Liturgical Catch Words and Phrases

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:23 AM By Jay S.
Good list! But they forgot “Holy Day of Opportunity”.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:24 AM By Ted
Among the things that bother me in our Liturgy are holding hands during the “Our Father”, the hand gestures the people use at the end, as if they were priests, the din before and after Mass in the same space as the Real presence, and the priest bidding people “Good Morning” after his opening blessing / greeting that is actually part of the Liturgy. Other than being in the Real Presence and chatting, they probably aren’t abuses, but they detract from the prayerful atmosphere proper to worship in a Catholic church.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:57 AM By 4unborn
We need not only to rid the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of watered-down words, but to place a crucifix on the altar as our Holy Father desires.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:24 AM By JLS
What about “high five”? What about “shuffling”? Are these people that far behind the times?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:24 AM By Noel
Our Church still raises two fingers for the peace sign. Will the hippie generation never leave us?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:30 AM By St. Christopher
So — MusicSacra has some objections. Any true and practicing Catholic would find these words offensive, non-Catholic, and, essentially, meaningless (except in their offense to Christ). Yet, we persist in making these same offenses, day after day, in diocese around the country and world. The Vatican does nothing due to the crazed belief in some sort of “shared power” with the “Office of Bishops,” and they certainly want to do whatever they want to regarding the liturgy. Even the Holy Father’s unequivocal direction in Summorum Pontificum has been ignored, if not overtly disrespected. The real battle in the Church is within, not so much from expected sources of evil like President Obama, the abortion industry, etc. Everyone has awful stories of awful things done at mass, in catechism, in Catholic schools, and in the administration of the Church. Why does it not stop? Benedict XVI has done some very good things that, in time, will bear fruit. But on a daily basis, we all will hear many more “here comes the presider” type greetings at Mass than we will true changes for the good. Look at the years and years it took to effect a better translation for the Mass. Most bishops today believe that Vatican II was not a time for renewal, but a time for a new church, and they also believe (and have trained thousands to do their bidding) that this change has only now begun. Look at what is happening in Austria to see what will very soon come to America. If the Pope says no to these changes, then there will be a schism; and if the Pope wrongly says yes to such changes, then many true Catholics look to independent traditional Catholic churches for a place to worship, until the Holy Ghost brings cleansing fire. The word should be fight now, fight everywhere, against every nutty “song” and wrong teaching and errant bishop. You never know what might be inspired by courageous efforts. And start by praying that the SSPX is regularized within the Church.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:46 AM By Life Lady
This list reminds me of why I spent 22 years attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a mausoleum in San Diego, hot or cold weather, rain or shine, no matter what. The “extraordinary” form of the Mass was offered there, and those of us kooks who would not surrender that place are now able to have our own personal parish with a FSSP pastor. The prayers offered, the griping, the people who just would not back down, I thank them. We had it all then, and we have it all now. My suggestion is that you all begin to call it what it is, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, use the term “priest” for his function, call the altar the altar, and use the terms that are rightly applicable to what the priest is doing for his congregation, offering the Mass for you all, and you, in union with him, observe, participate where appropriate, and pray that that sacrifice is worthy to be received by the Father in Heaven. Any unusual and not appropriate gestures should be taken out, you take them out, and if enough of you do them, they will stop. Whenever I go to a “novus ordo” mass I never hold anyone’s hand, but remain on my knees during the Our Father, and never do all that “greeting”, but stay on my knees. The Real Presence is on the altar, how can anyone ignore that? So, I do get the looks, and I do get people attempting to engage me in an argument, but for the most part, my answer is just the same as always, “we are free to adore Our Lord in a manner that is appropriate to our souls, are we not?” which usually gets silence on the other side. Pray, and sacrifice the “touchy/feely” gratitude of your neighbor, they may be looking for someone else who agrees with them, and they may be looking to join you in your adoration of Our Lord at Mass.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:55 AM By JMJ
Funny, Jesus used a table at the first Mass. but He had The Spirit of the Law in His Heart. How many of us even have the Holy Spirit nowadays. It seems that we are getting so picky about useless things, while the evil one is having such a grand time causing dissent among God’s Children. Nothing wrong with holding the hands of our brothers and sisters, but, the Lord’s Prayer and the sign of the Peace, which, according to St. Paul, should be a holy KISS, should be done at the beginning of the Mass right after the good morning, y’u all. Please put the Altar rails back, along with the Tabernacle in the middle as our Holy Father, Blessed John Paul told the Bishops to do. I’m still trying to get past the new and not so great Gloria, which is impossible to sing (the Church that I now go to is known as a “singing” church, which is why our Bishop didn’t but should have shut down, but, they hired a “pro” and with a lot of practice, the Pastor and Assistant Pastor, both singers, gave up and now we just recite it. It used to such a beautiful Hymn to sing. +JMJ+

