The following comes from a Dec. 4 story by James Kalb in Crisis magazine.
I came to the Church through the Traditional Latin Mass.
I would have converted anyway. It was becoming more and more obvious that the Church was where I belonged, and it seemed pointlessly obstinate and even artificial to remain apart from her. But the Traditional Mass made the situation clearer, because it made it more obvious what the Church is.
It is easy for present-day Americans to get that point wrong. The Catechism and the Second Vatican Council say that the Mass is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” The claim seems odd to most of us today. Americans usually think religion has to do with spirituality, which we see as personal and rather vague, with moral commitment, whether defined as “family values” or as “social justice,” or with joining a community of mutual concern, acceptance, and support. Even if we accept in theory that the religion to which we claim to adhere is something much more definite, it goes against the grain to treat the definite part as more than decorative. After all, doctrine divides, and we’re all pragmatists, so why emphasize that side of things?
If you look at religion that way a worship service becomes something like a lecture, pep rally, self-help meeting, or social get-together. Other people do those things at least as well as Catholics, so why bother with Catholicism? Why not go with something even more modern and American than the New Mass as presented in the average suburban parish? Why not do praise and worship at a megachurch?
The Traditional Mass made it clear that the Mass is something different from all that. The formality, the silences, the use of an ancient language, the orientation and gestures of the priest, the indifference to popularity—all those things meant the Mass wasn’t anything like an ordinary meeting. It wasn’t about the people present, and at bottom it wasn’t even their doing. To the contrary, those present evidently understood what was going on as awe-inspiring, mostly invisible, and dependent on someone other than themselves. There was no other way to make sense of how they were acting.
So the Traditional Mass made it clear that there’s a basic dimension in Catholic Christianity, the reliable concrete presence of God that I couldn’t find anywhere else. That realization clarified what the Church is—she is the way God maintains a visible presence in the world—and the necessity of becoming part of her for those who want to live a complete life.
We’ve been hearing a lot about mercy lately. That’s good, because mercy is the whole of Christianity. We’ve fallen away from God, and his mercy is his readiness to reach out to us to help us come back to him. So whatever makes it easier for people to understand the means of mercy and make use of them helps the mission of the Church.
The Mass, in which God becomes present to us in the most concrete way imaginable, is an extreme case of His mercy. The Traditional Mass makes it as evident as possible what is going on when it is celebrated. That feature helps people recognize and accept what is offered, and eliminates the barrier to mercy that arises when the nature of the Mass is obscured.
In the divine mercy it is God who defines the way and makes the first move. That means that we don’t form the Mass, it forms us, and the Traditional Mass makes that clear. It is what it is, so it’s the same for young and old, rich and poor, happy and sad, saints and sinners, Irishmen and Brazilians. It’s a Mass for all seasons that joins Catholics every place it is celebrated with other Catholics all over the world and throughout the ages. It works for all of them, because it has to do with what they all have in common: they’re human beings who are born and die, who go astray, and who hope to see God.
Which leads to another benefit of the Traditional Mass: it helps the Church see herself as a whole, as the same always and everywhere, and it unites the Church on earth with the Church in heaven in a special way. Relics of the saints help us feel their presence and communion as a reality. The Traditional Mass is a relic of the saints whose images are in the niches and on the walls, and who surround us when it is celebrated, because so many of them worshiped through the same Mass or something close to it when they were visibly here among us.
This discussion started as a conversion story, and every conversion has its more personal aspects, so I should also mention benefits the Traditional Mass had for me in particular. The New Mass, especially the earlier translation, was very close to the Episcopalian eucharistic service I was used to before becoming Catholic. The two had evidently been designed to be as similar as possible. That was a problem for me.
What the intentional similarity suggested to me was that the New Mass didn’t give nearly so distinctively Catholic a view of things. I won’t claim that view was fair or that I knew more about the needs of the Church than Bl. Paul VI did, but that was what I saw. The New Mass looked to me like it had been produced less by saints and the sensus fidei fidelium than by an interdenominational committee of credentialed experts and then modified in accordance with the demands of particular communions. For that reason I found it hard to trust unreservedly. It seemed to have been produced in cooperation with people I had good reason not to trust and wanted very much to escape from.
The Traditional Mass did away with that problem. It was something I knew I could rely on because it came out of Catholic devotion that saints and ordinary believers had lived by for hundreds of years. It made the Mass a no-spin zone that let me forget about the factions bedeviling the Church during the current period of her history and helped me see the Mass as the action of God through His Church.
To summarize a somewhat rambling and personal account, it seems to me that the Traditional Latin Mass helps believers and the Church, because it helps believers see what the Mass and Church are all about. It helps people see the Mass as more than an ordinary assembly and the Church as more than a collection of individuals with varying tendencies and idiosyncrasies. So it helps the Church reach people with what she has to offer. It also helps the Church see herself as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and so helps focus her on her nature and mission. What could be better, or more Catholic, than all that?
To read the original story, click here.
“…The New Mass, especially the earlier translation, was very close to the Episcopalian eucharistic service I was used to before becoming Catholic. The two had evidently been designed to be as similar as possible. That was a problem for me.”
This is what many ‘Catholics’ do not comprehend in addition to the ‘mercy’ of clear distinctions.
“…What the intentional similarity suggested to me was that the New Mass didn’t give nearly so distinctively Catholic a view of things. I won’t claim that view was fair or that I knew more about the needs of the Church than Bl. Paul VI did, but that was what I saw.”
That is what many see and have experienced. Many have also had the blessing to come to realize that, “The formality, the silences, the use of an ancient language, the orientation and gestures of the priest, the indifference to popularity—all those things meant the Mass wasn’t anything like an ordinary meeting. It wasn’t about the people present, and at bottom it wasn’t even their doing. To the contrary, those present evidently understood what was going on as awe-inspiring, mostly invisible, and dependent on someone other than themselves.
Thank you CCD for posting this! Thank you James Kalb for writing and sharing this beautiful and insightful article.
“I would have converted anyway. It was becoming more and more obvious that the Church was where I belonged, and it seemed pointlessly obstinate and even artificial to remain apart from her. But the Traditional Mass made the situation clearer, because it made it more obvious what the Church is.”
Ann Malley, I thought of your post yesterday after I read James Kalb’s words. You wrote….. “Much like it is completely lost on some that Christ’s presence in either rite of the mass is not the point. It is that which surrounds His presence.”
You are like rich kids complaining about their mother’ mansion because their grandmother’s mansion has more antiques.
Take your misunderstanding up with the simple and charitable communications of the convert, James Kalb, mous. He is honestly stating that this revamp of the house looks an awful lot like the one he just left – that is the non-Catholic Episcopalian house.
The only rich kid syndrome is that of attempting to limit the TLM for the few while having to psychologically scar those in the NO that ‘this’ is GREAT and all it should be. Your baseless taunt is a prime example.
I have no problem with what James Kalb wrote.
I was reacting to Catherine’s quoting you:
“Christ’s presence in either rite of the mass is not the point. It is that which surrounds His presence.”
