soldiers and Pharisees - come down from that Cross if indeed you are the Son of God; if we could smell the smells of death on that hill, then perhaps we would have a much deeper appreciation for what we simply call the Mass.
As our redemption is taking place, let us keep in mind that He Who loves us so much stretched out His arms on that Cross and in doing so, calls to each one to come to Him, join in the sacrifice and receive Him in the Most Blessed Sacrament which he left us as another act of Divine Love.
Christmas Blessings to all,
Doc
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 6:57 AM By tom amadeo
JLS---I am most gratified by your post directed to me on Dec.24,2007@2:35 PM."My" statement on Dec.24 @6:34AM, is clear heresy.It rejects the Incarnation,because it rejects God's presence in a confined way in the womb of Mary,and if the Incarnation does not esist,we are not saved by Christ.It rejects the death of God on the cross since God can't be confined in Christ's body.The statement denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist,and it rejects the merit of those of us who spend hours kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament at Nocturnal Adoration calling it senseless act! Yes,JL, it is an outragious statement of apostacy,heretical and blasphemous. HOWEVER,JLS, these are in reality,not my words at all. They are a direct translation of the words from Die Sacrementale Begrundung Christliche Ezistenz by Joseph Ratzinger.Call it as it is--in light of the following:"If anyone says that after Consecration is complete,the Body and Blood of our Lord,Jesus Christ are not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and in the consecrated hosts and particles which are reserved the True Body and Blood of Our Lord remain not,let him be anathema.(Council of Trent,canon 4).And you think that this Pope is God's representative on earth!?!?
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 8:41 AM By Jim
I just want to attend Mass that is celebrated with reverence and devotion, whether in Latin or any other language. That sense of reverence and devotion seems to be present in the Latin Masses that I have attended. I am not there to be entertained, which seemed to be the focus of too many Novus Ordo Masses.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 9:43 AM By Cody
We attended 2 Masses last night on Christmas Eve, the Extraordinary/Latin at 8pm and the Ordinary at midnight. They were both wonderful! The pastor at the parish for the midnight Mass does everything by the book according to the rubrics of the Ordinary form. That’s why we go there. The people were quiet and reverent before and during Mass. The pastor of this parish does a wonderful job and it all goes back to the pastor on how the ship is run and how people behave. There is another church (only doing the Ordinary form) we won’t go back to anymore because the abuses of the pastor flow right from the sanctuary to the pews. That parish has many backstabbers. I’m still waiting for someone to post the Papal document trying to correct Tridentine Mass liturgical abuses that some claim existed over 40 years ago. Don’t forget to look up JP II’s REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM document dealing with Ordinary Mass abuses.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:00 AM By Jim
Cody, you are so right, "it all goes back to the pastor."
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 12:58 PM By Con
When was the last time anyone heard a Novus Ordo Priest speak about the evils of contraception, the reality of mortal sin, modesty, the need to go to confession and many other important Catholic teachings? The majority of Novus Ordo Priests with the exception of a few are gutless and wishy washy that you have to wonder how they ever managed to be ordained. Give me the Latin Mass any day!
|
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:05 PM By Georgia
Tom Ororke, 12-24-07, 2:15 PM: You stated that the language of the Mass should be very simple and in the language Jesus spoke and not Latin or any other language. So take your pick. Christ spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. I don't believe English was spoken by anyone in the Middle East at that time. Possibly Jesus spoke Greek,but there is no record of it. It appears that according to your reasoning the choice would be Latin.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:08 AM By Spirit of Vatican II
Quam triste est videre ut catechesis de significatione SS Eucharistiae tam profunde fallita sit. Traditionisti non capiunt istam significationam quando volunt liturgiam individualisticam, dirimens sacrificium crucis seu Mysterium Paschale a vita reale communitatis et signis temporum. Benedictus XVI, dans liberum cursum freneticis ac violentis advocatis Missae Tridentinae, magnam divisionem seminat in Ecclesia.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:09 AM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo, you need to take out the emotionally charged sarcasm and speculation of what others think ... it is like a kind of paranoia. Just deal with what the posts actually say. Your postings are clearly gnostic and not Christian ... argue straight forward and quit the pretence.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:19 AM By Jan Debisiou
Correct Con, they don't! With the loss of the Traditional Latin Mass went morals, sin, judgement, leadership basic Roman Catholic teaching and we intern got the Novus Ordo service with no sin, no morals, no right or wrong, no judgement, no Roman Catholic teaching lovey dovey priests if you can even call them priests! Please Holy Father return the Holy Mass to the altar of St. Peter's Basilica!!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:28 AM By Nancy W.
Did anyone notice the Papal Midnite Mass on Christmas? The altar had traditional six candlesticks and one in the middle, the crucifix was in the central part of the altar. But the Sistine Choir still cannot seem to sing in tune, and the kids with their offerings I thought would go with the old Marini, but it is getting better. Great mitre and cope at the Urbi et Orbi speech, Benedict looked very pre-Vatican 2 but the bent crucifix needs to go, hopefully he will use the triple cross and Papal tiara when he says the TLM??? Hopefully soon Holy Father!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:04 AM By tom amadeo
OK,JLS---I'l keep it simple. Joseph Ratzinger wrote: "To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects."(see my posting above,Dec.24,@6:34AM)Ratzinger's statmennt is PURE heresy,and the author is anathema,per Canon 4,Council of Trent.No emotion,just the truth. Why should anyone go to Ratzinger's church if God is not present there,according to Ratzinger himself?Going to church is not a social event for "feeling good",or shaking hands,or singing nice songs,where everyone is saved(not pro multis,but pro omnis."No, I go to church to worship God and if I have no Traditional Church,I must NOT attend. And according to Ratzinger,I may as well stay home since God is omnipresent,and ALL churches are "salvific"and Jesus Christ just "subsists"in the Catholic Church(but He subsists everywhere).Perhaps better still,go join the Holy Rollers,and feel good again! Going to Ratzinger's church is a senseless act which I rightfully reject. If this is sarcasm,speculation,or paranoia in your eyes,so be it!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:31 AM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo, thanks for responding so that I can understand what you are saying. Now it's clear. I do question your quote of the Cdl R: I would think there is some context that would give better light on " ... To go to church on the ground that ... " I'd like to read the paragraph, if not the page, you find that on. Can you tell me which book or essay it is from, and which page or at least give me enough info that I can find it? BTW, I first came to Jesus (as an adult) through the "holy rollers" ... aka "Jesus Freaks": They do share some Sacraments, and the Lord works with them ... those I was with loved God and did a lot to further the cause of Jesus. They are in a state of moving towards the fullness of God, as opposed to some groups or religions who are moving away from God, or have left off with God altogether. Protestants and Evangelicals can save souls ... they simply do not have the fullness of spiritual resources as do the Catholics ... but sometimes they make better use of what they've got than Catholics who waste what they've got.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:42 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Amadeo,
Have you read the book by Ratzinger you cite? The quotation you cite is found widely on the web, and not with any real context. Do you know the context of the statement?