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:32 AM By Canisius
How pathetic that this nonsense is tolerated in Parishes all over the place.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:38 AM By CJ
JLS – what is “shuffling?” And I’ll add two more to the list…when the priest says, “let’s hear it for that band…didn’t they do great!”…and when the “Eucharistic Minister” reaches down and tries to “bless” my child…

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:52 AM By Robert
Last week, the Priest “presiding” at the TLM I attended sang the Te Deum as he was purifying the chalice after Holy Communion. His singing voice is not that great and he disrupted the congregants quiet time with the Lord. Silence please! This is not in the Rubrics!

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:03 AM By Anna
What bothers me is the clapping of hands at the end of the last song after Mass. It is not a show !

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:13 AM By Rose
Great article. Great comments. All things being equal, I judge a holy Mass by whether I have to endure false “community” by shaking hands and whether the grown-up altar boy has to sing the “songs” loudly through the Mass indtead of paying attention to his official responses.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:14 AM By Larry
“And start by praying that the SSPX is regularized within the Church.” The SSPX can be regularized in two seconds by simply accepting the doctrinal preamble offered by the pope. If they won’t do that, then let them stay where they belong–outside the Church, or as it would be put in Latin: “extra Ecclesiam.”

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:24 AM By Tee
Here is another one to add to the list: If we TRULY believe that the priest celebrating the Holy Sacarifice of the Cross is the alter Christus, is it not insulting to tell him to have a good day, offer ANY comment after he has just offered us the blessing, the anointing of Christ and sent us forth?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:36 AM By Pops
How about the irritating “Good Morning” followed by the 20 decibel louder “GOOD MORNING” for those evil ones who didn’t respond back to the clown at the lectern in the first place?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:54 AM By charles
Why all the babbling in Church anyway? The Pewtalkers discussing what , hats coats flowers? An organist who walks the aisles greeting us as if we just arrived at concert, sit down and play the music. Distributing sandwich offerings and the everlasting last minute additions, almost like and now a word from our sponsor. Everything should be in the bulletin, I don’t need a revisit by the lector inviting us for coffee or reminding us it may rain next Thursday, it is so out of hand and yet the person in charge, the Pastor, seems determined to join in and lesson the solemnity of the occasion.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:02 AM By Becie
Noel: Regarding the “peace sign,” It is really a Satanic hand symbol. Remember, Satan loves his devices to become “socially acceptable, such as the practice of sodomy, not genuflecting before the Eucharist (“every knee shall bow and tongue confess”), etc. I attend the Traditional Latin Mass to avoid all these blasphemies. Notice how the Church keeps mopping up all the debris from VII; when will She just get rid of the travesties it brought about?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:03 AM By Maryanne Leonard
I’m so glad to know that I’m not the only one who hates holding hands with strangers and can’t get used to raising my hands while praying. It’s also curious to the point of distraction when we sing a hymn written by a rebellious Protestant who did great harm to the Church. I remember the loud noises (lamentations?) emitted by worshippers inside some sort of Holy Roller Protestant church I passed by every Sunday morning and the hymns they sang, and we are now singing some of those same hymns. Amazing. I wonder if before long we are going to be dancing in the aisles like the Blues Brothers. If so, we won’t have to go to the gym on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:06 AM By Laurette Elsberry
One of the most scandalous remarks I ever heard at a Mass was in August of 2001 at the funeral Mass of Maureen Reagan, President Reagan’s older daughter. Held in the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento, the service for non-Catholic Reagan was “presided” over by a sometimes LA priest who was known primarily for bit parts in movies. When he should have prayed, “Oh Lord, I am not worthy”, he instead loudly proclaimed, “Oh Lord I AM WORTHY”. What a travesty!