Ann Malley—- Gauging from the sparse numbers that attend it (including the schismatic SSPX crowd) the TLM is SELF-limiting.
…connect the dots about Mr. Kalb’s article and the comparison of what is surrounding Our Lord in the NO vs the TLM rites. Use logic, mous.
I use faith and reason.
Recasting the issue of comparing the rites of mass to be an issue of disrespecting Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is nothing but the most effective means to stifle, by way of fear and misguided compassion, a much needed discussion. But if Pope Francis is willing enough to open up discussion in such a free-way as to invite those topics discussed at the October Synod, there is absolutely, in my view, no justification whatsoever not to have the same open discussion without fear of castigation regarding the mass itself.
Thank you, James Kalb indeed. I wonder if anyone is daring to say he doesn’t respect the Church, Jesus Christ, the Pope or anyone else for making such a humble and honest assessment. God bless him!
It is very interesting to me how the issue of the SSPX is very much like the issue of the so-called illegal immigrants coming into America. Both are valid. (The SSPX eucharist is valid, as certainly are the lives of the people who flee into the US). They are both at least in some sense illegal. (SSPX priests operate without valid ministries, they were ordained without the permission of Rome, whatever sacraments they might celebrate validly they certainly do so illicitly/illegally. People crossing the border without proper papers do so without obeying the law even if they might have some valid right to exist here).
Hmmm. What about that SSPX : Roman Catholicism :: Some illegal aliens : United States
Did you get that question right on the SATs?
SATs, YFC? Really?
This humble assessment of Mr. Kalb seems to have greatly over set you. The why being because it nails the truth and makes those who prefer confusion squirm.
Go forth and slam that which you will not understand. I do not say, YFC, that you cannot understand what Mr. Kalb is saying, because you are literate and likely scored high on your SAT, though that is increasingly no proof of common logic and/or sense but rather pointed cramming for a ‘test’. But of your own free will, you have seemingly aligned yourself for love for love of ‘what’ I will not name lest you cry the victim as is your penchant.
So make your own choices and live with them, Sir. But leave the honest assessment of an Episcopalian rite and the observations of a humble man on the ground doing his best to be a solid ‘Catholic’ alone. You’ll only sully your already questionable credentials even in the academic realm.
God bless Mr. Kalb! May he keep writing and encourage others to do the same.
YFC your constant attacks on the SSPX is always filled with hypocrisy, because I am willing to bet that your just adore the LCWR. You know those who write about getting beyond the Jesus narrative.”The Counterfeiters” you and your ilk are without doubt creating a false counterfeit Church that denies everything before the failed Vatican 2 council. You will demand sodomite marriages and every other progressive prize.
“It is very interesting to me how the issue of the SSPX is very much like the issue of the so-called illegal immigrants coming into America. Both are valid. ”
YFC *repeatedly* and shamelessly uses the Intersectionality Meets Immigration Rights tactic and now he even uses this tactic to suggest that the members of the SSPX are also co-victims in the same way that LGBTQ groups and illegal immigrants are victims.
Taken from Queer Migration Research Network
“Homosexual Agenda,” Intersectionality & Immigrant Rights
“A recent article in the California Catholic Daily takes issue with the creation of such connections. In reporting on an Orange County forum which was to address, among other issues, the intersections between LGBTQ and undocumented communities, the article argues, “The concept of ‘intersectionality’ is a growing tactic being used by homosexual activists to co-opt the immigrants’ rights movement.” The article does nothing to explain “intersectionality,” and seems to function mostly as a warning to Catholics who might be uncomfortable with another “sneaky” tactic used by conniving “homosexual” activists. The comments on this article suggest as much, as one commenter remarked, “’Intersectionality’ (who made up this word?) is a way for sodomite activists to equate Hispanics with homosexuals, as co-victims (incidentally oppressed by the Catholic Church)…” Another quipped, “Intersectionality????? JimAroo Rule Number One: When someone makes up a new word or phrase to describe an old situation or reality, they are always trying to deceive you.”
https://queermigration.com/2011/12/homosexual-agenda-intersectionality-immigrant-rights/
Well I seem to have left Ann Malley spitting mad, Canisius in a crimp, and Catherine in her usual everything-is-all-about-the-gay state. This grand slam home run must mean that what I am saying is actually spot on true, or else they wouldn’t be in such states of disorder. One cannot support illegal clerical acts and then be disdainful of illegal immigration and have any credibility. If one person is able to justify their illegal actions against the Church, maybe people who pass illegally over a line in the sand have their own justification.
Spitting mad? Grand slam home run? Oh, goodness you are enamored of yourself, so much so that you have to tell readers what is a grand slam.
Thank you again for the evenings entertainment, YFC, because nobody with any Catholic sense could take your comments as anything but pure satire.
Again, God bless those brave enough to be real with others… and with themselves ;^)
Actually YFC you have struck with a 3-2 count bases loaded in the 9th. You are counterfeiter, helping create the false gay friendly Church of the anti-Christ, you along with fools like Cupisch, Kapser, Mahony etc.. Your kind is leading souls to Hell, you are not sitting the in the pew next to me on Sunday that I can assure because in my parish that garbage is not tolerated..
YFC=== What makes you think Ann Malley ever went to college?
Ann Malley, I don’t think anyone here will have a problem with this article.
I have been reading this website for years and have never seen the TLM disrespected. You are projecting your own hatred for the NO onto an imagined group of enemies. Nobody here is like that.
People have stood up to people who promote illicit Masses said by suspended priests in chapels (or hotels) that are not established by the Catholic Church. The problem is not the form of the Mass. It is the same as suspended priests who say Mass at pro-gay marriage and pro-women’s ordination chapels. We just don’t have anybody here saying that they attend those and that they are better than the Catholic Church.
Hatred? Again with the overreaction. Reread the article, mous, and understand that the Protestantisation of the Latin rite is obvious. Your paltry attempts to discredit me personally are wholly welcome too, as they are a sign that you are over set as usual.
The ‘problem’ is the form of the mass, mous. And the more you attempt to suppress the truth, the more the truth will rise up to set you free for you cannot contain it.
O Sacred Banquet,
in which Christ is received,
the memory of His Passion is recalled,
the soul is filled with grace,
and the pledge of future glory is given to us.
This short prayer brings to mind the many and varied meanings of the Eucharist. It begins with the image of the “banquet,” reminding us that in the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus is truly food for our souls. The Lord presented the Eucharist to the Apostles in the setting of the Last Supper. This meal enjoyed together as a community helped the Apostles to realize the truth of sharing in Christ’s Body and Blood as food and drink. This lesson was reinforced with the disciples on the road to Emmaus when they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. They would finally understand the full meaning of the mysterious Bread of Life discourse given in John’s Gospel. Man would truly eat the Flesh of the Son of Man in order to have eternal life.
Christ is received in Holy Communion, which unites our being with His. At no time are we closer to Jesus than when we receive Him in Holy Communion. We are one with Him in a unity of both body and soul. As He is never separated from the Trinity, so we too are taken up into the life of the Triune God while the Second Person dwells in us. At the same time we are united to all those who likewise receive the Blessed Sacrament, united with a bond far closer than that of family or marriage ties, as this is a divine unity.
