Last week, Bishop Robert Barron released a video interview with Hollywood actor Shia LaBeouf, who recently embraced the Catholic faith. Their wide-ranging conversation enthralled me. LaBeouf plays Padre Pio in a forthcoming film, and the immersive preparations for the role of the saint led to a profound conversion for the troubled actor. In his conversation with Bishop Barron, he told the dramatic story of his life, from personal failings and controversy to what he calls “his salvific journey.” For me, the brutally authentic exchange was a happy break from the faux dialogue in so much of the Church lately.
LaBeouf speaks with raw, unassuming language about the transforming grace of conversion. His experience is both extraordinary and ordinary: extraordinary because his story—of experiencing the love of Christ through others while a suicidal “exile”—is dramatic; ordinary because he simply submitted to the grace available to each of us. His words are peppered with unintended humor (“I don’t know the dismount prayers to the rosary” or “Pio is like Elvis, in the best way”), and yet the insights he expresses are similar to those of the great spiritual writers. He notes how several priests, sisters, and brothers ate with him, laughed with him, and taught him the faith: “They weren’t trying to sell me anything.” His story is also a powerful witness to the power of reading the Gospels, where he encountered a Jesus who was meek but not weak, a Jesus who modeled authentic masculinity. I hope the Church is listening.
At a time when so many Church discussions are about competing ecclesiologies, I found it refreshing that LaBeouf seems blissfully unaware of the civil war that is raging within the Church. He has no prior connection to the structures of the Church, and so his relationship with the Church is spiritual and personal—one might even say mystical—not institutional, and his faith is primarily about a relationship with God.
This is also true when it comes to LaBeouf’s comments on liturgy. LaBeouf’s critique of the common expression of the Novus Ordo and his attraction to “the Latin Mass” (by which he seems to mean the extraordinary form), has garnered a disproportionate amount of attention. But refreshingly, LaBeouf does not engage in the liturgy wars, but rather simply explains why he personally is drawn to the old Mass (disclaimer: I personally prefer the Novus Ordo and am not a regular TLM-goer). The Holy Father has been critical of those who attend the old Mass as a way of rejecting Vatican II. But LaBeouf has no connection to the pre-conciliar Mass. In fact, he had literally no experience with the Mass or the Church prior to his study of Padre Pio in preparation for the film.
Rather, the actor is drawn to the old Mass because of its intrinsic merits. It was a major path to his conversion due to the mystery it conveys. When he goes to a beautiful liturgy, he tells Bishop Barron, “it feels as if a profound secret is being shared.” He speaks about the role that “emotion” played in connecting him to the beauty of the faith as expressed in the Mass said by Padre Pio. The old Mass moved LaBeouf “from belief to connection.” Indeed, it is in the Mass that the realities of our faith take form and matter.
By “emotion” or “feelings,” I do not think LaBeouf means emotivism, which is a deadly hallmark of our time, but rather heart speaking to heart. In the Mass, heaven comes down to earth—and this reality reaches into the heart. I suspect few Catholics experience this aspect of the Mass on a regular basis, but it is important.
Whether or not LaBeouf is aware of the liturgical war being waged from the Vatican, he gets why transcendent beauty matters. Beauty invites the soul into the mystery of the Triune God. The irony in all of this is that Cardinal Roche (prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship) and his entourage want to attract outsiders to Mass through an imposed conformity to the Novus Ordo, which is often celebrated in a less than sublime way. LaBeouf’s story of conversion suggests there are flaws in this strategy.
The actor says that “Padre Pio saved my life.” And as Bishop Barron rightly observes, no doubt Padre Pio was actively involved in LaBeouf’s spiritual journey. God’s beautiful providence in the actor’s life is a reason for all of us to hope that grace can be found at unexpected times in our lives. The Church would do well to listen to LaBeouf and how the Holy Spirit moved in his life. His story gets to the heart of the matter.