I post the comment, as I found it on the internet (I have not read the book): "“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
What Ratzinger seems to deny here is that visiting the Eucharist is not a "conversation" with God, that God is present locally in the church building (which He isn't, since in His divine nature, he can not be present in a place -- Christ as man can be present in place, but not as God). The use of the word, "visit," in the last sentence seems to refer to "visit" as "conversation."
Ratzinger here does *not* deny that God is present in the Eucharist in the Church. Ratzinger only denies He is present as in a place and in a "confined way."
Further, both Dominus Iesus (published under Cardinal Ratzinger) and the recent clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith make it clear that the Church of Christ *only* subsists in the Catholic Church. I've written about this on the Madhouse blog at http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=e34ff729-79c6-45ae-a321-355a157310ad.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:03 AM By George M.
John Sillasen: I agree with your reply to my post. Why did God in his infinite Wisdom allow the Fathers of Vatican II to initiate the Novus Ordo reform? Depending on your liturgical ideology, you could answer this question in many different ways. From a traditionalist point of view, maybe it was a mechanism by God to separate the wheat from the chaff; or alternatively deliver a punishment to the people for their unfaithfulness and sinfulness. On the reform side of the issue was the need for a change in the lifelessness of the low Latin Mass which the overwhelming percentage of Catholics pre-Vatican II attended on Sunday or update the Mass for the newly converted in Africa and Asia which did not share western traditions. With television and people becoming more communications aware and educated, the low Mass had a mustiness and growing anachronistic quality to most people. People I knew back then avoided the Latin High Mass because it took too long (over an hour at least). My point of view is that God in his infinite wisdom did not lightly change the most central act of the Church for any of the reasons above. I sense that we are in the midst of an ongoing 100-200 year renewal of the Church to meet the challenges of the new millennium where the Church will be confronting both old and new enemies. I expect the future liturgy will be different than the vernacular Mass of today but will incorporate the traditions of the Catholic Church for the past 2,000 years. The second coming may be a year or it be thousands of years in the future, The Church will evolve with history just as it always has in the past. Let's put our trust in God as our Father and also his elected representative on earth, the Holy Father to do what is best for his people.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:37 PM By Grisha
Hi All: Tom Amedeo writes "Ratzinger's statmennt is PURE heresy", Nancy W. comments on the Holy Fathers Christmas mass "but the bent crucifix needs to go," another poster says he's outraged that B-16 and JP-2 went inside synagogues. Hey people, the phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" is supposed to be a JOKE!
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 6:24 PM By Betty
This is one of the best things I have read here. I am impressed most by the passionate feelings of the people who have written comments, mostly because I have never understood my friends who shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah, who cares?" I care. I just can't resist writing something. In our church one Gloria was sung to a lilting melody and choir members who were present on the altar, mind you, clapped their hands in rhythm with the melody. I thought it sounded awful. I have learned in the past that our pastor pays no attention to old fogies like me so instead of making comments, I joined in the clapping. I clapped louder than the choir members and kept time by beating my hands on the backs of the pews in front of me. The pastor sent our Liturgy minister to talk to me. She is at least twenty years younger than I am and where he got her I don't know. She is sweet and likable but she just doesn't know a heck of a lot about liturgy so that didn't work. Next the pastor talked to my husband to tell him to tell me to stop banging on the backs of the pews. My husband told him that the Gloria the choir sang is against Canon Law because it omits some of the words and changes other words and especially seems to avoid calling God by any masculine names such as Son,.probably to please the feminists. I continued to clap along with the shoir members and beat my hands on the pews. Now the pastor told my husband that he had talked with his lawyer to see if he could get a restraining order against me to make me stop. I laughed and laughed at home when I hears that message. I was just curious to see if he would actually try to get a restraining order against me. If he did, I was going to talk to the local newspaper and ask them if they wanted to use this as a news item. He didn't. He gritted his teeth or at least that's what it looked like to me. They finally stopped singing that dreadful Gloria during Advent and we had a dignified Christmas Mass If this is how
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 6:29 PM By tom amadeo
C.Z.---thank you for your posting of Dec26@10:42AM.No ,I have not read Ratzinger's book which I can only find in German,a language in which I am no longer proficient. The links on the internet from any source point to the accuracy of that translation which we both cited. Irrespective of the context,the statement is heretical.If God cannot be confined,what was in the womb of Mary,the Mother of God.Was it Christ the man only?Was not God himself born of Mary? Was it not God who died on the Cross?--because the Crucifiction on the human Christ cannot save us,nor make reparation for sin.And you say that by His divine nature He cannot be present in a place as God but only as man.This is also heresy.God is omnipotent,and can be anywhere He chooses.Is this why the Tabernacle has disappeared from the New Order churches.And what is in the Tabernacle,just man under the appearence of bread?The traditional orthodox dogma is that the TOTAL Christ,Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity are in all of the Consecrated particles.To deny this dogma is heresy.Moreover, what reason do we have to spend countless hours before the Blessed Sacrament in WORSHIP,if God Himself is not there.If Christ as man alone is present in the Eucharist,Nocturnal Adoration is IDOLATRY.I reject even the suggestion,irrespective of the context,that one cannot visit God in Church calling it a senseless act.What use is prayer? The methods used to defend the new doctrine of the new order are subtle indeed,using double meanings to avoid overt contradiction of dogma since this would be too obvious. The plan of the new order(in my paranoid thinking to some)is that the old Traditionalists will die off ,replacing the Catholic Church with a new religion,a composite of pagan,protestant,masonic doctrine.New definition:visit=conversation.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:06 PM By tom amadeo