The memory of His Passion reminds us that the Mass is truly a sacrifice and that by His sacrifice Jesus won for us our salvation. There is only one sacrifice of Jesus. He offered Himself as victim to the Father to atone for our sins. His Passion, suffering, and death once and for all provided the means for our redemption. Each Mass is not an additional sacrifice, nor does it repeat the sacrifice of Calvary. Rather the Consecration makes present on our altar the Priest who suffered, and so the Mass is inherently one with the Passion. As we remember Christ’s Passion, we are called to join Him, giving our own lives as sacrifice.
The sacramental nature of the Mass explains why the soul is filled with grace, as the sanctifying gifts we received at Baptism are strengthened in us. Baptism gives us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. Yet that life is not yet perfected in us; it needs nurturing. The Eucharist, in and of itself, nourishes Christ’s life in us. It is pure gift from God, and it is impossible for us to think that we could possibly merit it in any way. With such a treasure offered to us, how could we not desire deeply to assist at Mass and receive the Lord every day?
Finally, the pledge of future glory reminds us of the Eucharist as the new and everlasting covenant, making us God’s people whom He calls to be with Him for all eternity. Sometimes we seem more attuned to the covenant God wrought with His people in the Old Testament. God pledged Himself to His people as a Bridegroom to His bride. Yet no representation of this covenant ever came close to the pledge of the New Testament, in which the Bridegroom actually lays down His life for His beloved Bride. Not only does He die, but He is also raised from the dead as a sign of His intent to raise His Bride to eternal life with Him. This is the pledge of future glory given to us in the Eucharist.
From the Dominican Sisters of st. Cecelia
I cannot imagine what I said that you interpreted as an attemot to discredit you. I do not understand what I am supposed to have discredited you on. I am sorry if hatred is the wrong word to describe your feelings for the Holy Mass in the Ordinary form. You certainly have been very strong in your condemnation of it. Please insert any word that is pleasing to you.
I do not know what truth I am trying to suppress either.
What does over set mean? I am not at all familiar with the term.
I totally agree Ann. We go to Mass to wordpship and adore Him …the less about us the better. And by all going to the Altar rail and kneeling, there isn’t the diversion of so many standing about gawking and warbling the hokey hymns that are not so much about praise and gratitude, but trying to sound as much like quarreling Tom cats or dueling banjos as possible. As Mass’s last hymn’s notes have barely faded away the noise explodes as people anxious to talk and get on with their day tromp out. If you have been in a truly reverent and holy state such behavior would be diminished. I’m not saying NO Masses are not licit…just less sacred. The world is simply starving for holiness!
All Catholic Masses are sacred.
It is a minority of us who stay in our pews or make our way to be in front of the tabernacle to continue after-Mass prayers.
Everybody complains about the hymns but I think if you polled people you will find that some people really love the songs that you hate.
I cannot think of a hokey hymn. I personally cringe at “Lord of the Dance” although it is the favorite of another member of my family.
As I pass by people,to go to the tabernacle (we have 2 altars and it is by the one used on a daily basis) I hear snatches of their conversation. Invariably, it is about how they are coping with illness or family illness. Occasionally about their kids. Sometimes, people in ministry are talking about that.
If you yourself are holy and reverent, it is rare for something to bother you. We are to view all people as better than ourselves. (Phillipians 2:3)
Dana, Christ is present in those people. You know that.
The senses can lead you away from God. If you are really adoring and worshipping God, you love all those people. Yes, sometimes people are distracting, but just go back to your adoration. Pray for them to become holier than you as long as you become as holy as you should be.
This is an anonymous that I hope is my guardian angel. He or she sheds light into darkness.
This mous does indeed seem to be your Guardian Angel, YFC, which is why he/she is so increasingly distrusted for the darkness he/she allows and the questions/observations he/she dodges.
“…Pray for them to become holier than you as long as you become as holy as you should be.” This pitting folks against one another is an obvious redirect as is the ‘Christ is present in these people’ as an excuse to allow for that which shouldn’t be in the Church before and after mass. But THIS is precisely why the Tabernacle containing Our Lord is often moved to a ‘more solemn and quiet place’ because the effort is to turn the mass into a meeting place wherein we ‘adore’ Christ ‘in our neighbor’ instead of offering due reverend in the appropriate places.
So, yes, mous, “The senses can lead you away from God.” And the indulgence in the sensory has for a long time in this rite of Paul VI.
You may believe you are castigating others with your talking points, but in truth, mous, your words only underscore the validity of Mr. Kalb’s honest and quite irrefutably humble assessment.
It does not pit people against each other.
Litany of Humility.
Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930),
Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X
I did not castigate anyone. I was trying to encourage.
At Holy Mass, we worship the Holy Trinity. We adore the Holy Trinity alone. Christ is really present in His Mystical Body, in the Word, in the Priest and in a very special way, in the consecrated Host and Blood of the Holy Eucharist.
We do not adore the humans that make up his Mystical Body nor the lectionary not the person of the Priest nor the substance of the Bread and Wine, prior to consecration. After transubstantiation, we adore Christ in the Host and the Blood reverently because He is God, the Son of God. Nothing else coexists with Him in the Eucharistic species.
I find your attitude toward the Mass unsettling. It can’t not be offensive to God.
anonymous was merely providing an example of humility. It is too bad this causes you to go into attack mode. Or, more accurately, stay in attack mode. Do your claws ever retract?
There are incredibly simple refutations to the piece by Kalb: For one, If the best thing the latin mass has going for it is that it does not look like the episcopalian mass, then Kalb’s understanding of the theology of the mass is unlikely to be truly Roman Catholic. For another, Episcopalians might some day or in some parishes adopt the TLM. What then of Kalb and his theology of difference?? Would he need for Catholics to design a new mass in order to once again be different from Episcopalians??
Eohesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice,
32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
You and your guardian angel, mous, are going to have to sell blind somewhere else, YFC. You’re in over your depth, especially when you dip into Catholic theology. So get on with your bad selves and leave the hysteria mongering of ‘claws out’ for some bad ’70’s chick flick, okay.
The ‘incredibly simple refutations’ are nothing but hogwash, much like what you promote here every day.
In the Holy Mass we are praying constantly with Jesus and through Jesus. Remember, for instance, the prayer that we say before the readings, and those that come after the offertory and the communion. We ask for different things. But what matters most is that we always ask “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” It has been said that the only prayer which reaches heaven with full effect is that of Jesus. Therefore when we pray through him in the Mass, we can be sure that our prayers reach God the Father and that he listens to them.
If the Priests and people do not adhere to GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal of Nov 2011) then the OF Mass is being abused,
and people are being distracted from worship of our Lord.
The devil is a tempter.
Abuses of the Mass should be reported to the Diocese Bishop.
Just because someone likes a particular piece of music, does not make it suitable to worship God.