The above comes from a Sept. 6 story in First Things by Jayd Henricks, former executive director of government relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
You can have beauty, reverence, transcendence and good music at a Novus Ordo Mass. The TLM was replaced. Done. Over. Vatican II did it. Stop living in the past and get with the program.
Alot of ignorance as well as a lack of charity in that comment.
“You can have beauty, reverence, transcendence and good music at a Novus Ordo Mass.”
Yes, we can. My experience of the NO is that it is vanishingly rare.
“Vatican II did it.”
Indeed? Pls point our Church documents from V2 that confirm the TLM was replaced as part of the council.
“Stop living in the past and get with the program.”
I won’t bother with pointing out the role of Tradition in the Church as I suspect you’d ignore it.
“Tradition is the faith that the apostles received and handed on to the faithful by word of mouth or by letter. It is the living transmission of the apostolic preaching accomplished in the Holy Spirit (CCC 78). It is the living faith of the Church.”
So, let’s get to the lack of charity. You’d deny the conversion (we pray) of a soul to our Lord because his conversion was thru the TLM? I’d love to here your answer “TLM replaced”.
I’ll keep it short.
Sacrosanctum Concilium #1: “The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”
#21: “In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”
#25: “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.”
Reformed, restored, revised. The 1962 Missal was to be reformed, restored and revised. The TLM was to be reformed, restored, revised. The Novus Ordo is that reformed, restored and revised Mass.
Quid erat demonstrandum. Mic drop.
Abrogation is NOT the way forward, nor ever has been, regarding ANY of the Church’s liturgies, Benedict XVI declared the Vetus Ordo was never ABROGATED. Liturgical development is just that, and it is incremental, not jarringly whole cloth. Eastern or Western. FUNNY the Christian East has not such pangs of angst (disgust?) over her ancient and venerable liturgies.
Please apply Quid erat demonstrandum to the actual FRUITS of the new liturgy, including one glaring idea that the majority of Catholics no longer believe in a Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and this had NEVER been the case PRIOR to your most venerble Novus Ordo “enshrinement.”
MIC THUD.
The Mass in the Ordinary Form DID NOT cause the disbelief in some Catholics on the Real Presence. “Jay’s” point above is wrong, false, and abhorrent. Pew Research found that among those who go to Mass every Sunday, whichever form of the Mass they go to, 6 in 10 people believe in the Real Presence. “Jay” stands corrected.
Jay, how old were you when the liturgy changed?
It’s been 50 years. You really should have adjusted by now.
They Synod results show 80%
Even if no one in either form of the rite believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist it is not the fault of the Mass.
Think, Jay. If the Mass was abrogated what would that mean?
The fruits of the Mass, any Mass, are not a lessening of faith.
Think about what you write.
Google if you have to.
These ideas are from schismatics.
Be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Lord.
You do have beauty, reverence, transcendence and good music at Mass And myriad of angels. Sometimes one is not properly prepared for Mass or distracted. Sometimes things happen at Mass that are distracting. The music is not always good. Daily Masses usually do not have music except opening and closing hymns and then it is as good as the priests and people’s voices.
” The TLM was replaced. Done. Over. Vatican II did it. Stop living in the past and get with the program.” As I have noted in the past, I hold no brief on the TLM, having never been to one. But Benedict XVI apparently saw value in keeping it as an option. This was not to him a “living in the past” but an appreciation of the fact that many were drawn to it and so as a matter of pastoral wisdom gave us Summorum Pontificum. Shia Labeouf is but an example of this attraction. I cannot fathom the animus Pope Francis displays both to the TLM and those attracted to it. Rather, he should rejoice that people find spiritual nourishment in the old rite and continue the wisdom of his predecessor. To this reader, it is P. Francis who is intolerably rigid.
Very difficult to believe the truthfulness in a comment that says, on the one hand that he “holds no brief on the TLM”, while in the other that “Pope Francis is intolerably rigid.”
Rather unctuous of you to assume the “bad will” (disingenuousness) of another, especially when there is absolutely zero “mutual exclusivity” in his two adjoined statements to which you take issue/umbrage.