Grisha---"more Catholic than the Pope" is supposed to be a JOKE! Some JOKE !!! A terrifying joke,perhaps. What is really a joke is this Pope. He does not dicipline his appointees,his bishops,his cardinals who encourage abominations in liturgy,and sex crimes,and embezzelment of millions of dollars.His job, sworn under oath, is to recieve,defend,teach,and transmit the unchanged Faith as given to the apostles by Our Lord,and defended by hundreds of Popes and martyrs.Until he does this he is not Catholic,no matter how many cardinals elected him! Ever wonder why those of deviant behavior habits just think that the New Order is just peachy while those of us who defend the Faith are ridiculed by the Novus Ordinarians,and their fellow travelers?Within a few years,what is now said to be the Catholic church of the New Order will collapse due to its internal corruption,having lost it's moral right to exist.The True Church will be alive and well,as Christ promised.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:38 PM By Polneon
Mr. Amadeo:
To write the thoughts that you express about the pope and the Church can lead prudent and mature Catholics to the conviction that they are in the presence of sacrilegious blasphemy. Please refrain from spewing your hatred of the Pope and the Church under the guise of being a leader in the true way.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:51 PM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo: I question two of your statements. One, if you were once proficient in German, then you should have no trouble reading a German text. Two, I suspect the problem is that you really have yet to study how to explicate text. In other words, the statement itself, irrespective of context, has a variety of possible interpretations. It is not amenable to one and one only take. BTW, would you kindly grace us with the name of your religion? And, yes, your thinking does reflect some paranoia ... there are spiritual remedies for it, such as spiritual direction, a good confession, and penance. Paranoia, other than the medical condition, is likely stemming from guilt. So, get rid of the guilt. That is done through confession. One good contrite confession, and it's history, tom, as long as you are absolved by a valid priest. tom amadeo, why do you consider that you are defending the faith, while saying the pope is not really the pope and is not even Catholic? You have to understand, a pope is God's man on earth ... there is none closer in rule of God's authority.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:38 PM By Adonis
Well, if TLM doesn't impress you, go to the N.O. Guess what, TLM works for me and my family, so I will fight for my right to have TLM available to me and my children for as long as we live. I don't want to sould self-righteous but aren't you hurt when our beloved Lord is mocked with liturgical abuses? Where are the prayerful norms?
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
We see how those traditionalists, who have already in their mind condemned the Pope, look for "quote-bites" to confirm their already made up mind. Of course they think they are more Catholic than the Pope since their personal interpretation is correct. It reminds me of how satan tempted Jesus with Scripture, and his stooges the pharisees tried to trap Jesus with Mosaic law. Today's traditionalist pharisees use the same process as their master, inculcating doubt and causing division. (Yes modernists, who are in a much larger number, do the same but for different reasons.) Has it occurred to you tom amadeo (and similar types) that to quote that God is limited to one place and to go to a church to see God in a limited way is the real meaning of what one should not believe? The then Ratzinger is trying to explain the mystery of God, of course Who is incomprehensible and only understandable in a limited way by us, that God cannot be thought of as only limited in space wherever the Eucharist is, nor be relegated to only Divinity? But of course you interpret statements in a way which you find conducive to your pre-made beliefs of condemning a allegedly heretical Pope, just like the pharisees had already made up their mind to stone the prostitute. You remind me of the ilk in the so-called Holy Family Monastery which wrote "101 heresies of JP2". Ask Our Lady to enlighten your heart, especially on this feast of St. John the Evangelist.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:29 AM By tom amadeo
Poineon--there is nothing I have posted that is not in conformity with the dictates of canon law,as formulated by two dogmatic councils,Trent and Vatican I.If so call mature Catholics are led astray by the truth and canon law,conclude whatever you will. "Not to oppose error is to approve it.Not to defend the truth,is to suppress it."(Pope St Felix,III)
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:46 AM By Betty
Polneon, Mr. Amadeo's thoughts about the Pope and the Church don't sound like sacrilegious blasphemy to me. I am often saddened by the lack of discipline in the Church. For instance, why doesn't our Cardinal in Boston stop my local pastor from choosing to tell a joke just at the very moment of the Ite Missa Est when he is supposed to send us away with an uplifting message, not a dumb joke.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:46 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Amadeo,
In saying that God cannot be present in a place, I am simply repeating traditional Catholic theology. Only a body can be in a place, since a body has extension. Spirits do not, and God is spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, however, we can speak of something being in a place in different ways. God is certainly present in us and the world, since these are His works. He is present in them in a way analogous to an artist's presence in his work of art. God is present in the Eucharist sacramentally -- and when the Host is placed on a paten, God is present there -- though not in the way a body is present there. It is important to remember that such things as the Host's size, shape, weight, etc. are accidents -- veils of the Divine Presence.
Context is all important in judging a statement -- especially the sort of statement from Ratzinger you quoted. It is certainly susceptible of an orthodox interpretation, to say the least; and to see if that interpretation, or yours, is the truer one, we would have to see the context -- what the author had said before, and what after.
It is incumbent on you to prove your point that the current pope is a heretic. You have not done so. You are engaged in a perilous (for your soul) exercise in thus assailing the integrity of the Vicar of Christ. If you cannot muster better arguments, I would suggest -- for your own good -- that you refrain.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:25 AM By Javier
And you wonder why Bishops hesitate to reinstate the Latin Mass? I just read through all of these posts and I am forced to conclude that the traditionalist Catholic mentality would be a poison in the average Catholic parish. In this particular case I support the Bishops in their restraint. These traditionalists have been outside the fold for too long with their schismatic views.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:19 PM By Mike W.
Here we go again with the SCHISMATIC attacks!! That means the Church, every Bishop, Cardinal, Pope, Monk, Nun, lay person was a SCHISMATIC prior to Vatican 2!! That's is exactly what Javier and all of the Novus Ordonarians are saying, and the poison Javier are you and fellow N.O.'s we have never changed it is you who brought us clown Masses, dancing girls, altar girls, communion in the hand, ripped out altar rails, closed churches, closed seminaries, closed shcools, and Mass attendance at 25% it was "75%" prior to that great SPRINGTIME called VATICAN 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:50 PM By brian
I think it's a shame to see Catholics at odds with each other. I personally find the "older mass" to be very beautiful, but I also understand that many may also feel the same about the current missal.
Just my two cents, but I think there is room in our Church for both....