O GLORIOUS St. Joseph, you were chosen by God to be the reputed father of Jesus, the most pure Spouse of Mary, ever Virgin, and Head of the Holy Family. You have been chosen by Christ’s Vicar as the heavenly Patron and Protector of the Church founded by Christ. Therefore, with the greatest confidence I implore your powerful assistance for the whole Church Militant. Protect, in a special manner, with true fatherly love, the Sovereign Pontiff and all the bishops and priests in communion with the See of Peter. Be the protector of all who labor for souls amid the trials and tribulations of this life; and grant that all the nations of the earth may submit with docility to that Church out of which there is no salvation.
Dearest St. Joseph, accept the offering I now make of myself to you. I dedicated myself to your service, that you may ever be my Father, my Protector and my Guide in the way of salvation. Obtain for me great purity of heart and a fervent love for the interior life. Grant that, after your example, all my action may be directed to the greater glory of God, in union with the divine Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and your own paternal heart. Finally, pray for me that I may share in the peace and joy of your holy death. Amen.
So often in life’s journey we experience weariness, hardships and even dangers. In these days leading up to Christmas, I invite you to contemplate the image of St. Joseph with the light of an oil lamp in one hand, and in the other the reigns of the donkey that Mary sat upon in the last days of her pregnancy as he guided her safely through the darkness to Bethlehem. As he illuminated the way to Egypt and led Mary and the infant Jesus out of harm and then back to Nazareth when it was safe, so too will he help you in your life’s journey. As Mary bore Jesus in her womb, St. Joseph bore in his heart the name that God had entrusted to him— “you are to name him Jesus for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). My prayer for you in this Advent season is that St. Joseph will help keep the name of
Jesus always in your heart so that you might make a gift of Him to all
in need.
Bishop Richard Stika, Bishop of Knoxville
God bless you, Dana. I concur. The world is simply starving for holiness!
Then why do you supply only vitriol and hatefulness?
I understand what James Kalb and you are saying, Anne Malley, as I was raised Methodist — low church Episcopalian — and in other Protestant churches during my childhood and teens. To deny that the New Mass was Protestanized would be to deny reality. Some of the more traditional hymns now used in the newer Mass are the same ones that were used in the older Methodist and Baptist hymnals. Some were originally Catholic and some originally had Protestant writers.
After Vatican II, almost everything strictly Catholic was stripped from some churches. It was not meant to go that far by Blessed Paul VI, but go that far in some cases it did. I dislike all the hand clapping for everything anyone does in the Church. We did not even do that in the Methodist church. We were taught that anything we did for the church was to be quietly done for God, and not for applause. It is not wrong or distracting to go up privately to a singer, choir and so forth. and tell him/her/them what a good job he/she/they does at times, but outside the church or quietly when leaving.
I should clarify something. I do not think the Protestants hymns that were chosen officially, such as are in some Catholic hymnals contained error or heresy. Not everything Protestants teach or sing is heretical. I think most or all were chosen for their adherence to Catholic doctrine, especially those in the more traditional hymnals. Charles Wesley’s hymns were mostly orthodox as far as I know.
I would not exactly call Pope Paul VI merciful. What he did to Bishop Lefebvre was down right mean and nasty. There is much documented proof that this pope severely damaged the Church by changing traditional practices, and by allowing liberal modernists to do as they pleased. A better word for Pope Paul VI would be TRAGIC. By acting like Hamlet, the devastation of the Church was put into full swing. He may be a BLESSED, meaning he died in the state of grace, but it is an historical fact that MANY, if not MOST of his decisions were disasters. Ave Maria Purrissima!
And you think Paul was nasty? How many snaps up and down did you snap in that post jesusita ? Methinks you know a lot about the nasty.
I agree!
There are some very good links provided regarding the EF (aka: Extraordinary Form, Latin, Traditional, Tridentine) of the Mass in some of the posts below the article:
” Silence Impresses”
https://cal-catholic.com/?p=16370
You may want to save the links, to share with others.
If at all possible, REALLY come home, in the form of the Traditional form of the Mass. Find one near you, be faithful to it, get used to it, and let it form your inner self. Or find an FSSP Parish. Either way, I promise, there will be a deeper understanding between you and God. What could be better?
O God, by foreseen merits of the death of Christ, You shielded Mary from all stain of sin and preserved the Virgin Mother immaculate at her conception so that she might be a fitting dwelling place for Your Son. Cleanse us from sin through her intercession so that we also may come to You untainted by sin. Through Our Lord
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin prepared a worthy dwelling for your Son, grant, we pray, that, as you preserved her from every stain by virtue of the Death of your Son, which you foresaw, so, through her intercession, we, too, may be cleansed and admitted to your presence. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
“…O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin prepared a worthy dwelling for your Son…”
Mous, if you truly believe the words that God created Our Lady as a *WORTHY DWELLING* (and She is/was) then you should have no issue with the comments here regarding the need to look to ways to increase and true piety and seriousness of the mass in order that the mass be more ‘worthy’ or at the very least the most holy and solemn rite possible.
Your seeming intentions and quotations contradict each other. You mentioned that those you hear speaking in the Church are often speaking of family troubles, illnesses etc. Well, there is a time and place for such talk. It is very necessary. But I doubt that those who witnessed Christ’s crucifixion or bore witness to His glorious Ascension were discussing family problems – however grave – at those moments.
So whereas you may believe that ‘holy’ people are never disturbed, you may be correct. But those seeking holiness and or striving to acknowledge that which is holy and not of this world in the mass do need quiet to achieve that which you seem intent on denying them.
There are some who speak in the Church after Mass, and I wish they wouldn’t. Most people go to the Narthex, which as you know is not considered part of the worship area of the Church.
I support all ways to increase the virtue of piety, holiness and solemnity of the people who attend the Mass. The Mass itself is the source and summit of our Faith therefore also of all the virtues.
I wish to deny no one anything. We don’t have a problem with noise during Mass and if you read Dana’s post, she was speaking about talking after Mass. So as much as the talking can be distracting while I am doing my prayers, if I even notice it and I feel it is in an inappropriate place I ask the Blessed Mother to ask their angels to move them to a place proper for conversation. Otherwise, I assume that it is something God wants me to give him praise for, or intercede for someone for. And to be honest, if you just wait a few minutes, they leave the building and you will have all the silence you could possibly need.
On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a parish had no choir or cantor. At the end of Mass, Father asked for the song “Immaculate Mary” to be sung as a recessional hymn. Father led the first verse from the altar and the 2nd verse as he recessed out of the sanctuary. He stopped singing and there was a pause and then spontaneously the assembly finished the song:
We pray for our Mother the Church upon earth and bless, Holy Mary, the land of our birth.
Ave, Ave, Ave Maria
Ave, Ave Maria
Only you, Ann Malley, could find fault with someone reminding us of the Immaculate Conception by directly quoting prayers to Our Lady. Only you. Do the claws ever retract?
Yes, YFC, the prayer is beautiful and speaks truth, truth we need to learn from and apply in life. Only you could deign connecting that which is beautiful and truthful as some sort of a slam against how to live life.