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:16 AM By Catholic Joe
In order to move forward the “Spirit of Vatican II’, which IS the New Theology, we not only need to change the interior/exterior of the curch, suppress uncomfortable parts of the Bible a Mass, remove rosaries and other devotions, change the liturgy, but create NEW phrases. The more senses you influence,, the more effective. These phrases are just part of the Modernism left over from the Bernardin/Dearden implementation days. That’s all.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:19 AM By Juergensen
“sisters and brothers” ~ Despite the Church slavishly dwelling these past 10 years to give us the new more accurate 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, one of our priests can’t help but introduce the Gospel at Mass by interjecting “Sisters and brothers …” ONE, this is not in the new (or old) rubrics, and shouldn’t be added. As Pope John Paul II stated: “Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 52). TWO, this is a pathetic attempt at feminizing the Mass. Aren’t the 60s over, man? FINALLY, one of our lectors, despite – or perhaps because of – a theology degree from Notre Dame, is unable to read and enunciate “brothers and sisters” from St. Paul’s letters; it’s always “sisters and brothers.” We’re a faith sharing community, you know?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:31 AM By Catherine
Maryanne Leonard, Good post! I also agree that the word *presider* was initially introduced as a deliberate intention to diminish the appreciation and the understanding of the value of the sacred nature of the holy priesthood.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:38 AM By Sarah
At my parish (not “faith community”), I do not hold hands during the Our Father, I do not sing the insipid hymns, I do not clap my hands during or after Mass. When traveling, I usually go to Mass at the nearest Catholic parish. Some of those parishes have well-padded armchairs and no kneelers. I always kneel during the Consecration and find people staring at me, as though I might be ill or just crazy. At one “modern” parish, I hadn’t turned around to shake hands. The man behind me tapped me hard on the shoulder and shoved his hand at me to shake. I left as soon as I could. To top it off, some good parishoner had parked his car close to and perpendicular to mine, and I wasn’t able to leave until he came out at the end of Mass. I had to pray to not allow myself to think unkind thoughts about this person.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:45 AM By DES
And my personal “worst”–several weeks ago when one of the officiants at Mass made an error in the new liturgy, he commented out loud that he thought the person who made the liturgical changes “should go to jail”. So much for loyalty to the magisterium.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:53 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Sarah, good for you, resisting all the superimposed silliness. I am amazed that you were able not to think unkind thoughts about the driver who parked in such a way as to block your leaving until his fine personage arrived to free you. If I thought I were required to live up to such high standards of saintliness in order to be a practicing Catholic, I think I would find it necessary to turn in my Catholic badge. I just can’t imagine I could do it. But good for you that you even tried, Sarah. You’ve just raised the bar on what I will try to ask of myself, knowing I may never make it.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:06 AM By MacDonald
The worst for me: in the Communion line the celebrant says, “the Body of Christ.” And the communicant responds, “Yes, I am!”

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:17 AM By Canisius
@MacDonald. have you actually heard that being said???? OMG…