Pope Benedict XVI is a bonafide intellectual heavyweight and, as well, a bonafide Liturgical expert. Neither ot those describe Pope Francis (simply a descriptive and not ad hominem attack) and this attack on those attracted to the Vetus Ordo is also an attack on PBXVI for obvious reasons/implications.
I would say the onus would be on your side of the “controversy” to exhibit and demonstrate “good will.” Empty accusations isn’t a “good start.” The selectively and purposely shallow, and therefore “phony” polling of the world’s bishops to discover some sort of “malice” on the part of TLM adherents was another fail in that regard. Try again.
Yes, I do assume disingenuousness in “Dan’s” comment, as in his feigning objectivity (“I hold no brief on the TLM”), when he is far from being objective and neutral. Case in point: any self-identified Catholic who would unjustly and irreverently attack the Pope (“he is rigid”) for his pastoral decisions is automatically suspect because evidently “Dan” here most likely has not taken the time, the spirit, the effort to read with an open mind, objectively, and without bias Pope Francis’ “Traditionis custodes” and its accompanying letter to bishops. If he were indeed objective and neutral on this subject he would have asked the Holy Spirit to guide him as he read the “motu proprio”, and he most likely would not have called this Pope “rigid.”
“Yes, I do assume disingenuousness in “Dan’s” comment,” Jon, you do no honor to your cause by your rash and belittling judgment of “Dan.” Yes, Dan is a real person whose name is indeed Dan, not “Dan.” To hold no brief is to say I have no experience of it myself and, for better or worse, have no desire to investigate the old rite. I am happy, as a musician, with the Novus Ordo. Better — I have a vested interest in the Novus Ordo as it gives me an outlet for my meager musical talents. So for myself alone if the TLM were to end today it would not matter a wit to me. However, it is others like Shia Lebeouf that remind me of the wisdom of Benedict’s pastoral approach, geared to meet what he felt was a very real need. My mind is open to a sense of spiritual beauty and proportionality, and Benedict’s SP embodied this to the highest degree. By comparison, Francis does indeed seem the rigid curmudgeon, despite my reading and re-reading of TC.
You can read “Traditionis custodes” a million times “Dan” but if you read it every time with a closed mind and with animosity for Pope Francis (as you continue to have), without guidance from the Holy Spirit, then you are not objective at all nor are you neutral, but biased.
It does not matter if the Pope is rigid, capricious, anything. He is the Pope.
It does not matter if one Pope is smarter than another Pope. When they are the Pope, they make the decisions.
No one has ever referred to jon as unctuous before.
I interpret Dan’s post to mean that he does not care about the TLM. He just does not like the Pope or his decisions.
I do not see anything rigid in this Pope.
I read a story online about the narcissism of people in this age and the sense of entitlement that goes with it. A man was flying when computer use on planes was new. It was announced that due to this new technology, people would be able to use their computers during the flight. A few minutes later, the flight attendant announced that the new technology was not working. They were sorry but computers would not work during the flight. Another man on the flight had a fit and was really letting the flight attendant have a piece of his mind. The man wrote he could not believe that someone would feel so entitled to something that he did not know even existed 5 minutes earlier.
You are not entitled to the Latin Mass.
People have forgotten humility, prudence, docility, conforming to God’s Will.
“I interpret Dan’s post to mean that he does not care about the TLM. He just does not like the Pope or his decisions.” I care about the TLM for the benefit it is to others. I thought I made that point abundantly clear. Apparently not. And as the TLM has value to others, yes, I think the Pope was very wrong to decimate the legacy of Benedict’s SP. And if the next Pope restores SP, I would take that to be a gracious step, indeed, a very humble step. And by your second sentence above, you would approve of this step, and I would applaud you.
“You are not entitled to the Latin Mass.” Oh the irony of this: Vatican II documents gave Gregorian Chant a special place in the liturgy. I think you meant to say, “You are not entitled to the TLM.” Latin in the Mass is an entirely different matter.