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:57 PM By tom amadeo
CZ--I do not accept your representation as repeating traditional Catholic theology.You say only a body can be in a place.My soul is a spirit.Your soul is a spirit. The devil is a spirit.By your teaching,spirits can't be in a place called heaven,nor the devil be in a place called hell.By your reasoning,neither can your soul be confined to your body because it is a spirit.And when you die your soul doesn't leave your body because it wasn't there in the first place. I am very familiar with the correct concept that creation is a reflection of God,and that the finis operantis(God) and the finis operis(creation) are the same since God is a perfect workman,and can only be motivated by Himself and that creation is the extrinsic glory of God. How would you describe the nature of heaven or hell if they are not places where spirits are.I'm aware of the ideas of Aquinas(beatific vision).One must be careful not to change the supposition of terms.(is heaven really a vision,like with eyes?) And I will try to get a translation of Ratzinger's book, but I do believe that if I find any interpretation by which one can conclude that Ratzinger's deviation from orthodoxy is real,there are those who will defend his position anyway,just as those who oppose my position claim prejudgement on my part.To have lived almost eight decades,having graduated from two formerly Catholic universities with eight years of theology,and witnessed the moral degradation of a once great RCC, is distressing indeed! The present N.O.church would deny me the right to worship traditionally(the motu proprio is not the traditional mass),while granting all manner of "salvific" churches freedom to do as they please.They assail your Vicar of Christ regularly,and with impunity and tacit approval of the N.O.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:15 PM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo, you've finally put your religion in plain words for us to get a look at. Here is what you use to define your religious belief: " ... that the finis operantis(God) and the finis operis(creation) are the same ... ". What you are saying is that God and creation are the same. This is not even a Christian position, but is found in pagan religions. You've got elements in your faith statement which remind me of various world religions, past and present, none of which are Christian. You also mentioned your "paranoia". This is an important clue ... it typically comes from guilt. And no wonder, what with trying to tweak what you once knew as Catholicism to fit your present condition. Go to Confession, man.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:34 PM By Polneon
Tom Amadeo I spoke of a moral issue tied to the 8th commandment and you jumped into canon law. I too have lived almost 8 decades and I too have graduated from some formidable Catholic universities, one of them a Papal school and I am happy and sustained in my faith because the Holy Spirit through Christ's Church is teaching us more and more about how to relate with God every day. I wonder what you would have to say about pope Alexander VI? Oh, I forgot, he wasn't a heretic, he just liked the ladies.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:40 PM By granny
Fr. M.P., you begin to sound like the pharisees. Don't you read the Bible? The deep reverence shown by the angels and saints in the heavenly worship, and the deep reverence shown by biblical figures like Moses who removed his sandals, are not caused by fear but by great love and respect for God. These are the kind of deep reverence shown by the children and angel at Fatima. These are the forms of expression sought by those who love God. Now, if you find the casual and irreverent conduct as the correct one, you are showing bad example to your flock. These traditional catholics endured discrimination and rejection for so many years, yet they are still here which only show that they have humility and patience. Father, self-righteous people have no humility and patience just like ...
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:54 PM By randy
Its funny. A priest here packaged all the traditionalists as schismatics. The Devil is the father of all liars, I hope we don't lie in this thread. By the way, the works of St. John the evangelist, and the messages of our Lady cannot be reconciled with modernist liturgical innovations. The TLM is more attuned to the Worship found in the Book of Revelation by St. John. To use this Book and also our Lady against the traditionalists is really a big joke.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:15 PM By Ramirez
What kind of logic is that? We just want to exercise the right which is affirmed by the Pope, our right to the fullness of Catholic tradition. We are the ones being deprived of this right, yet a disobedient Pharisee begins to call us the sons of the devil who stoned the prostitute. I thought he studied philosophy. Fr. MP, are you really a priest? Show some proof.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:25 PM By John L. Sillasen
The term, "traditional Catholic" has at least three distinct meanings. The meaning associated typically when it gets blasted points to those who have moved out of communion with the pope. Now, in its literal meaning, which would describe most, in my view, applies to those who accept what the Church teaches through the present pope and bishops. Then you've got the trad who acknowledges the n.o., but thinks it indicates a plot. Most folks in these categories would seem to have a mix in their perspectives. Unless someone is intentionally at odds with the Church and is simply pretending to be Catholic for the purpose of subversion, then by and far most trads are simply trying to do the best they can with their various and unique situations. Some have terrible bishops, some have great bishops, others have bishops who are neither but doing their best to follow Christ and rule in His name. Too many times a post will spray everyone with the same paint, ie generalize to such an extent that it makes no sense. With over a billion Catholics, it is almost meaningless to speak for all or even a significant part of the faithful in one sweep of the keyboard.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
I took Fr. M.P.'s phrase another way. Here is the phrase: " ... those traditionalists, who have already in their mind condemned the Pope ... ". This can mean a particular category of traditionalists, namely those few who have condemned the Pope. Most trads have not, to my knowledge, condemned the Pope. But some have, and that seems to me to be what Fr. M.P. is saying.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:04 PM By Anima
Why do some clerics love the story of the 'unstoned' prostitute? Its because they can make it appear as if Christ is lenient to sexual sinners, and they use this story to appease their own concience when they start indulging in this scandalous pleasure. This is one reason why I prefer a traditional priest if available. Actually they identify themselves with those who refrained from stoning the prostitute because they themselves have sins whom Christ did not condemn either. For them this is a ticket to continue molesting. Didn't Christ said, "go, and SIN NO MORE?"
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:14 PM By Ramirez
OK John Sillasen, I will abide by your interpretation for now. What made me think the Fr. is generalizing is his favorable statement about modernists. Check that out also.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:46 PM By gabriel
Benedict's deeds are very good indeed, like the replacement of Piero Marini as master of ceremonies. I had been reading the National Catholic Reporter's interview of Piero Marini and discovered that he has a very uncatholic mind. He is exposing his own errors in the interview. Check it out folks.
|
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:13 PM By E. Mae
Father Daniel Johnson is watching over with a smile. May this good and holy priest rest in peace. Amen.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 6:03 AM By Fr. M.P.
Let me state my definitions: there are Catholics, traditionalists and modernists. Traditionalists have fallen off the rail "on the right" by rejecting post-1958 (V2 era) Papal and Magisterial teachings. There are many flavors; some are waiting for a Pope, some have elected their own anti-pope (Pius XIII, Michael) and some say there is a Pope but to ignore his alleged errors and follow their interpretation of Tradition (the largest lot). Modernists have fallen off the rail "on the left" reject almost everything dogmatic using the sin of liberalism. Then there are real Catholics. A traditional Catholic is one who follows both the Pope and the 1962 Missal. Organizations like FSSP and its followers are traditional Catholics. Traditionalists are not traditional Catholics, and are not Catholics because they reject Papal teachings and Councils. And I see various traditionalists here who are shocked that a priest would defend our Holy Father and therefore question whether this author is a priest. The pharisees questioned that Jesus was God and could teach "different" doctrine - the doctrine of perfected love - and the traditionalists likewise question Jesus' Vicar (and anyone who defends him), who has changed the form of the Mass, like many Vicars before him. John 9:41 "Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains."
