The smell of incense and drywall mingled while more than two hundred people attended the dedication of St. Vitus Catholic Church in San Fernando. This church is the first in Los Angeles to be operated by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), an order of priests dedicated to traditional liturgy, specifically the Latin Mass.
As the FSSP is dedicated to the Latin Mass, so too will their church be: Archbishop José H. Gomez dedicated the church according to the Latin liturgy, saying the dedicatory prayers in Latin and sprinkling the outside and inside of the church while the choir chanted the Litany of the Saints.
Following the dedication, North American Superior Father Gerard Saguto, FSSP, celebrated the first church’s Mass, and Archbishop Gomez preached the first sermon, focusing on the God’s call for the parish to “redeem that little part of the world we live in.”
“What’s going to happen now that we have our own church is that the Mass will still be the center of what we do, the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, however it will bring to life everything else, so we’ll have a full parish life,” Fr. Fryar explained.
When asked what advice they would give to Catholics interested in attending the Latin Mass for the first time, both Fr. Saguto and Fr. Fryar expressed the need to attend more than once.
“I think you have to, first of all, give it a fair chance,” said Fr. Saguto, “You can’t just go once, you have to go 10 times, you have to go 20 times, because it’s a different way. It’s a different approach of worship.”
Full story at Angelus News.
Excellent.
God Bless this humble little church in San Fernando.
Excellent! Wish we could have an FSSP church in the San Francisco Bay Area!
I do also, Linda Maria, but already we have several parishes that offer a full parish life involving attendees of both the EF and OF and who participate together and cooperatively in parish life. It would be good if more people attending the EF became involved in the many activities of those parishes. Check the NEARYBY MASSES page at tlmsf.org to find one of those parishes near you.
I do also, Linda Maria, but we already have parishes in the Bay Area that offer a full range of organizations and activities in which attendees of both the EF and the OF participate. Check the NEARBY MASSES page at tlmsf.org to find those parishes.
I certainly welcome a FSSP parish for those who prefer Latin. My understanding is that there have long been several churches regularly offering Sunday Masses in Latin as well as vernacular languages.
Will the FSSP be invited to offer Mass in the EF at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress? I don’t think they’ve ever done a Latin Mass?
They had Latin Masses at the LA Religious Education Congress, when it was still the CCD Institute under Cardinal McIntyre.
Gaudeamus!!!
Thanks but no. I was an altar server prior to Vatican Council II and served at many Masses in the Latin form. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is more beautiful and meaningful for myself. However, I think the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be available to those who prefer it.
The Traditional Latin Mass alone should be the form of Catholic worship. The Novus Ordo can be said to meet base requirements, through the Doctrine of Indefectibility. However, the notion of “preference” is ridiculous in a Catholic worship context and has lead to enormous loss of faith. No, it is not acceptable to receive Christ in your filthy hands and munch on His precious gift as if it were a potato chip.
Wonderful to have a TLM parish here and there. The Holy Ghost is exerting His will in this regard. Time to step up, Catholics, and demand a return to Tradition.
Fraternal correction here.
As cradle Catholic, I prefer the traditional Tridentine Mass in Latin. However, the Mass and the Sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist which is part of the Mass, are the sole and exclusive properties of the Catholic Church. As such, the Church, and the Church alone, has the right and authority to proscribe the manner in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated.
Moreover, the Eastern Catholic Churches (Maronite, Syro Malabar, Chaldean, Melkite, etc.) are also equally as Catholic as the Latin (Roman Rite). They celebrate the Mass in Syriac and Greek. Any person of the Latin Rite can attend their Masses and validly receive the Eucharist under their traditions. They…
If you think the TLM is going to save the Church, think again. Returning exclusively to the TLM is a guaranteed way to cause about 90% of U.S. Catholics to leave the Church. The Ordinary Form is in the Church to stay, and that’s the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no turning back the clock on the liturgical renewal.
Karl…WRONG……The Ordinary form is part of the problem, the Church is on the same road as mainline Protestant sects, it will in time disappear in the West. The ONLY survivors will be those who adhere to Tradition and the TLM. So called liturgical reform will collapse from its own failure, its already happening. Your side has done everything to destroy Catholic Identity.
Let me understand this, bohemond, please: You are saying that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is “part of the problem”? I think Christ must ask himself, “If my own Sacrifice of myself on this Cross and on this Altar isn’t good enough for these sheep, why do I even bother?” [Of course, Christ never asks this, because his Sacrifice is eternal, for all, and in his nature is bigger and more merciful than mine] The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is holy, important, transcendant, filling us with Christ’s redeeming grace every single time it is celebrated. The Mass is never the problem.
Good try YFC with your pseudo-intellectualism that you always try and pull on this site but you failed. The Novus Ordo has allowed massive abuses to take place, from liturgical dances, to gay themed masses. Yes it is part of the problem and no his sacrifice is NOT for all but for many PRO MULTIS… deal with it. Lets get on with schism as we are in two different Church’s will both be happier.
Bohemond, schism ia a mortal sin. Believing there are 2 different Churches is heresy, also a mortal sin.
We are in the depths of homoheresy and modernism… denying the Truth is also a sin..
Karl,
I agree that returning exclusively to the EF will not solve our problems. Regardless, there are issues with the OF and the way how it’s practiced.
I personally would like to see a re-evaluation of the OF which would involve, in part, retaining the vernacular and blending the best of both the EF and the OF.