I might find reason to discuss many other lines in your post, but this will do for now.
Please read SO and TC again. And the letter to the Bishops.
The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite. Pope Benedict Summorum Pontificum
He gives his reason in the document as well.
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion.
In his letter to the Bishops he said this: A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
Pope Francis is trying to save these poor people’s souls.
Pope Frances is spitting on Pope Benedict and asking us to follow him in his pretzel logic. “For the good of souls” might, at some point, take into account the fact that a MAJORITY of Catholics now DON’T believe in a Real Presence of Holy Communion, IOW, merely symbolic. That is the FRUIT of the NEW MASS, there is no other way to see that.
The TRUTH is that these aging hippie modernist, these secular humanists, the felt banner guitar mass crowd, are INTIMIDATED by the idea that the failure of their ideas will relegate them to an incidental asterisk in Church history, evidenced and fueled by the idea that all the energy and much of the new converts are centered around traditionalism exemplified and fully embodied in the Vetus Ordo. This is hardly some “nice gesture” to the old hangers on. If you don’t know that, you haven’t kept up with/attended one of these trad churches and the movement that they embody.
When commenters spew ridiculousness like “Pope Francis is spitting on Pope Benedict,” then you know that you just have to skip ahead and move on. The Church does not work that way, folks.
“When commenters spew ridiculousness like “Pope Francis is spitting on Pope Benedict,” then you know that you just have to skip ahead and move on. The Church does not work that way, folks.” Then, Jon, please explain to the many who see Francis gutting the legacy of JP II and Benedict why in fact he is not doing so, when there seems overwhelming evidence that he is, and thanks in advance for doing this in a non-belittling or supercilious manner.
Dan, you just do not understand the Church. No Pope guts the legacy of a former Pope. He is just doing his job.
The number of RCIA Novus Ordo converts each year dwarfs the number of TLM converts. Trads see a trickle and pretend it’s a tsunami.
I’ll second that comment and add that Trads like to boast of “crowded” TLM parishes. What they fail to mention is that the very few TLM parishes in existence are drawing from a wide geographical area. Some Trads drive over an hour each way, past dozens and dozens of Novus Ordo parishes, to go to a TLM parish. The TLM is not a draw except among a very small niche of Catholics who, as Pope Francis has pointed out, also tend to reject Vatican II.
I’d caution anyone touting Shia LaBeouf’s “conversion” not to rely on celebrity conversions as advertising or evidence. A year ago, Catholic news agencies and bloggers touted Britney Spears’ “conversion” to Catholicism. Last week she said that she doesn’t believe in God anymore. Celebrities are usually unstable people.
We can certainly accept your broad argument on celebrities not being so reliable in this regard, we should not be quick to simply “assume” either. Brittany Spears had been ‘seeking’ for some time, and had some problems, as I recall, the Church, St. Monica’s Santa Monica, was quite invested in COVID ‘madates’ and made attendence nearly impossible when she really wanted to attend. LESSON??? I’d call that a Novus Ordo fail. (Trad churches breached some of these “mandates.” )
Your “argument” on trads is ad populum and while it might be true in some cases, it is NOT true in SF, NYC, Los Angeles and other municipalities. It would not hold true in Toronto, or Montreal, or Sao Paulo or Paris. In France/Paris, trads majority, I believe.
Most “Catholics” don’t attend Mass, period, so NO attendees would also be “niche.” And among those, only a certain percentage believe in a Real Presence, a further whittled down “niche.”
IOW, it could be argued that we are at the point of the great apostacy, or ‘falling away’ that Christ spoke of, which would, thus, render your argument somewhat moot at that point.
“Jay’s” main point here is simply patently false. Pew Research did not find that among those who go to the Ordinary Form “only a certain percentage believe in a Real Presence.” The truth is that Pew Research found that “About six-in-ten of the most observant Catholics — those who attend Mass at least once a week — accept the church’s teaching about transubstantiation” (August 5, 2019, pewresearch.org).
jon, you are buying into the lie. It does not matter who does and doesn’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The lack of belief in it is not caused by the Mass.