Does your spin and rejection of logic and common sense never cease?
The need for constant bitter criticisms of everyone else on this forum should be a sign of your own personal discontent and restlessness in your own spiritual life. – and I’m not talking about criticisms of me, necessarily. When I see you utterly taking out a person like Abeca in many many posts over several days simply because she shared a special spiritual experience of holiness, or when I see you telling an Anonymous that quoting old prayers are somehow contradicting each other, your endless claims of knowing better than the Bishops and Popes of the Church, your implications that avoiding ordinary form masses is somehow “obedience in everything but sin”, as though it is sinful to attend any Mass, well it just seems to me that you paint yourself as someone who is so bitter about something – and I won’t pretend to know what – that you have to spew your bitterness everywhere. It is not becoming of you or the Church. You are not a person demonstrating the peace that passes all understanding, that seems certain. Wait for the Lord, his day is near. Be strong, take heart.
“…Your endless claims of knowing better than the Bishops and Popes of the Church, your implications that avoiding ordinary form masses is somehow “obedience in everything but sin”, as though it is sinful to attend any Mass, well it just seems to me that you paint yourself as someone who is so bitter about something.”
I only adhere to that which came before with regard to Tradition, YFC. I have no claim to anything outside what the Church Herself has always taught. That is why I do cleave to tradition and the TLM. As I have always stated – something which you refuse to acknowledge – is that if one is in the NO and is being fed spiritually and/or doesn’t see, then remain. The only bitterness is from you in contending that I need to conform to your own twisted understanding of fidelity.
The reason you find that so offensive is because the kowtowing to that which is new and/or ambiguous is what you seem to prefer. Again, that is your choice. You are at liberty by God’s design. But your promotion of the Church of change while simultaneously attempting to pervert the teachings on Faith and morals with regard to marriage, sexuality, etc is biased in the extreme. You have a vested interest in compromise with the world.
That is why your protestations are a joke. Especially the protestations of what is or is not ‘becoming’ of the Church. Admonish yourself, YFC.
This is exactly what people believe now. There is no right and wrong; there is only what is right for you.
But that is not traditional Catholicism.
A lot of people leave the Church for pastures that they find more spiritually fulfilling or uplifting. But it always seems that they didn’t really understand the Catholic Church and what they lose by leaving.
Let’s be honest. It is just self-seeking. You are looking for God but only on your own terms.
Fidelity to the Roman Pontiff is not my idea, it is Christ’s idea. If you think that is twisted, or a joke, well, then you’ve just told us a lot about you.
Thank you, “James Kalb”. There is little left to say (except watch out, because what you just said will be refuted and maligned in Vatican Zombieland). Your honest words and emotions just do not fit within the New Church philosophy of Catholic-Stupid.
Hopefully, you have a good TLM Church that you attend. Please keep writing; you inspire.
When the Tridentine Mass was the norm, the Catholic Church had thousands of converts every year,. Once the Mass was PROTESTANTIZED, the conversions slowed to a trickle. The non Catholics who wanted to become Catholic now believe their worship services are more God orientated than ours. And then you have Catholic priests and bishops instructing their parishioners to SHOP AROUND and ATTEND OTHER RELIGIONS’S SERVICES, instead of attending Mass.. Added to this, many Catholic religious leaders tell non Catholics NOT to convert or be baptized a Catholic since ALL are saved anyway. This is diabolical disorientation, and things will get progressively worse before they get better. Ave Maris Purrissima!
Jesusita is correct in all points! Before Vatican II Mass attendence was at 77% now it stands at 10%, convents were packed with sisters, seminaries had waiting lists, altar boys not altar girls were everywhere and led to abundent vocations to the priesthood this is a proven fact that the liberal modernists cannot refute. Belief in the “REAL PRESENCE” was the norm only 25% of Novus Ordonarians belief in this at all. Catholic schools, hospitals, churches, were everywhere now thousands have closed and still we have people praising the “Springtime” of Vatican II are they that blinded by that council they cannot see the Church has been dying for over 40 years??? This is the work of SATAN no if ands or buts!!!!!! Once again search out a TLM parish whether it be S.S.P.X. F.S.S.P. Institute of Christ the King or ask your priest to offer the TLM and support him with traditional vestments, you will be shocked as to how many priests want to learn and offer the TLM so many of our new priests are YOUNG and want nothing to do with the Novus Ordo dinner service with dancing girls, altar girls, giant puppets, female lay lectors, hand holding, kiss of peace, polyester vestments, felt banners on the wall, rock music, drums, guitars. They are looking for stunning vestments, silence, kneeling, Mozart, Palastrina, chant, chapel veils worn by females, suits worn by men, communion on the tounge.
I firmly believe Pope Benedict the XVI will have to save the Church from the current occupant who is a child of Vatican II and is destroying the Church even further.
I firmly believe Pope Francis will save the Church from the “princes” who have run it for so many years, and bring the teachings of Vatican II to fruition, as God meant for it to be. The decline in church membership, believers, has nothing at all to do with Vatican II other than coincidence. If the decline was because of VII, it would not explain the decline in all other Christian denominations in the northern hemisphere. The church was in decline at the time of VII which is why the Pope call the Council, to rejuvenate the church. Think of how much worse it could have been. People are not clamoring for fancy vestments and incense. It has been fifty years, nearly three generations (maybe six given today’s doubling of knowledge and communications), since VII. People don’t know about those things for which you pine. But for a very small minority, perhaps 0.05% of Catholics, I don’t think they would accept the older rite as a norm. We have become a nation in which the culture has moved faster than the church is able to accommodate, even where it is allowed. Women live in a culture in which they are educated, earning good livings, etc. and won’t accept a parish where they are not treated “equally.” in normal things. They can be lectors, they can serve as acolytes, where they can teach, etc. And were not even talking about the “feminists” that scares so many Bishops. There is a myth that Priest came from acolytes. I’ve seen data that shows that only 10% of Priest were acolytes, hardly worth mentioning. Much of what older people want today is what they remember as the good old days. I’m sure that I will become that way when I’m older too. But for now?
“I firmly believe Pope Francis will save the Church from the “princes” who have run it for so many years, and bring the teachings of Vatican II to fruition, as God meant for it to be” I firmly believe Francis will be called home to God before the end of 2015. I pray a hard line conservative is elected to the See of Peter, and the progressive wing of the Church is excommunicated en mass
By God, that’s Christian of you! Re-read your post and see what a fool you’ve made of yourself, all the while pretending to “protect” the Faith.
How, exactly, will he do this? He is a simple priest now you know. He has no papal authority, not even episcopal authority. He cannot vote in a conclave as Cardinal.
Perhaps instead of bemoaning the real Pope, you might try to learn from him. He is not destroying the Church, he is rebuilding it. Just as his namesake heard the call from the aged crucifix at San Damiano which spoke to him and told him to “rebuild my Church”.
… even a simple priest or layperson can be whatever God makes of him, YFC. You seem to miss that in lieu of perceived power.