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:19 AM By pete
A note on hand gestures and prayer. The Semitic peoples for millenia have extended their hands and arms upward towards God while praying ( and they often move, note the Wailing Wall pray-ers!). That’s why the oldest prayers of the Traditional Mass have the priest doing that in those places that come from the Apostles” way of praying. The INDO-EUROPEANS for millenia have their hands pressed together in and INWARD attention of the prayer against the chest. That is why in the Mass of the centuries NEWER PRAYERS OF THE PRIEST have him in that position, such as the traditional prayers of the Offertory excepting the Secret which goes back to the Semitic way of praying. Now as to the “reformed” Liturgy of the Mass, WHEN THE PRIEST ALONE IS SUPPOSED TO SAY THE PRAYER IT IS TOTALLY WRONG FOR THE LAITY TO RAISE THEIR HANDS AND ARMS IN THE SEMITIC WAY OF THE EARLY CHURCH, but WHEN THE PRIEST AND PEOPLE SAY THE SAME PRAYER TOGETHER THEN IT IS not WRONG TO HAVE THE CONGREGATION DO THE SAME, such as at the Our Father,as was the practice in the Church of the Catacombs during the Roman Persecution — this does NOT mean they are allowed to join their hands doing so, a novelty stemming from the Charismatic Movement which presumes instant familiarity with everybody present (contrary to the reality of the congregation in fact). However, this is a decision of the Hierarchy approved by Rome. I hope this is helpful. The Indo-european gesture manifests a more INTROVERTED attitude during prayer, while the Semitic gesture is more EXTROVERTED toward God, AND btw so with the expressive Africans who spontaneously chant in harmony and move in a shuffle. Such attitudes need to be respected and not commanded, though WHEN it is done in the Liturgy needs to be legislated. For Africa the entrance, offertory and communion processions have this joyful expressiveness appropriately done with hierarchical approval — it wouldn’t work in Ireland (ahem).

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:32 AM By MRoss
Well, apparent I’ve been raised in something other than the Catholic church. Ive heard these words all my life. Thanks for the naughty list but where is the list of words we should be saying instead?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:41 AM By MacDonald
@ Canisius — yes, unfortunately. The priest looked totally shocked when the communicant said, “Yes, I am!” It later turned out that a neighboring pastor had ‘taught’ his people to say this. And so, instead of making a profession of faith in the Real Presence (“Amen.”), the communicant ends up making a statement about himself. Drives me nuts.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:26 PM By Anne T.
Catherine, if I remember correctly St. Justin the Martyr used the words “priest presider” in his Dialogue with Typho the Jew. Of course my copy is from the Classic Book Club that I belonged to in thee 1960s, and I am assuming it is the correct translation.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:26 PM By Canisius
@MacDonald, sorry to hear you have had to put up with this, luckily I attend the TLM pretty much exclusively, and the NO masses I do attend are done properly and I do attend the SSPX chapel now and again…what you are experiencing is the logical result of modernism, where man becomes god, and center of his own universe

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:11 PM By bev
Anna 8:03a Clapping after Mass is a show of appreciation for the work the CHOIR has put into enhancing our Mass.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:39 PM By Catherine
bev, Wow! Bev actually thinks that clapping for some annoying warbling voice or clapping for some beautiful voice enhances the hard work and supreme sacrifice for mankind of Jesus dying on the cross at Calvary. And some still call this progress? Please read Pope Benedict’s book, ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’. bev, If you or others personally want or personally feel the tremendous need to be validated for your nice singing voice, perhaps you should join a local community singing group that sings for the elderly in convalescent homes. You’ll then receive all of the attention and applause that you seem to be clamoring for.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:13 PM By The Other Rose
Once had to miserably endure, as the Precious Blood was offered to me by a lay person, “Good to the last drop.”

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:51 PM By Peggy
How about “May Almighty God Bless “US”, in the name…”

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:09 PM By Clinton
All of the abuses we witness at the Ordinary Form of the Mass is just emblemic of the ‘new theology’ that infiltrated the Church Militant. It is this radical change in Catholic theology that has wrought Vatican II and all its novelties. Out went sound Catholic doctrine and tradition and in came irreverence and disobedience. I truly pray that as time goes on, the TLM becomes the ordinary form of the Mass. The OF is just too ripe for novelties and abuses.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:59 PM By Marie
Regarding the Maureen Reagan funeral Mass in the Sacramento Cathedral, and the priest stating “Lord, I am worthy…”, this priest who was given authority in the Cathedral was a movie actor who uses the name Father Andrew Herman, know for small roles in some “R” rated movies. I presume that he was a priest, but why he wound up at this high-profile event and allowed to offer Mass is unknown. Friend of the family?