Lack of adequate catechesis would be the reason for that.
Admittance to Holy Communion without perceiving the Body of Christ puts one in a state of mortal sin which no one can bring themselves out of . so we should be praying for those people.
I do believe that a parish milieu that does not stress silence in the sanctuary, genuflection, proper time for prayer after Communion, invitation to stay and worship after Mass adds to the appearance to disbelief and will not correct someone who is improperly catechised.
How many converts vs how many leave the church altogether ?, I have heard for every convert , more the six leave for good.
People convert by the grace of God. People leave because of their own sinfulness.
There is no liturgical war being waged from the Vatican.
There are some Catholics who are not very docile.
I agree with this comment from “some.” Some Catholics who happen to frequent the TLM are not very docile. In fact, as the Holy Father correctly assessed, they have been using the TLM to foster divisiveness within the Church.
Think you’ve been “ratio’d” here, mate. Your assumptions – regarding trads – are simply that, and are in themselves shibboleths that amount to not much more than shallow ad hominems. How do you know the Holy Father has “correctly assessed” this situation? Is this based on your extensive and broad contact with such individuals, or simply your “reading” about that? Not many people, if any, that have done a deep first-hand dive in this regard maintain your position, thus the number of thumbs down.
“Jay” here asks, “How do you know the Pope has ‘correctly assessed’ this situation.” Firstly, I would rather believe the successor of St. Peter who has been given the charism by God Almighty to lead the universal Church, rather than my believing a bunch of anonymous commentators on a blog who routinely and unjustly attack the visible head of the Catholic Church. Secondly, yes, I attend the TLM regularly (as I happen to be devoted to it myself, as I am also devoted to the Ordinary Form), and I have witnessed divisiveness and dissent among those who pray with me at the TLM. Sad, I know, but there you are. Thirdly, because the majority of commentators here live in an “upside down world,” that is, that they have most likely been willingly “brainwashed” by those who hold Vatican II and the Ordinary Form in contempt, I thereby consider every downvote I get here to be a badge of honor, “Jay.” Every downvote I get here tells me that I am doing/saying something right. I GLORY in every downvote I get, people, so do keep them coming.
Jay, first of all, he is the Pope. Whether he correctly assessed the situation is irrelevant. He was kind to tell his reason and his reason is serious. Forgive for this but you need to check your attachment. If what you want is God, it does not matter what form of the rite you attend. You may be attached to something of this world. If you were a soldier on a battlefield you would rejoice to have any Mass. Think of the Catholics in the world who only get Mass once a year. They are not complaining about what form of the Rite they get.
These are first world problems.
Why do you like the Extraordinary Form so much that you would offend God?
How docile are Catholics supposed to be ? are we to abandon our reason for obsequious devotion ? from whom to we owe this devotion , aside from the pope , how far down the line are we supposed to go ?. What if these persons are involved in scandal , insults , and outrages to the faith and faithful ?.
Docility is required. Everyone in the Church is supposed to be docile to the teachings of the Church because they are from God. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope, the bishops and the priests.
You should be docile to the Holy Spirit acting through them.
Take a controversial priest such as Rev. Martin. He is not your pastor. You do not have to obey him nor be docile to his teaching if he teaches something that the Church does not teach..
Take a controversial bishop like Bishop Gumbleton. He is not your bishop. You do not have to obey him nor be docile to his teaching if he teaches something that the Church does not teach.
Popes are always controversial with someone. When he teaches, he is careful to let the faithful know which are teachings that you need to obey and accept with docility. Pope John Paul ii wrote a document on the Rosary. it is not required that Catholic pray the Rosary but docility to his teaching would be wise. When he taught that women could not be ordained, that must be accepted because he is the authority on that. If you disagree with him, you should accept it with docility.