.. and, YFC – this is truly laughable – the very Saint Francis that you rightfully state was told to rebuild ‘my’ Church was neither the Pope or even a priest. He was only ordained a Deacon. But God did use him.
Keep up your posts, YFC, they are true gems of contradiction.
I’m not sure he was even a deacon. What the blazes does it even matter, unless you want to misconstrue every single thing I say? Janek referred to Ratzinger as a Pope. He is NOT a pope. He said something that was clearly untrue, and I called him on it. But you just want to argue for the sake of being argumentative, Ann Malley.
Just look how the S.S.P.X. is treated by bishops in the U.S. and abroad, take Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh for instance twice in a month he WARNED the faithfull of Pittsburgh to stay away from the Latin Mass offered by the local S.S.P.X. church St. James Church which the S.S.P.X. had purchased, it was empty for years. Zubik had time and time again refused to sell it the S.S.P.X. but he sure sold “empty” Catholic churches to heretics, hindus, and other non-catholic groups. Oh and by the way, last week Zubik preached at an Evangelical meeting with Billy Grahams son in Pittsburgh, that is just fine and dandy but NEVER go to Holy Mass at an S.S.P.X. chapel or church your soul is in danger if you recieve Holy Communion from an S.S.P.X. priest, give me a break already. Remember what Vatican II said ALL religions are the same.
There is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Janek, with all due respect, the Vatican II documents and the popes after never said that all religions are the same. In fact St. John Paul II only wrote that the Muslims PROFESSED to worship the God of Abraham, not that they actually did worship the same God as us.
YFC, You stand along side of those who persecute the SSPX.
The SSPX represents the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) before Vatican 2. It follows all of the 7 Holy Sacraments in form, matter, and prayers as our ancient Holy Mother the Church, unlike the V2 Church. The SSPX follows all of RCC teaching and does not follow the heretical teachings or rites of the V2 Church. The V2 Church likes to throw darts at the SSPX saying its clergy and sacraments are illicit, i.e. they don’t follow Rome; however, one has to really question, Who is illicit, not really following Rome? The SSPX did not break with St. Peter, St. Pope Pius the Vth, St Pope Pius the Xth, and Pope Pius the XIIth so the SSPX cannot be illicit since it has followed what has been done since Christ instituted the Sacraments and Holy Mother the RCC. On the other hand, the V2 Church rites and its leaders are illiciit as they broke with the RCC at V2. Its time to call a spade a spade, whether you don’t like it or can’t stomach it. Until we accept these truths/facts, the V2 Church will continue to implode; however as Christ promised, He will be with Holy Mother the Church made up of all the Roman Catholic parishes practicing the 7 Latin-rite Holy Sacraments, worshipping God in the TLM, and teaching true RCC doctrine.
Seek and you will find, knock and it shall be opened for you.
Except, Harvey, that disobeys pope after pope in solemn doctrinal matters. You say it celebrates seven sacraments. It may try, but at least two of them are invalid: reconciliation and matrimony may only be conferred with the permission of the local ordinary, which SSPX does not enjoy. And all seven of them are illicit. Illegal. A testimony to their schismatic nature. Now I know you will all go on bloviating about how the SSPX is not in schism. Wrong. SSPX has not been declared to be in formal schism. That doesn’t mean that they are not in fact in schism or engage in schismatic acts, which the ordination of its bishops and priests certainly are. It has no public ministry authorized by the Church, and therefore all its sacramental celebrations are illegal. Get that, illegal as a matter of Canon Law. It is not I who persecute SSPX, it is SSPX who stands outside the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by its own free will.
YFC: Before you judge and condemn Harvey and the SSPX read this entirely. If you disagree with a DOGMATIC COUNCIL then you, my friend, are in schism. The Church is based on sacred tradition. The Mass of Pius V has NEVER been abrogated, but it has been suppressed by the radical PASTROAL COUNCIL of Vatican II which was hijacked by liberal and modernistic freemasons, bishops, priests, and yes, Protestant ministers.
https://www.dailycatholic.org/quoprimu.htm
Oh, and it takes a lot of gall and nerve for you to condemn Harvey when you live in total schism and heresy by not standing in the authority of the Roman Pontiff by your own free will by accepting, promoting, and spreading the mortally sinful ACTIVE homosexual agenda. You are constantly shoving the homosexual agenda in your posts on CCD. You reek of your homosexual agenda and you are not fooling anyone here on CCD who are loyal to Christ’s Church. The only one who can help you is God himself. People have been trying for years to instruct you and you willfully ignore them and the Church teachings. You are the one in schism.
I should add that the council I was talking about in my post above was the Council of Trent.
Absolutely incorrect RR. There is no difference between the authority of a so-called pastoral council and a dogmatic council. The term pastoral council was invented part of the way through the Council to describe the tenor of the proceedings and the degrees that came from it, not to excuse the faithful from adhence to them.
Absolutely incorrect, YFC. The tenor of the proceedings of a pastoral council was not to define any new dogma or doctrine.
Get out a faithful history and read up, friend. You’re making yourself look more the fool.
Once again, you will not see any official document of the Church that makes any distinction among ecumenical councils. Is there a distinction in Canon Law? In Sacred Scripture? In the documents of the Council itself? Every ecumenical council has exactly the same authority to teach, and Catholics are required to give an assent of faith to all of their decrees. Every ecumenical council has taken up matters of doctrinal, pastoral, administrative, and disciplinary matters, each to a different degree. In fact, even Vatican II, especially in its DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION on the Church in the Modern World, picked up on the ecclesiological doctrines that Vatican I started. Much of the Council of Trent dealt with disclinary measures. You have taken the words of Saint John XXVIII, from a public quotation, as some kind of binding (or unbinding) Church authority. His calling the Council “pastoral” is no more an excuse for you to ignore it than Francis’ comments about mercy give you an excuse to not go to a (valid) Confession.
People ignore this heretic YFC, he will bring out the sharp blades for the SSPX but will proudly march in the a gay shame parade. He praises the LCWR a band of female heretics.
Ann Malley, what does it mean that Vatican II was “pastoral”?
Canisius, as recently as a few weeks ago, sought to encourage our fellowship in things divine. Now he trash talks me. Guess what, friends, don’t look to MY sharp blades for the SSPX, just look to the fact that the founder of SSPX Lefebvre ordained the current 4 bishops without the permission of Rome which was a schismatic act that brought formal excommunication upon them all from the Pope himself. While the subsequent pope lifted the exccommunication of the 4 bishops ordained, it THEN had to backpeddle when it discovered that it had not done its due diligence with at least one of them who, as it turns out, was a holocaust denier. What are the chances.
YFC, you’re a mortal sin denier so what’s your point? And what of your profession of the ‘primacy of conscience’ and giving precedence to a life of love? Good grief but you wax inconsistent which is precisely why the thought of any Traditional Catholic who holds to the true Faith sends you reeling into tizzy of self proclaimed victimization.
Since when does belonging to the Catholic Church have to do with accepting any aspect of world history? Are the Napoleonic wars now a dogma? Is choosing the North over the South now doctrine required to be Catholic? Get over yourself man and talk Catholic. If someone denies that a man landed on the moon should the Vatican reassess their fidelity to Catholic teaching?