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 7:42 AM By tom amadeo
JLS--my thoughts are those of Aquinas.Here is an analogy. If a worker(oprerantis),makes a car(operis),the finis(purpose)of the worker may not necessarily be the same as the purpose(finis) of the car..The finis(purpose)of the worker(operantis) may be to make money to support his church and family, while the finis of the car(operis) he made may be to provide transportation for you.These are NOT identical. Now,God(operantis) is a perfect workman an His purpose(finis) can only be Himself,since He cannot be motivated by anything outside Himself.Therefore,the PURPOSE(finis)of what God creates can only be for God Himself.By this is meant that the purpose of whatever God creates,and the purpose of the thing He created are the same.This does NOT mean that God and creation are the same! That would be pantheism.Again,it means that the PURPOSE of what God creates(finis operis),and the PURPOSE of the Creator(finis operantis) have to be the same.Aquinas concluded that for this reason,creation's purpose is the extrinsic Glory of God. Can you not make a distinction between the work and the PURPOSE of the work, and the workman and the PURPOSE of the workman?So,JLS,what do I say to my confessor?Is it sinful to state that the purpose of creation is God's Great Glory?Please be cautious,when you would send the innocent to the judgement of Confession,for sins that do not exist.The purpose for ALL creation is the Glory of God without exception.By just being here on earth,you are the fundamental Glory of God.And when you praise God,you are the formal Glory of God.This is what this post means. How you can conclude what you have from what I have said in any posting above,is beyond me. I suspect you and others will condemn any theologic position I assume,irrespective of the merit of those views,because you have your prejudements of many traditionalists,just as you accuse us of prejudging the N.O. at all levels.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 12:48 PM By tom amadeo
By the above ,in the simplest terms,the following should be clear:when God creates,the only purpose He can have is from Himself,because He has all perfection,infinitely.It follows,therefor, that the ultimate purpose of that which He creates,must be the same as His purpose,Himself.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 1:17 PM By Javier
I never went to a philosophical or theology program but this is one thing I was taught: A Roman Catholic is one who follows the teachings of the Church expressed through the Magisterium and the teaching authority of the 'current' Holy Father. If you don't accept this in its entirety, then you are a Protestant plain and simple not any different then the high anglicans with their latin high mass.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 1:27 PM By John L. Sillasen
tom amadeo, your new explanation makes sense. But it is not a difficult concept, and needs not have so much attempts at either eloquence or technical expertise. But, then, you follow with another post that reveals why you need to toss in a whole lot of interesting words ... You go and claim that creation is the same as God: "It follows,therefor, that the ultimate purpose of that which He creates,must be the same as His purpose,Himself." Putting this into clear language says: The ultimate purpose of creation is the same as God's purpose, which is Himself. You're using the word "purpose" in two different ways, and this error brings you to the wrong conclusion. To say that the purpose of God is Himself does not make sense, either; and even if it did, it does not have any practical application. So, it looks to me that you've made three mistakes.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 2:26 PM By Javier
I never went to a philosophical or theology program but this is one thing I was taught: A Roman Catholic is one who follows the teachings of the Church expressed through the Magisterium and the teaching authority of the 'current' Holy Father. If you don't accept this in its entirety, then you are a Protestant plain and simple not any different then the high anglicans with their latin high mass.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 5:23 PM By Georgia
Fr. M.P. 12-28-07, 6:03 AM. You create unnecessary problems by creating your private definitions of words. A Traditionalist is one who accepts tradition and adheres to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. What you describe as a traditionalist is one who rejects tradition, picks what items he desires, and does not accept the teachings of the Magisterium---that is aSecadventist, not a Traditionalist. Maybe thinking as you do is why so many Novis Ordo Catholics dislike Latin Tridentine Mass Catholics. What you call a traditional Catholic is a Traditionalist.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 5:32 PM By coloured
In our parish we used to turn a blind eye to the sexual abuses of one of the resident priests because we are very much aware of Jesus' words to the proud pharisees: "...since you say that you can see, then your sins remain." We are also very much aware of the caution not to judge a person because of a speck in his eye when what we have in our own eyes is a log. Because of fear to violate these teachings, we went silent. But I think it is wrong to remain silent just because some priests can readily quote these teachings to silence critics. I think if its already too much pain and injustice, surely you can no longer say the log in our eyes is bigger than your speck. Don't use these to suppress justice and truth. The Pharisees were clearly blinded by their pride, but victims of injustice have rights to cry out even to heavens. Don't add insult to injury. And what is this talk about traditionalists rejecting the Papacy? The last time I check, the modernists are the ones disobeying his Motu Proprio.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 6:00 PM By Jiji
Even the Pope acknowledged the wrong interpretation of Vatican II, plus the abuses. Those who oppose these irregularities are not disobedient to the Pope. Those who love these irregularities are ironically thinking they are very much connected to the Pope.
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 7:14 PM By Bessa Yan
I believe none of the catholic traditionalists in this thread claimed to be sinless when they started asking questions. So why insinuate that people who question the modernist mindset are similar to the proud pharisees? Is sinlessness a prerequisite for asking questions? Jesus silenced the proud. These are people who make themselves the center of the universe, like those who change the liturgy to suit their departure from humility. Defending reverence is not a sign of pride, rather, it is propelled by the great love and respect for God. Those who defend reverence are not claiming to be saints, but sinners who are seeking the face of God. Sinners who thirst for God in the Blessed Sacrament. Is seeking the face of God a sign of pride? They just want more of God in the liturgy, and in everything! That is not pride, that is love!
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 8:00 PM By John L. Sillasen
Georgia, I'd go with the way Fr. M.P. sets up the definitions, because it is simple and covers the three principal groups. The Credo says " ... one holy catholic ... ", not "one holy traditional ... ". People have used traditionalist to define themselves as adhering to what they claim the Catholic Church is. Fr. M.P., to my sense of logic, has likely studied years of formal philosophy and theology ... in such formal study, one necessarily learns to define terms according to the most simple logic, with the aim being to communicate clearly to as many as possible. His three terms, "traditionalist, Catholic, and modernist", pretty much include the whole ball game. Can you think of any further group that would fit in with these?