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:56 PM By JimAroo
My experience was that, as an extraordinary minister of Communion, a man approached…I said “the Body of Christ” and he replied “Yes we are”. He was then and is still today an ordained Deacon of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. His work today? Formation of other Deacons. No matter how bad you think it is… it is actually far worse than you know.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:16 PM By Vicki
I agree with just about everything vented here. When I am so distracted by what is passed off as Mass these days, I remember the sisters who taught me in grade school and I “offer it up.” It’s hard sometimes, but I participate the best that I can and try to be a good example to others. Change starts from within.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:16 PM By JLS
The SSPX is not “outside” the Church. Neither is the collection of Orthodox Churches. Neither are the Baptists. There is one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Those groups may have errant theology or defiant attitudes towards papal reign, but they are part of the Church. One has to realize the difference between doctrines and people. Doctrines do not form the Church, but people do.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:30 PM By Anne T.
I put a stop to anyone holding my hands during the Our Father a long time ago. I merely fold my hands in front of me, bow my head and close my eyes and refuse to budge.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:33 PM By Anne T.
If it is not in the rubrics (the GIRM — General Instructions to the Roman Missal), I do not do it, and the holding of the hands is not, so it does not belong in the Mass, and one does not have to do it.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:12 PM By JLS
Anne T., I tried that tactic one time, and was literally run over by people trying to spread the line out and across the aisle. I do not like the sardine in a can ritual.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:20 PM By Bob One
I attend a very traditional parish. Yes, we hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, we give our neighbors a Sign of Peace, we sing the hymns and we stay in the pews until the last chorus of the processional is sung. No one leaves the churh early or before the Priest. We are a community of the faithful. We act as a community. We are one, or at least as “one” as a few hundred people can get. I woiuld counsel most of the previous poster to chill out and understand that the Mass is a communal event. You are not there to pray by yourself or to exclude others from your life. You are there to worship as a community. Worship also includes singing of hymns, greeting your fellow communicants, wishing the Peace of Chirst on others. Join in the praise of our Lord. If you want to sit in a corner and pray all by yourself, stay home. Save the gas. One doesn’t attend Massl, one participates in the adoration of the Lord with the other members of your community. I suspect most of those who have commented already are the 1%. Please don’t think the the 99% are wrong.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:25 PM By Mary lou
I do not like to shake hands with anyone when offering a sign of peace because of all the germs. I would much rather just say to the other person, “Peace be with you” and leave it at that. I am not at mass to socialize. I don’t offer my hand as a handshake, so I keep my hands crossed across my chest and hope the other person gets the hint. most do, but some insist on putting their hands out to shake anyway. sorry, thats not for me.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 4:23 AM By BETH
Anne T, you are correct. People can find GIRM on the USCCB web site or purchase a copy from them. Anything not in GIRM is an abuse. Holding hands, for the laity to mimic the Priest and raise their arms in the air during the Lord’s Prayer, and giving the Peace sign to others who are not nearest to them are all ABUSES perpetrated by the LAITY. Talk to your Parish Priest showing him these abuses in GIRM so that he can make an announcement prior to each Mass.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 5:44 AM By Anne T.
Beth, many priests have talked to the laity about some of this and in some cases most of this, including not clapping for the choir after the Mass, but some laity seem to think disobedience is a virtue. There is a book called Mass Confusion, the Do’s and Don’ts of Catholic Worship by James Akin. They even try to bring clapping into many Catholic churches were the laity are against it. You know? They want to force their ideas on everyone else contrary to what is in the rubrics. Some churches have not only washed the feet of more than twelve men — which is what the rubrics and the GIRM says to do — they have at times washed the hands of people on Holy Thursday. This smacks of Pontius Pilate not Jesus Christ. Some liturgists lost the whole meaning of the ritual, which was isthat Christ was ordaining his Apostles on that night and setting an example of what Christians are to do for each other, BUT outside the ritual of Holy Thursday.In some churches they have become so political correct to the point of rididulousness. Many of us have just refused to take part in any of this, or even go the Holy Thursday rituals at some Catholic churches. I say, “Keep it simple. Wash the feet of twelve men as the ritual books say, and stop making everything longer and drawn out and making the congregation a captive audience.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 5:49 AM By Anne T.
Mary lou, in some Catholic churches the laity just bow to one another and and say “Peace be with you” and do not shake hands. That solves that problem. Just bow toward the person slightly and keep your hands in front of you. I know it is an American custom to shake hands, but some people have just gotten carried away with it at the most solemn part of the Mass, that and the chance of getting cold germs has made me prefer bowing.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 5:59 AM By Anne T.
Regarding your post, JLS, at 7:15 PM, they did that to me a few times, but the word got around that it was not according to the rubrics and that we did not have to do it, and now many people are either bowing or shaking hands, whichever they prefer, without out all the hand holding. I think the hand holding came into the churches from the Twelve Step programs, but it has nothing to do with the Mass. I do not mind if families want to do it with each other, but no one has any right to force a whole congregation to do it. It finally has stopped in our area for the most part.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 6:31 AM By Anne T.
I would add that some priests also brought some of this into their churches, knowing full well that it was not according to the General Insturctions of the Roman Missal, so some priests think disobedience is a virtue too.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 7:02 AM By Anne T.
Mary lou, I should have said,” You can just bow”. It was merely a suggestion. I have worked with so many children over the years that I tend sometimes to give commands at times, and I should not be doing that with adults. I should have also said, “I suggest that we keep it simples and wash the feet of twelve men and not prolong the ritual and lose the real meaning.”