Enough with the spin already. If even an Episcopalian convert can see and speak to the absurd similarities between the Novus Ordo rite and an Episcopalian Church service, that’s the conversation, not your obsession with keeping Catholic out of the Catholic Church.
No, YFC, it seems those in ‘formal’ schism are granted the privilege of blessing the Holy Father and having him attend their masses and admitting that he used to attend their masses back in Argentina.
Nice try, but you’re not getting anywhere. THIS is precisely why, however, there is much need for clarity. So go forward and demand as much, YFC, but the do as I say and not as I do is not the teaching method to be trusted.
Sorry.
There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is a de fide teaching of the Catholic Church. It is divine and Catholic Faith. It is dogma. It is an infallible revelation from God. Teaching against this is heresy.
Indeed, teaching the reality that there is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through which there comes salvation is critical. That is why, mous, it is so confusing when ambiguities, however pastoral, propel the leadership into all manner of confusion regarding those outside Her. That confuses the people, mous, leading them not to ‘join’ the Church, but rather disregard Her. And that is the problem.
Be consistent in your application of that which you just wrote and you will understand, in full, the Catch-22 position of those whom you erroneously persecute.
Ann Malley, the Church does not change. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it is ambiguous. Sometimes you may need to learn the Faith in a deeper way, in order to understand.
You can understand in a ‘deeper’ way all the way to ignoring Christ and not spreading the Gospel, mous. That’s where you’re headed. If the October Synod hasn’t schooled you, nothing will save a thunderbolt.
Oh Ann Malley, it really isn’t necessary to be so demeaning. I am not going to ignore Christ and not spread the Gospel as long as the Holy Spirit continues to give me the grace to follow Him and evangelize His Truth.
“If you take Your grace away, nothing Good in men will stay.”
As for being schooled by the October Synod, (I assume you mean the Extraordinary Synod, because the Synod has not happened yet), I learned that men cannot thwart God’s Will.
Gee, Ann Malley and Harvey, I don’t think anyone wants to persecute the SSPX, nor should they. But declaring a body to be schismatic after it has willfully abandoned the Catholic Church by a formal act is not persecution. It is calling a spade a spade.
Read up and get current, caritas. The only spade here is the one you’re digging for this new moniker of yours, identifying it with that which is against the Faith and even the moderators of CCD in light of your rash rant against them.
Looking to those issues – including the NO rite – that have led to and/or contributed to a shifting in what Catholics actually believe when compared to what the teachings of the Church are is also a spade. Or in this instance a sacred cow that seems to be off the table because covering up misteps is more important than saving souls and teaching the actual faith to some.
This is truth, not personal opinion –
Again regarding the OFFICIAL Status of the SSPX as of this date:
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
” The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.
This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “
Mac, does that mean that anyone who attends Sunday Mass at one of their churches and doesn’t also attend a Mass at a Roman Catholic Church commits a mortal sin, since it is not a legitimate Mass?
Bob One – read if for yourself, directly from Pope Benedict.
To the best of my knowledge Pope Francis has not made any changes to this.
QUOTE: ” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “ UNQUOTE.
If someone is dying all sanctions are lifted for the dying to receive the Sacraments if no other Priest is available.
If another OF or EF Mass is available within a reasonable distance, yes the person must attend one of those rather than that of the SSPX.
However, they also have the choice of choosing some non-Latin (Roman) Masses.
CCC: ” 1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites.
In “faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”
In case of near death any Priest may perform last rights.
Thank you for the post, Mac. Nevertheless YFC, and I suspect the Anonymous who is for so-called same-sex marriage, are two men in glass houses throwing stones as they really do not follow Church teaching either, and I am not SSPX, nor have I ever attended such Masses, although from what I have heard and read, one can attend them if there are no other orthodox (with a small “o”) Catholic churches around. The two men seem to think that their sin is excused by the sin of others, but it does not work that way as the story of the Garden of Eden so rightly expressed. Oh well, I think I have gotten my self into hot water all the way around with this post, so now I will shut up.
The canonical status of SSPX, the illegality of the public Masses they celebrate, and the wisdom of attending their masses is not dependent upon homosexuality at all. Mine, theirs, or anyone else’s. It is about a principle of Papal unity that goes back to Saint Peter himself. Why are you all so distracted by gay things when gay things have never been a part of the conversation – EXCEPT when people don’t like the reminders that THIS gay person gives to adherents and sympathizers of the SSPX. Lacking substantive argument, they attack the messenger – even though it is Popes and their dicasteries that provide the very message I repeat often verbatim here!!??
“Your Fellow Catholic”: How can you be so wrong, all the time? There is nothing “illegal” in the SSPX priests saying Mass. The SSPX presently have no canonical status in the Church, but this does not mean that their sacraments are any less licit. Take a look at the following: (1) “PCED confirms officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, not in formal schism; Catholics commit no sin nor incur any canonical penalty for Mass attendance”, Brian Mershon, “Renew America” (July 11, 2008); and (2) “The Limits of Ecumenical Outreach: Bishop Zubik and the SSPX”, Michael Matt, “The Remnant” (September 9, 2014).
The SSPX is made up of holy priests, dedicated to a Catholic life and to bringing the path of salvation to all. The smears of Zombie-Liberal priests and apostate bishops, who despise clergy that actually believe the Catholic Faith, and act accordingly, is growing all the time, thanks to the Vatican (and the crazed lefty bishops that have been appointed). It is time for Pope Francis to speak up against this insanity.
Certainly the SSPX should be within the Church, but this does not mean that they are not Catholic, or that they are priests, or that what they say, and pray, is wrong. Better to have Bishop Fellay and his brethern in the Church than Cardinals Dolan, Wuerl, Abp. Cupich, B. Forte and many, many more.
St. Christopher, illicit means “illegal”. It means that they are suspended priests who do not have permission from the Church to say Mass-just like the priests who were suspended because they supported women’s ordination or who were suspended because they molested kids. They cannot say Mass. If they do, the Mass is valid (because they are still priestsm, the Eucharistic Species will be the Real Presence.) but illicit (illegal-not a Catholic Mass). The SSPX priests can be within the Catholic Church anytime they agree to accept ALL Catholic doctrines. The SSPX does not trust the Vatican and once they join the Church, they know they will have to obey and they don’t want to give the Vatican that much power over them. They are not formally in schism because they have not officially renounced the Pope. They are of the same ilk as the “liberals” who only want to obey what they want to obey.
The articles you referred us to are not from Catholic sources. The Vatican stand on the SSPX is clear. They are not part of the Catholic Church. That is what no canonical status means.
I don;t know what your definition of holy is but the SSPX priests do not obey God as Mary did and as Jesus did. They are not obedient. Why would you go to a Mass said by a suspended priest?
YFC, if you cared about Christ and His Church, you would not choose to remain in a lifestyle of Mortal Sin.
You only care about yourself and your carnal desires. – This is what is most important in your life.