Yes, but when a Pope gives veracity to false teachings/teachers (ala James Martin) by elevating them and placing them in key teaching positions, then Houston, we’ve got a problem.
Pope is not a default mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. The difference is bad Popes in the past have not been advocating changes in the Magesterium (as if that is not immutable). They had the presence of mind to simply do their dirty deeds (father children, maintain concumbines,etc) and not mess with Church teaching.
Fr. James Martin does not teach false teachings. He is very careful about that.
I don’t think his approach on gay outreach is the best one but it keeps him in the spotlight, doesn’t it?
Making him a consultor on Dicastery of Communications is not endorsing anything.
He is one of the most popular, well known Catholic priests, he runs a magazine, he keeps up with his social media.
Fr. James Martin teaches heresy implicitly. If I said, “I wouldn’t say your mother is a whore,” with a certain tone of voice and a wink, everyone would understand that I was clearly implying it. That’s how Fr. James Martin operates. Like a slimy snake.
commenter, that does not make sense.
Please state clearly what heresy you are accusing Father Martin of implicitly spreading.
This is in reply to “state clearly”.
Fr. James Martin is on record at a speaking engagement as publicly telling a homosexual man in the audience that he hopes that homosexual man will be able to kiss his husband at the sign of peace at Mass someday without feeling awkward about it. That comment reveals a few things: 1) Fr. Martin implicitly supports homosexual marriage, contrary to Catholic doctrine; 2) Fr. Martin implicitly supports the Catholic Church and Catholic faithful changing doctrines and attitudes to accept homosexual marriage, contrary to divine revelation; 3) Fr. Martin does not have the courage to say explicitly what he believes and wants because he wants to be able to maintain that he never challenges Catholic doctrine. He doesn’t challenge doctrine explicitly, but he undermines it implicitly.
Commenter is correct.
I will add that Fr. James Martin is spreading the following heresies: 1) marriage can be between two people of the same sex; 2) homosexual acts are not objectively immoral; 3) biological sex is not fixed and a person can change his sexual identity.
Fr. Martin heresies,
Thank you for your answer.
I see that other Christian traditions have a concept of moral heresy. I do not find anything Catholic that does.
I think support of sin is serious and gravely wrong but I do not think it is heresy in the Catholic Church.
I think it is scandal.
Jay, Father Martin has not been put in a key teaching position by the Pope. He was given the position of consultor to the Dicastery of Communications.
Obviously, he is good at that.
Because you and I know his name when he is not our priest or even in our diocese.
Probably will cause his downfall (if it hasn’t already.)
We should pray for him.
The temptations once you are a famous priest are legion.
So, this is a teaching moment, people. Note the three levels of assent, obedience, docility, or whatever word you want to use. First, when the living Magisterium (that’s the Pope and the bishops for you inadequately-catechized Catholics out there) proclaim solemnly and infallibly that a teaching is part of Divine Revelation, you, “Anon99” must adhere with theological faith. You must be docile to the hilt, to the extreme. Examples are definitive teachings of all of the ecumenical councils of the Church; another example is when the then-Pope declared the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady as dogmas. Second, when the same living Magisterium definitely proclaims a teaching on faith and morals even if it’s not Divinely Revealed, then you, Anon99, must also accept it and be firmly docile. Examples are teachings found in papal documents, teachings against contraception, IVF, teachings on sexual morality, etc. Third, when the same living Magisterium teaches a doctrine “to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.” In other words, Anon99 must the docile to those doctrines. I would include liturgical discipline, teachings on the environment, social teachings in this third category. So, Anon99, there is no right to dissent in the Catholic Church. Sorry. The Church is about fostering unity under God and unity with the successors of St. Peter.
(Corrected for syntax/spelling) You leave out an important point here, and that is the Magisterium of the Church is to be upheld, (which is the Pope’s #1 job) and never contradicted. True that some things can be refined, but not contradicted. This would be God contradicting Himself.