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 7:10 AM By Anne T.
All the typos. I have not had my morning coffee yet.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:00 AM By JMJ
Bev: hand clapping is for God, not for man. Anne T. when the Priest says to offer the Sign of Peace, and you go into your own little shell, you are doing two things: 1st. you are in disobedience of the Priest, whom is your superior and it shows complete disrespect to one of God’s servants; very much of what “sister” Teresa Kane did to our Holy and Blessed Father, Pope John Paul and it shows your hatred towards your fellow sister and brother, by telling them that they are not worthy to be in your company. Mary Lou: GERMS? It is too bad that you never followed Mother Teresa around picking up people from the gutters in her ARMS and not only treating the wounds, but she as many Holy Saints, would kiss the wounds. Pope John Paul was hesitant at first to even go near these poor people, but, Mother showed him not to be afraid. Now, I just bet, that if someone had money in their hands, you would not only grab that piece of paper that is FULL OF GERMS, but, you would then SHAKE THAT PERSONS HAND AS WELL!! HYPROCRATE!!! For those that won’t raise their hands to Heaven, when adoring God: Are you better than Jesus or Our Blessed Mother or any of the Saints. This is normal. Have a Blessed and Holy Life. +JMJ+

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:36 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Calm down, JMJ. I would love it if we would stop attacking our fellow Catholics over honest sharing on these posts. Simply stating our opinions should not get us verbally knocked across the room by, what is this? Christian love?

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 9:01 AM By Canisius
Bob One you first of all do not attend a traditional parish, the Mass is not a community event, it is the reenactment of the Christ’s sacrifice at calvary. Yes the 99 percent are wrong and that same 99 percent gave us a protestantized NO Mass. I distrust communities….looking forward to the continued challenging of the NO’ers.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 10:03 AM By k
Bob One, I would like to share with you something I heard Servant of God Fulton J. Sheen say: “It is not a community. It’s a communion.” Also, when the people on CCD talk about traditional parishes they mean those independent of the Church who use the Traditional Latin Rite.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 11:25 AM By pete
JLS, To be accurate one must refine your statement as to whom one can say are members of the VISIBLE CHURCH. I agree that all APOSTOLIC CHURCHES THAT ARE NOT HERETICAL ON THE TRINITY AND INCARNATION-REDEMPTION are SUBSTANTIALLY members of the Christ’s Catholic Church and have the ordinary means of salvation and sanctification BUT ARE IN VISIBLE SCHISM THOUGH NOT IN COMPLETE SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH . NON APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, though they have a SACRAMENTAL RELATION TO THE CHURCH IF THEY HAVE VALID BAPTISM BUT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH [If they aren’t baptized (like some Pentecostals etc, because they think Baptism is just an optional expression of faith) they are Catechumens in error and separated from the visible Church of Christ. You can not say a Baptist is a member of the Church, since the Church is the VISIBLE COMMUNION OF ONE .FAITH, SACRAMENTAL LIFE AND CHARITY INFALLIBLY JOINED TO HER INVISIBLE HEAD CHRIST HIMSELF AND THE STATES OF THE CHURCH IN HEAVEN AND PURGATORY.Thus there are schisms between and within Apostolic members of the One, H, C Church and separations of those OUTSIDE the visible Body of the Church, who, nevertheless, have SOME TRACES OF the CATHOLIC CHURCH WORKING FOR SALVATION.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:11 PM By JLS
pete, your phrase is grammatically incorrect, “to whom one can say are members”: Because your word, “whom”, is in the nominative place and thus case, the word has to be “who” … “who … are members” puts it in the nominative. Now I’ll try to wade through the rest of your post.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:13 PM By Anne T.
JMJ, rebellion creates rebellion. A rebellious priest creates rebellion against himself. I was told by priests faithful to the Magesterium and the rubrics that we are not to hold hands during the Mass. Have you got that!