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 8:15 PM By John L. Sillasen
Perhaps it is as difficult to remove a log from one's own eye as it is to remove a speck from another's ... so, did Jesus mean to say to just forget it? Not possible: If sin is something to just forget, then why all the bother? No. You still have to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye, and you also have to remove the log from your own ... we are called to do both. Jesus said that if you see a neighbor's ox stuck in a ditch on the Sabbath, then you should help get the beast out of there ... and that this overrides the rule not to do work on the Sabbath. We are called to get rid of sin ... and it is not a solo event, but a community event ... we owe it to ourselves to read and study what Jesus has said ... and we have many magisterial references to explain it ... but of course it is like anything else in which trust is involved: We have to make ourselves trustworthy in order to see who to trust. Jesus gave one blindman to see, and then had to tweak the healing a bit since the guy initially saw in a blur. The poor old woman begged and begged relentlessly for justice, and finally she was listened to and rewarded for her persistence. Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep; it is the nature of sheep to eat ... they do not have to be told; we are like that ... it is only natural to ask and seek and try to get the door open: when we believe someone who says otherwise, then we open the wrong door, which lets in corruption. If you are lied to, what difference does it make who did the lying? We need to "eat" every word that comes forth from the mouth of God, according to Jesus. If the clergy feeds the flock serpents, then what do you do? Does a sheep eat serpents? Then why believe lies? We are told to discern the truth, and by Jesus: See the book of the Apocalypse for the specific lesson. And there are many many such teachings ... why does the Bible exist? Why has the Church promoted it, along with the writings of the Doctors and other reliable teachers?
|
Posted Friday, December 28, 2007 9:46 PM By Georgia
JLS: It makes no difference how much formal Philosophy and Theology Fr. M.P. may have if he discards Logic. The very simple definition of traditionalist is: one who adheres to tradition. He defines a traditionalist as one who discards tradition and chooses what he pleases. The three groups are Traditionalist, Secadventist, and Modernist.
|
Posted Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:57 AM By Cody
Let's see, one of the dictionary definitions of the word 'tradition' says: "A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present". I am therefore a traditionalist since I have followed the Magisterium and rubrics of the Church for 57 years whether it was pre or post Vatican 2. I am happy to have the option of attending the Tridentine Mass which I take advantage of. I also expect a pastor who does the Ordinary form to follow the Church rubrics (tradition) governing the proper method in which that form of Mass is said. If a pastor doesn't want to do that and thinks his 'Mass inventions' are better than Church traditions governing the Ordinary form, then I just get in my car and drive to another parish where the pastor adheres to the traditions of that form of Mass (which I have done). I think if enough Catholics really cared about the traditions of the Ordinary form and left, then maybe the 'Mass abusers' will get the message when the collection plate declines (if the pastor can suck in his pride to ask someone why they left).
|
Posted Saturday, December 29, 2007 3:49 PM By RR
Father M.P.: You have said that I was interpreting the words of Quo Primum to fit my agenda. Well Father, it appears to me here that you have studied Philosophy & Theology and have made your OWN INTERPRETATIONS of certain words to fit your agenda. Also, you do not have to believe a Church teaching if it is Not a DOGMA. Church teachings change or can be erroneous, but Dogma does not change. If you believe a Pope or the Church is in error it is your responsiblity to reject the teaching or teachings. The Novus Ordo, as I have said many times before, was made by liberal Bishops, Freemasons, and six protestant ministers. How can this not be error? The Church and some Popes have made errors in their teachings in the past. Tell me you disagree with that! So, could us Traditional Pharisees be correct about the errors in the Church of today? Are we wrong in wanting back what was taken from us in Vatican II? This is my oppinion (not an intemperent Traditionalist's, snide comment).
|
Posted Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
TINO is the acronym for traditionalists in name only. If you're going to have an argument, it helps to define terms. And it is necessary for the arguers to agree to the terms. That's what logic is. Georgia, there are people who reject the pope, yet call themselves traditionalists. We need to deal with these things using commonly agreed upon terms. BTW, twice now you've used the following word, "secadventist"; is this some sort of adventist denomination? Or, do you mean sedevacantist? Sede refers to separate and in English we have the word in the form of secede, which the southern states did in 1861. Vacantist means vacant. So, the word "sedevacantist" means someone who believes the Throne of Peter has been left vacant. If you believe the throne is vacant, then you are not in communion with the Pope, and therefore are not a Catholic, because you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
|
Posted Saturday, December 29, 2007 11:20 PM By John L. Sillasen
RR, first you make a lot of contrary commotion; then you tell us that you're a "Traditionalist Pharisee". I think what disturbs you is that the n.o. was, as you claim, "made by liberal Bishops, Freemasons, and six protestant ministers". You forget that the Pope signed off on it. Certainly popes have erred ... but that does not put you on the Throne, does it? A n.o. Mass, done according to the rules, is a valid Mass ... Furthermore, none of us, including you, RR, can determine what is and what is not Magisterial ... This is the pope's authority, and is why he sits on a Throne. So, if a pope errs, are you the one to step up, kick him off his Throne, and define reality for everyone else? But reality says that you, a lay person, has the capacity and obligation to speak up ... you cannot however just walk out, you cannot divorce the pope and stay in good standing with the Church. Recall that Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the pope is His vicar ... it's like a marriage in the sense of unity, and reflects the unity among God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How can you authorized yourself to separate from this unity, in the form of pope and Church?
|
Posted Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:11 AM By Georgia
JLS: I stand corrected, I did mean sedevacantist, not secadventist.The Sedevacantist are what Fr. MP and Tom Amadeo classify as Traditionalists. That is why I say Fr. MP is creating his own definitions. Thanks JSL.
|
Posted Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:52 PM By Puttss
John:
May intrude by saying that "sede" = seat, or throne, if you wish. The root for secede comes from two words, which put together mean "you cease ", or " he cedes (the way)". It is an impersonal reflexive expression which is a common grammar construction in the latin languages that tends to give a different meaning to a normally non reflexive verb. These expressions often do not translate well (literally) into English because in English we have to use the personal reflexive pronoun after the verb.
Therefore "sede vacante" is the empty seat, or tghe unoccupied throne. A Sedevacantist is one who believes that the throne of Peter is presently unoccupied, at least by a validly elected pope.