It is a mortal sin to commit homosexual sex acts. I don’t know what you mean by a lifestyle of mortal sin.
If yfc and his partner are chaste, then they are not in mortal sin.
If they have civilly married, they are. (Just like if heterosexual couples get married civilly.)
YFC has said that he and his partner obey the teachings of the Church.
YFC’s support for civil gay “marriage” is contrary to the teachings of the Church. He should conform to the Church’s teaching but no one ever tries to dialogue seriously and respectfully with him. When I have tried he has not answered.
Certain posters attitude that he is not Catholic or that he cannot comment on other Church issues until he gets himself right are not very helpful or charitable. I know it is frustrating, but if we can’t even explain to a Catholic why gay marriage is wrong, how are you going to explain it to non-Catholics?
Based upon his posts, YFC does not support chastity but homosexual marriage. Marriage constitutes a sexual relationship.
It is not true that some others have not tried to dialogue with him.
They have even provided the Sacred Scriptures and CCC teachings so that he will know that people are speaking the truth regarding homosexual acts, and it is not merely personal opinions.
He does not care. And people are tired of beating their heads against the wall with him.
He supports anything that will support his homosexual lifestyle, no matter how it violates the Faith. For example he attacked Cardinal Burke because of Burke’s position on no Holy Communion for those who choose to continue living in Mortal Sin in accord with
1 Cor 11:27-30. And there are many other attacks of his. A heretic should be trying to tell other Catholics what to do regarding the Faith.
I will pass this on to you.
Sacred Scripture (Bible) is the speech of God in entirety (CCC 81);
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7
and
CCC: 2357, 2358, 2359, and 2396.
The sexual aspect of homosexuality is a part of why the Church opposes gay marriage. The sinfulness of homosexual acts is not stressed by the Church because even should gay partners like YFC and his partner who obey the Church’s commands and are chaste marry, it is wrong.
The stress is on God’s plan for man and for the family.
Anonymous, chaste people with homosexual orientation do not have “partners”. That is the whole point. One does not need a “partner” if one is not engaging in sexual activity.
See: “LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS” on the Vatican web site.
Homosexual persons are to avoid the near occasion of sin.
Living with someone they find sexually attractive purposely puts temptation in their paths.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
We all know that homosexual sexual activity is intrinsically evil. Anyone who commits it, gay or not, has committed a grave sin. If it was done with knowledge and full consent of the will, it is a mortal sin.
It is very possible that a relationship between two gay people can evolve from a sexual relationship to a chaste partnership. I have known of homosexual couples who make a vow to live chastely with each other, because they wanted the love and companionship and sex was not really even a part of it.
The Church opposes same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to marry because marriage by definition is a union of a man and a woman brought together for the purpose of procreation. By changing the definition of marriage to two people who love each other or two people who are committed to each other or more than two people who want to live together and share incomes and duties, the whole purpose of marriage in God’s design is trampled underfoot.
And it is true that the idea of marriage as a lifelong exclusive union between a man and a woman was breaking down long before gay marriage became a popular cause. And the idea of sexual union being only for married people has been utterly forgotten by most people younger than 50.
So the emphasis of the Church has been on speaking up for and defending traditional marriage from all the things that are eroding it.
As for YFC being chaste, they have been together for a long time, they made a commitment to each other, he claims they are chaste so it separates the sex from the marriage issue. So he can say-why can’t I marry since I am not committing that sin? And we have to say, because it is not God’s will for you and we know this because marriage in God’s plan can only be between a man and a woman. It may seem like a loving thing to do but our first Commandment is to love God and “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (John 14:23
Paul,
I do not see that in the document that you quoted but yes, avoiding the near occasion of sin is important.
Also, avoiding the semblance of sin is important.
That would be something to discuss if we could ever get to that point.
Folks, this conversation is not about homosexuality, same sex marriage, or anybody’s partners. It is about the illegality of the public sacramental life of the SSPX. If I suddenly announced I was straight and forever gave up being ay, SSPX masses would still be illegal under Canon Law, and its bishops ordained in a schismatic act. If you all have to change the conversation to make it about gay stuff, maybe you are all a little to obsessed, and you don’t see the real destruction happenning in the Church.
YFC, you are mistaken. This conversation is about the marked and very unfruitful similarity of the Novus Ordo with an Episcopalian prayer service. Not about you. Not about the SSPX. Not about the homosexual agenda.
The ‘Real’ destruction happening is the fact that folks much like yourself do not even want to discuss the realities very humbly pointed out in this article – that it is a great mercy to the faithful to have a decidedly and very distinctly Catholic rite of mass. Especially so as to distinguish it from Protestant services and the theology therein.
So nice job attempting to cry victim – again – with regard to thread hijacking, but you’re a chief suspect. Much like what you post is very much nothing more than the talking points of those determined to keep Catholics in the dark about the very distinct differences between the Novus Ordo and the TLM. Ambiguity suits you, however, that and very hazy understanding of what doctrines are binding and which are to be interpreted by a ‘life of love’ according to one’s conscience.
But none of your exhaustive spin can take away one jot of Mr. Kalb’s honest and accurate assessment. And it is the simplicity of the obvious that seems to upset you the most.
Anne T., Based upon their posts I would hazard a guess that not only you but YFC, Anonymous and a few others have never attended a SSPX Mass.
To stay close to the TRUTH, it is always best to only post that which you know to be fact.
The only time one can attend an SSPX Mass is when there is no other Mass available in either the OF or the EF.
Promote the EF Mass through encouragement of others to attend (including those things that will help them understand such as the inexpensive Latin-English Missal, which also is available in Latin-Spanish)
Promote the EF Mass by encouraging your Diocese Bishop and Parish Priest to have at least one Latin Mass in your Parish if there is enough interest.
And asking your Bishop to have both Forms of the Mass taught at Seminaries so that they may better serve all Catholics.
Educate others correctly and in accord with the Church.
Do not get sucked into anyone goading you regarding the SSPX. This only harms the OF effort, and the person(s) who bring this up know it. They love dissention and distraction.
When posters bring up the SSPX, offer them the FSSP to educate others or Ignore their posts even if difficult.
Remember at this time the SSPX ” has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. “ – See link to the Vatican above.
Go to the links provided by the poster ANNE for the article “Latin in West Hollywood”.
Save these links so that you may help educate others.
https://cal-catholic.com/?p=16412
As one of the Anonymous, you are correct. I have never attended an SSPX Mass.
Ann Malley has stated that she would never attend a Novus Ordo Mass again and that they attends SSPX or independent chapels or FSSP.
No one here takes exception with the Latin Mass in either form.
Faithful Catholics here have had to defend the Catholic Church and the Mass of All Ages-the Roman Rite-from sacrilege and blasphemy. the poster Ann Malley has been the most vituperative. People have had to correct her errors in the Faith and her twisting of Church doctrine to try to justify her prevarications and false witness about the Church, the Mass and the clerics of the Catholic Church.
I thank you for your post even though it was not to me. It was perfect and well written.
YFC, that is, is the one in the glass house, to clarify.