None of the pronouncements of this Pope have been “ex-cathedra” and thus binding upon the Catholic faithful, and as he himself ventures close to – by proxy or by unintended inference or by actual embrace of – the heretical, the same Catholic faithful are advised to know and follow the Catholic Magisterium.
I’m not not saying that we’re at that point, but it doesn’t look all that promising to say we’re not on that precipice, either.
You are endangering your soul.
You can always trust the Pope.
I think he was asking do you have to obey a prelate who dissents? And the answer is not on what he dissents on but on everything that is according to the Faith, yes.
If you get a situation like the German bishops where the Vatican and Pope are telling them they are wrong, you obey the Vatican and the Pope, not the German bishops. but on everything where they are still in union with the Faith, yes.
You should not go to any parish outside the Church. You must stay and be patient and pray.
Divisiveness within the Church? Where is it and who is involved? About 100,000 people attend the TLM Mass in the U.S. compared to 4.4 million who attend the NO. Ninety-nine percent of Catholics know nothing of the TLM, so they don’t know there is divisiveness. I can’t remember a meeting of parishioners when someone asked the Pastor when he would start saying the Mass in Latin. No, wait, I do remember one time. The Pastor told the parishioner that she should find a priest who had taken Latin in school and one who had actually attended a Latin Mass. lt’s time folks …
” lt’s time folks ” Time for what, to obliterate some of the most faithful parishes in the entire US, in the name of “unity”?
If LaBeouf converted to “worship” God under the sacrilegious Novus ordo Missae rite, no one would care.
Instead he was coached by Mel Gibson, to know the Tridentine Mass, Canonically codified, as the untouchable one true Mass, by St. Pope Pius V.
You do Mr. LaBeouf a great disservice, as per suggesting (possibly not meant, but still there) a “svengali” Mr. Gibson upon a naive LaBeouf. In point of fact, LaBeouf’s journey towards Cathoicism included an extended stay with Capucian Friars, and a Franciscan priest mentor, experience with his (probably N.O. focused) Parish, St. Ines, and the TLM provided daily at Christ the King Parish (Oakland diocese) and NOT, as such, Mr. Gibsons privately funded chapel in Malibu.
LaBeouf is just one of many converts via the Latin Mass. Ad populum arguments aside, young people, broadly speaking, find it MORE compelling, not less. That is just a point of fact. To the extent some might argue against that appeal is tied mostly to its lack of exposure vs. lack of its actual and visceral appeal. Same is true of the Eastern Divine Liturgy.
No, young people don’t find the TLM more compelling. More young people attend Novus Ordo Masses than the TLM by far. There is a TLM parish in my diocese and it only draws 36 families. The young adults in the diocese don’t prefer it. So it’s not a matter of no exposure or lack of availability. It’s well-positioned in the diocese. It’s just not a draw. Part of that is because anyone who goes there, once you start talking to the regular parishioners, they try to make you believe in creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If you support Big Bang cosmology and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, you are considered a material heretic by those people. They don’t just want a backwards Mass, they want a backwards theology and a backwards worldview with backwards science. Pope Francis was right to suppress the TLM because its adherents will never adopt a Vatican II mindset as long as they can pretend Vatican II never happened by being allowed to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Mass. Let’s bring them all to the modern, post-Conciliar Church and world.
How do you explain the growth of Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons then?