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 1:09 AM By RR
JLS: First of all John, I said I was an intemperent Traditionalist sarcastically to Father M.P. because that is what he labeled me as in a prior post. Before Vatican II most Catholics were of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately today in the Church since Vatican II you are forced to take on labels such as conservative, liberal, new age, Traditionalist, post conciliar, radical, Novus Ordo, .... Since Vatican II, I, and others like myself, have had to take on a label, hence comes the label Traditionalist, meaning following Tradition. In the eyes of God I consider myself none of these labels, not even a Traditionalist. In god's eyes there are none of these labels. I am simply and truly a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Since Vatican II we have had to be labeled as what type of Catholic we are. Before Vatican II the Church, for the most part, was one. The pastoral council of Vatican II did nothing but bring about division in the Church today. Sadly, that's why I have to choose a label to tell who I am in the Church today. As far as my claim to the Novus Ordo Mass being made up of liberal Bishops, Freemason, and six Protestant ministers; those are facts. Look it up. No, I didn't forget that the Pope signed off on the Novus Ordo. So what? That alone does not guarantee it's validity. Popes can and have been wrong in the past, and since there was nothing Dogmatic about this council whatsoever, I am not obligated to believe it. It was a pastoral council. The Pope did not speak ex-cathedra about anything that was done or said at Vatican II. By the way, who said I was on the throne? If the Pope errors he throws himself of the throne into error. Not me. That is when I have to determine, FOR MYSELF, reality. Where do I go? see next post
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 1:30 AM By RR
JLS: I go to the Roman Catechism of The Council Of Trent. (TRADITION)So,Pope Benedict, good, bad, or indifferent, is on the Throne. Yes, as a matter of fact I can determine what is and what is not Magisterium. I find out what is and isn't magisterium by living by the Roman Catechism of The Council Of Trent. You really should get a copy. I, as a lay person, have NOT divorced myself from the Pope. I may not be in agreement with the Pope, but, I am in union with the Pope. There were no teachings or dogmas that came from Vatican II. If the Pope declared that Vatican II was a dogmatic council,(which obviously he didn't) I would be the first one to accept it and live by it. I live today by the same teachings of the Church and Pope as you do. I DO NOT believe in birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, gays, stem cell research, euthanasia, divorce, living together,... and many, many more teachings of the Church. So please, do not make yourself God, The Church, and judge as to my position in the Church. That is the job of the Bishop and the Pope. So tell me, who made himself the Church, Pope, and judge now by telling me I am seperated from the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 9:35 AM By Fr. M.P.
Since some debate the classifications, let us stick to the simple ones (relative to this discussion). If you submit to the Pope and Magisterium (all of it), you are Catholic. If you decide to follow your own interpretation of Catholic teachings against the Pope (B16) and Magisterium (e.g. the real V2, et. al.), you are not Catholic. Simple. RR, you admit you decide what is Magisterial, so you implicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church and follow your own interpretation. Your judgment is from your own lips. For those non-Catholics who have been called traditionalists in this discussion, no matter how many St. Pope Pius V Masses you attend, that will not save you. You must be united to Peter to remain Catholic and be saved as a Catholic. (Please don't dive into the Feenyism discussion here, which is beyond our scope). And there are two dogmatic documents from Vatican II. Just look in the titles. These two documents did not define any new dogma, rather they reiterated those already defined. Georgia, no logic was discarded - you define a separate set of terms than I. You are creating your own definitions too. Since the term traditionalist is not dogmatically defined, there is room for different types of definitions. Bottom line though is that you must be united to Peter and the Magisterium to be Catholic. No personal interpretation and personally deciding what is Magisterial or not. The Pope and Magisterium decide what is Magisterial, not you individuals, following a protestant personal interpretation process. And that applies to us priests too! And that *is* dogmatic. Follow and obey your Pope and Magisterium, if you wish to be heirs of God.
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 10:37 AM By Polneon
Fr. M.P. Well said. In the language of BXVI, too.
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 12:06 PM By Grisha
I've got a question: If the sedevacantists believe that Benedict VI isn't the Pope, then by what means do they propose that we get a legitimate Pope?
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 3:34 PM By Polneon
I notice that James the seminarian on the Masters degree track did not respond. Too bad. I held back because I wanted to ask him how one Eucharist can be a higher form of worship than the other. If you are not willing to answer, James, maybe you can invite your professor to the discussion?
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 3:37 PM By Polneon
Grisha:
Forgive me, but since I am not well informed about the position of the Sedevacantists, I can only invite one of them to answer your question.
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 4:19 PM By Grisha
Polneon: If I understand the term correctly it refers to a person who believes the Throne of Peter is vacant. I'd never heard of it before and, it's a fascinating question.
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 7:36 PM By RR
Father M.P. : Keep in mind Father, before you send me to hell, that just because you're a priest and follow the Pope and Magisterium doesn't mean you will be an heir of God either. Judge not Father!! I also didn't realize there was a fake Vatican II. There was a Vatican II, but it was not a dogmatic council. If there were these supposed two Dogmas that were already declared Dogmas, then there were no new Dogmas that came out of Vatican II. Just as I said!! What were these documents called?? Also Father, let me remind you again that I do not decide or interpret what is Magisterium. I READ what is Magisterium(THE COUNCIL OF TRENT) and I live by it. Maybe you should go to amazon.com and get yourself a copy. You would learn a lot about the Church and it's Magisterium!
|
Posted Monday, December 31, 2007 8:00 PM By RR
Father M.P. : Also, I might ask you, Does your Bishop realize you are on this website making your own aaumptions of people's salvation or stance in the Church??
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:01 AM By Fr. M.P.