St Christopher: asserting that the EF Mass is the only acceptable form of the Holy Massbis contrary to Catholic Doctrine and the motu propio promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
“Proscribe”, perhaps a typo, is significantly different than “Precscribe”. The Church has authority to do both.
Well “Ralph” and “Karl,” you should read Church history, although it is likely you don’t believe much in the Church prior to Vatican II. Many, many Church fathers wrote of the inviolate nature of the TLM and absolute need to maintain Latin as the only language of worship. So what, Paul VI and his henchmen changed all that without any permission, and it was brutal. Changing back to what is correct and needed in the Church would be easy.
Further, wake up. The 90% have already left, rather than be forced to swallow the idiocy of much of Vatican II implementation. Soon the institutional church will be largely gone.
I’m sorry, Christopher, but the “Church fathers” – per definition those in the first centuries of the Church – never experienced the TLM, let alone its “inviolate” nature. Most practiced much simpler forms, as recorded in the Didache. The Church fathers from the first centuries even until today realized that there are various valid and efficaceous liturgies celebrated among the particular Churches, in various languages, usually in the vernacular and according to various rites. Even the TLM itself was an attempt to gather various Latin rite liturgies, which, particularly in present day France, had evolved into very long and convoluted forms, into one SIMPLE liturgy, devoid of excessive ostentation and clericalism.
Anonymous,
You might be invoking a nuance that I’m not recognizing, but the Church Fathers are not restricted to those who lived in the first century (e.g. Sts. Ambrose and Augustine).
Steve, please reread my post. I never said “the first century”.
[Prior response seems not to have been received] “Karl” and “Ralph”: Loyalty to the NewCatholicChurch is nice, but you really need to read Church history. Before Paul VI and his Vatican II minions trashed the TLM and mandated — in brutal fashion — the Novus Ordo, the idea of changing the Mass and leaving Latin was deemed “anathema” by countless Catholic doctors of the Church and councils. So, yes, the Mass can certainly be changed again by the Pope.
And, the “90%” have already left the Church since the implementation of VII, along with most religious orders and, very soon, its priests. The institutional Church is essentially over thanks to VII implementation.
Sorry, can you please clarify when and how you invented the “NewCatholicChurch”? Either you have loyalty to the Roman Pontiff, or you don’t. There is only the ancient and ever eternal catholic and apostolic Church, with Christ as its Head. When did you invent something NewCatholic?
When did you invent something NewCatholic? He didn’t Vatican 2 and the modernist did
St Christopher: you would do well to read up on your history as well. The Tridentine Latin Mass was made the mandatory form of the Mass by Pope Pius V in 1570. Prior to 190 the Mass was celebrated in Greek. Throughout Church history the Eastern Catholic Churches, in full communion with Rome, have celebrated the Divine Liturgy in a variety of languages.
It is not just language Harold its the entire orientation, I have been to Eastern Rites and their Orientation is the same as the TLM, Christ Centered. Novus Ordo is man centered ..end of story
I;ve been to many Masses: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Byzantine. And I’ve seen the priest face every which way except suspended over the altar or hiding under it. And I just have to say, that whenever I get myself fixated on where the priest is standing, I realize that I am missing the High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb, ON the altar.
How could get fixated on Him, when your lifestyle denies Him
and in the person of the priest and in those gathered together in His name and in the Word.
YFC: thank you for your insightfully observation!
thank you!
Commentors: The issue with the NO is its virtual break with Catholic Tradition. Many authors here, but a handy booklet is Michael Davies,” Liturgical Shipwreck.” BTW, it is generally assumed that the definition of “Church Fathers” lasted until about the 8th century; without space limitations the post should have said, “Doctors of the Church, Saints, and numerous theological and clerical writers.”
“Quo Primum” served to unify the liturgy, not to set up something entirely new. Of course the VII implementation squad have sought to connect the NO to historical forms of liturgy, but to no effect, unlike the TLM.
St. Christopher,
I think I heard you say something that I’m interested in clarifying. Is your main complaint against the OF that it didn’t involve organic change (e.g. the type that occurs with inculturation.) Thereby, the change didn’t account for other factors that developed over time and which are important for our worship of God. Would these be true statements of your opinion?
Catholic tradition. I’m sorry, but what you call catholic tradition was itself a break from catholic practice before it. That’s the entire point. You don’t get to capitlaize it and ensrhine it in stone as though it is part of what is necessary practice. We are always deepening our understanding of the catholic faith, always reclaiming parts that got lost along the way. Maybe the TLM is getting lost along the way and needs to be reclaimed. But those of us who prefer to reclaim a third or fourth century set of traditions shouldn’t be ostracized for it. A catholic in 1940 is no more catholic than a catholic in 240. In fact, one could argue, a catholic in 240 was more authentic to the early Church than an invention 12 or more centuries…
I’m sorry, Chrisopher, but decades of scholarly research has demonstrated that the second Eucharistic Prayer has far deeper routes in “catholic tradition” than the TLM, which was improvisized only about 5 centuries ago. If you want to invoke Catholic Tradition, please seek out the Didache and the early Church Fathers for how they celebrated the Holy Sacirifice of the Mass, not some 15th century invention.
My Jewish friends tell me that Jesus most likely celebrated the Passover meal (when he instituted the Holy Eucharist) while sitting with or facing the Apostles. It is highly unlikely that Jesus turned his back to the Apostles during the consecration.