I’ve not yet watched Shia’s interview with Bishop Barron. I plan to. I grew up in the 1950’s-60’s, attended Catholic school ages 7-14, so have experienced the Latin Mass and the “new” Mass down to the present. I like some things about Pope Francis (his humor, his humility, his affection for children, the poor, his social justice, devotion to Mary, his love for Jesus to name a few). I don’t know who advises him before he releasesposition statements, but I don’t understand why he feels it necessary to address the Latin Mass vs the N.O. Mass. Each, when prayed reverently can and often are beautifully transcendent. Sadly, many N.O. ones aren’t prayed with reverence or even awareness by the priest or congregation. During the pandemic when churches were closed, I “attended” livestream Masses at several U.S. churches. I experienced many Masses where the celebrant prays the Mass reverently, his sermons/homilies are instructive, and music (when played, sung) adds to the feeling of reverence. But there are many Masses said rapidly (even during the Consecration) and with no apparent regard for what the Mass is. The music is concert-like, very loud and intrusive (entertainment or a pep rally). Personally, I prefer either no music or quiet instrumental only music during and after Communion. Anyway, Vatican II wasn’t meant to do away with our traditions; I think many church leaders, especially at the diocesan levels were misguided and not fully informed in the implementation of changes in parishes. Examples (again, personal opinion): why no Communion rails and kneeling for receiving the Eucharist? The rail would help anyone with mobility problems to kneel. Why not continued catechesis on what fasting/abstinence on Fridays is supposed to be? Why not teach what the Mass to everyone? So many adults/parents don’t even know. In fact, so much catechesis is needed about the Rosary, Holy Days (bring back Holy Days as HOLY DAYS, including Sunday Mass), Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration,and so much more. Example, celebrate Ascension on Thursdays; forget this dumbing down of American Catholicism with the moving to Sundays. Anyway, rant over. This article is a well-written analysis of a few of the points Shia discusses about his conversion. When I first read about his conversion experience, I had tears. God Bless him.
This issue is not the Mass itself, But by allowing two forms of the Roman Rite created an occasion where Catholics were being led into error, heresy and schism.
jon. You stand corrected. The latest polls state that 70% of church-going Catholics believe that the Eucharist is just a SYMBOL. IMO, this is a direct result of bad catechesis, most likely catelyzed by the ecclesial reforms of V-II run amok. We just can’t ignore Catholic disafffiliation since that point. I never attended an impoverished liturgy pre-V-II, but have sadly been to many since.
“Axiom” here is wrong. The Pew Research shows that as of August 2019 that the majority of Catholics (6-in-10) who attend Mass (whether it be the Ordinary Form or the TLM) believe in the Real Presence. Check pewresearch.org. And according to another commentator, the figure is even higher in the Synod surveys.
Ask Catholics to explain what the Real Presence is. I’d bet fewer than 1/5 Catholics can give a correct, intelligent, informed explanation of the Eucharist. Most just think it’s that white cracker everyone goes up to get.
That is not true.
“Real Presence”, please. If asked what the Real Presence is, most Catholics will answer from the heart, “This is the Body and Blood of Our Lord.” And that is more than sufficient I reckon for God Almighty because it is a response from faith and from the heart. Now, if you want an “intelligent, informed” or theological discourse, go ask a theologian. Don’t deride Catholics here please.
The Fruits of the Mass are blessings and graces. To call something that is not a blessing or grace, such as doubt about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a Fruit of the Mass is blasphemy.
We are Catholics. We are not New Age people who believe whatever “resonates” with us.
If you have a more prayerful experience at the TLM, it does not mean that the TLM is better than the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.
Go to the Church. Test everything. Retain what is good.
The Church is not going to lead you astray.
You can always trust the Church.
The Church is the only “thing” you can trust.
Distrust of self is required in order to do spiritual combat and advance in the spiritual life.
Just as you cannot sense the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the things of sense in the Mass are not how you would judge it.
Nor can you trust your feelings about it.
Truth comes from Scripture, Tradition (not traditions) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Private revelations that contradict these things are false whether they are from visionaries or your own private prayer.
https://realpresencerenewal.org/primers/distrust-of-self-and-confidence-in-god/#:~:text=The%20fostering%20of%20a%20complete,less%20gain%20a%20complete%20victory.
Oh, boy this article really takes the radtrads to task. Why are we celebrating Shia LaBeouf’s “conversion”? It’s because he supports the Latin Mass. If Shia converted through the Novus Ordo radtrads would be mocking him instead of celeblating him. It’s all political.
https://wherepeteris.com/the-collapse-of-us-conservative-catholicism/