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:15 PM By JLS
pete, my statement was not incorrect, as you point out. My point was not to elaborate on the claim, but to put the claim up against two common errors, one that Protestants among others are not members of the Church; if they were not, then they would not be Christians, for Christ has only one Church. Second, and more difficult to grasp is that the Church consists of souls, not ideas, not doctrines, not canons, but souls.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:18 PM By Anne T.
Also, JMJ, I and many others were taught that we were to sing in choirs and do other good deeds for the Lord, not for applause and praise for ourselves. Clapping is not for the Lord. In many chuches the choir is in the back in a loft so people do not even know who there are. There are singing for the Lord not for the applause.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:21 PM By Anne T.
K, not all traditional Latin Masses are independent. Many have been approved by their bishops. In fact the Vatican now allows any priest to perform the Traditional Latin Mass, without permission of the bishop, if he so choses.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:36 PM By Anne T.
By the way, JMJ, you did misread one of my posts. I do give the sign of peace by either shaking hands, if it is not the winter season and another person puts out their hands and I do not have a cold, or I slightly bow. It is the hand holding during the Our Father that I refuse to do, and no one has to do that because it is a liturgical abuse. It is not in the missals or any other of the liturgical books.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:44 PM By Anne T.
Also, JMJ, no one, including a bishop can force a woman to hold the hand of a man who is not her husband.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:57 PM By Anne T.
Another thing, JMJ, some priests were being encouraged to wash the feet of women during the Holy Thursday ritual. They refused. It bothered them, and I do not think I have to explain it in detail to you. Priests are men not robots.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 12:58 PM By k
Anne T., yes, you are correct. The term Bob One used was tradtional parish. I do not know of any diocesan parishes that are reserved solely for the EF. There may be some run by orders such as FSSP.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM By Anne T.
K, quite frankly I did not read Bob’s post before this, but Bob seems to think if one does not hold hands during the Our Father, one is unsocialable. That is not necessarily true. I socialize outside the church or in the hall. I have no problem with that. I know and socialize at different times with many people from many different Catholic churchs, in person and over the internet. I just do not want to do it during the Mass. To me it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not partytime.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 1:23 PM By Anne T.
K, you might ask Bob what he means by “traditional”. There is at least one Traditional Latin Mass Oratory (parish) in California, perhaps others, but it definitely does not do hand holding.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 1:27 PM By k
I agree with you. I hate holding hands during the Our Father-it reminds me of kindergarten and I can’t pray the prayer when I do it. Many parishes stopped when the swine flu scare hit a couple of years ago, but not the one I attend. The worst part for me is that my son will not believe me that holding hands (and raising them at “For thine is the kingdom…AAARGH) is not the way it should be done. Catholic schools…you know.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 2:33 PM By Frank
Not mentioned but that absolutely horrible “song” Gather Us In. I refuse to sing it. Never mentions God or Christ or the Holy Spirit….everything depends on us, right? And that horrible phrase….”not in some heaven light years away.” SPARE ME.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 3:54 PM By k
Frank, I concur. It’s horrible. I also remember one Easter Sunday when instead of traditional hymns, like “Jesus Christ is Risen Today”, our choir sang “Lord of the Dance.”