RR, God nor I send anyone to hell. Rather, hell is a free-will choice of mortal sin, where a grievously sinful soul flings itself into it upon its particular judgment (see Psalm 68:1-2 RSV). I simply point out the current road that you are on for refusing to follow the Vicar of Christ, which is a dogmatic requirement. But you can change! The Pope and Magisterium decide how to interpret the Council of Trent, not you (reading a book from Amazon.com). The Magisterium is living in the successors of Peter up to this day, it is not wired only to the 1500's. If we were still in the 1500s then we would have the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception or Assumption or Papal Infallibility (etc), would we? But we are back to the same old point. It saddens me greatly to see the traditionalists (my definition) who accept 99% of the Catholic Truth but swallow the 1% devilish lie that personal interpretation and disobedience to the current Vicar of Christ is the way to go. Even God Himself was OBEDIENT unto death, death on a Cross. Just like the pharisees refused to accept that Jesus is God, the traditionalists refuse to accept His Vicar as the authentic interpreter and defender of Tradition. And neither do you correctly interpret the 'judge not'. We are to judge what is right and wrong (every second of every day), choose the right, and admonish sinners. Aren't you aware of the spiritual works of Mercy? But we don't judge a person's intent or eventual place of eternal life (Heaven or hell). Lastly RR, your use of the argument of 'judgment' is the same erroneous method that the modernists use. I have heard it thousands of times, all from defending our Holy Father. Notice how those who cannot answer the doctrinal issues try to change the subject with ad hominem attacks? A common ploy.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
Sedevacantism is the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty, and those today claim that Vatican II is false, and Pope Pius XII was the last "real' Pope. Grisha, your question is of critical importance. There are a couple of main camps. Some say that there are 'traditional' Bishops around who will elect a Pope, and others say that in absence of these, the laity can elect a Pope. Of course how or when this will occur is never answered. The practical result of this error is that the Church is left hanging. Those that couldn't wait any longer have 'elected' their own anti-pope, like Pius XIII, Michael, Gregory XVII (2 of those!). And even these splinter groups argue among themselves. And they also argue with the subset of traditionalists (my definition) which says there is a Pope but to disobey him and follow a personal interpretation of Tradition. Sad. So we see how satan causes division to cause problems in the Church and in the world.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 1:23 PM By Grisha
Fr. M.P: Thank you for the information. I had no idea such things existed. The concept of a election of the Pope by the laity in modern times is an interesting one. Who gets to vote? All 1.15 Billion of us? Who would certify the vote? Jimmy Carter? Think of the TV ads "I'm Cardinal Guiseppi Sardino and I approve this messege!"
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 4:17 PM By RR
Father M.P. : This is the last time I will say this to you. Hopefully it will sink in. I AM NOT REFUSUNG TO FOLLOW THE POPE, THE VICAR OF CHRIST. I refuse to accept the Novus Ordo(so-called) Mass. You tell me I follow protestants and modernists. As I have said countless times, HOW MUCH MORE PROTESTANT CAN THE NOVUS ORDO BE WHEN THERE WERE SIX PROTESTANT MINISTERS WHO HELPED IN CREATING THE NOVUS ORDO MASS. You dare to tell me I follow Protestant teachings?? I have Lutheran friends who say they have attended a Novus Ordo Mass and see no difference from there service. So please do not tell me I do as Protestants do.By stating what you did about the 1500's you obviously DO NOT believe in Sacred Tradition. If you believed in Sacred Tradition then you should realize that Vatican II tramatically changed the Mass that was the same for centuries.(Sacred Tradition) Talk about modernism! No, it destroyed the Mass. The Novus Ordo IS NOT WITH TRADITION! Please do not tell me that I do not follow what the Pope says. I believe strongly in what the Pope says, BUT he has never proclaimed ex-cathedra that the Novus Ordo is a true Mass. If he did, then I would be there tonight at the Novus Ordo Mass. The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex-cathedra on the subject of Faith and Morals. All else is subject to error or change. Obviously the Pope believes there are problems in the Novus Ordo. Why do you think He allowed the Latin Mass to come back? I believe the Pope is suffering greatly because of the crisis in the Church, more so than you or I. Mother Mary said to pray for the Pope, and I do. As far as the judging statement; there is a difference between judging actions and the soul. Yes, everyone needs to judge situations and actions every day in their life. You, on the other hand said I will go to hell because I supposedly don't follow the Pope. You can read my actions all you want, but God will read MY SOUL and send me where I deserve to go. Next post.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 4:18 PM By RR
Father M.P. : As far as the Council of Trent; It does not need to be interpreted. IT ALREADY HAS BEEN BY A POPE and if you follow Sacred Tradition then you will live by what is written there. I am quite aware of the Spiritual Works of Mercy. If I had more room here I would list them. I'm guessing you are refering to admonish the sinner. Yes, I am a sinner, but in the case of SUPPOSEDLY not doing what the Pope says, I need no admonishing. I DO what the Pope says. Lastly, the comment you made about Feeneyism told me all about you. You are a liberal, modernist, priest that does not follow Sacred Tradition!! Respond to me if you like, but you will only waste your time. I will not read any response in these posts to me by you because I know what you are! A BIG TIME LIBERAL NOT WORTH MY TIME! THE END!
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 5:05 PM By Javier
Very Christian of you RR to address a Priest in this manner. It is very apparent that the good Padre struck a nerve. I thought traditionalists believed in old fashioned manners when addressing the clergy!
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 5:32 PM By Grisha
I've never heard of Feeneyism before. Could someone tell me what it is? Thank you.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 01, 2008 5:36 PM By Jacinto
Fr. M.P., I'm not taking sides, but I really would like to know which Mass do you personally prefer. Thanks.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 02, 2008 5:34 AM By Fr. M.P.
Jacinto, I say the TLM exclusively! And I support the Popes who promulgate the valid Novus Ordo Mass - when said properly. There have been many many abuses. Such scandals cause division, especially for weak souls, who cannot separate the abuses from the actual Mass. What Peter binds on earth is bound in Heaven. Grisha, Feenyism is the heresy that only baptised Catholics can ever get to Heaven. It's possible for others to get to Heaven (the "many mansions") but much more difficult without the Grace of the Sacraments. It was promulgated by a priest in the 1940's (I think). RR, I pray and suffer for your conversion.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:34 PM By Stefan Castro
Yes there are some who do not follow the Pope and believe the Holy See is vacant, I myself believe all the Popes after Pius XII were true Popes, but we can disagree about Vatican 2 and it's horrible affect upon Holy Church. I think JP 2 was not a "great" Pope he presided over a Church with Mass attendance at 25% it was 75% prior to the disaster called Vatican 2, closed churches, closed convents, closed seminaires, clown masses, altar-girls, polka masses, and yes JP 2 with his right hand man Marini presided over this and did nothing! He said he was sorry for the Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, not defending the Jews, elephant dung on his forehead in India, the list sadly goes on. I for one love and support this current Holy Father of ours for he was at Vatican 2 and has come to realize it was a MESS! So please support him in his effort to turn around what 40 years have wrought upon Holy Mother the Church.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.
|