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 4:35 PM By Anne T.
To be fair, much of this was brought into the churches by liturgists and not the priests themselves. Many of the liturgists were men and women who had no idea what was proper or improper. They tried different things for the novelty of it all, and in many cases it has been disaster. The Adoremus Bulletin website will answer any questions about the propriety of anything used in the liturgy. They are experts on it.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 6:23 PM By JLS
The Sign of Peace is permitted to be done at the beginning of Mass … gets it out of the way that way.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 6:24 PM By JLS
To persuade people not to raise arms, wear a tank top … they will move away quickly.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 7:44 PM By Anne T.
JLS, I believe that technically Pete’s post at 11:25 AM is correct according to the actual teachings of the Magesterium. We sometimes use the term Protestant churches, but that is actual inaccurate under Canon Law or Church Law. The Orthodox are called chuches by the Catholic Church as they are just in schism but have a valid priesthood and sacraments, but the original Protestant communities were in heresy. There is a difference between schism and heresy. One having a valid priesthood and sacraments and the other not having a valid priesthood or sacraments. The Catholic Church does accept the baptism of some Protestant communities but not all.. I hope I have explained it properly.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:13 PM By Catherine
Anne T. Wow! Great posts! I see you’ve been eating your Wheaties!

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:56 PM By JLS
I’m going over to youtube and pull up “When” which I heard in the supermarket this evening.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 10:46 PM By JLS
Nope, can’t recommend that movie … bad ending.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 10:48 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Anne T., I believe that the Church recognizes baptism in almost all mainstream Protestant denominations, but since overall denominations number in the hundreds, the Church does not recognize the little offshoot Protestant denominations of which most of us have never heard. One well-known exception is the Mormon Church, which is not recognized as a mainstream Protestant religion, despite its size, for reasons that are based in its beliefs and practices, which differ markedly from Christianity as we know it and can in no way be considered part of our religion.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:52 AM By Anne T.
Yes, Maryanne Leonard, although the majority of Mormons are good people on the moral issues, their theology is “off base”, and most of them do accept some type of artificial contraception.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:41 AM By Warren Goddard
JLS “outside the Church”? “We declare, say and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human ceature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. Unam Sanctum.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:42 AM By pete
JLS, with apologies for grammar, Ann T is correctly understanding what I wrote and correct as to the REALITY of the relation to Christ’s Church of non-Apostolic Christians. It does not follow that because they are Christians they are members of the Church, Christians who believe in the Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption and who accept the moral law AND ARE BAPTIZED PROPERLY ARE IN CHRIST THE HEAD BUT HAVE ONLY AN INVISIBLE THOUGH REAL RELATION TO THE BODY OF CHRIST.This is the teaching of the Church. Those who BELIEVE IN THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES MENTIONED ABOVE AND ARE NOT BAPTIZED, ARE CATECHUMENS, IT IS MOOT IF THEY HAVE THE GRACE OF BAPTISM (Christ can bestow that in an extraordinary way, but there is no assurance that that is the case and it may vary from individual to individual In any case that grace of Faith received is ORDERED TO VISIBLE MEMBERSHIP WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, though that may not ever happen on earth. They can not be said to belong to the Church on earth, which is THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES IN PRESENT TIME. The grace of Justification is ORDINARILY given through the Sacrament of Baptism, and recovered after serious sin by the Sacrament of Penance. It is POSSIBLE that these graces can be bestowed EXTRAORDINARILY BY CHRIST but it is NOT ASSURED THAT THEY ARE. In some cases it is PROBABLE THAT THE GRACE HAS BEEN GIVEN OR RECOVERED AFTER SERIOUS SIN.since Christ by virtue of the Incarnation is in PHYSICAL relation to each and every human being created and as God can bestow graces outside his NORMAL WAY. This DOES MEAN that there nevertheless some Christians that belong to the Soul of Christ though not to His Body and some to the Body without the Soul, as St Augustine taught and the Church agrees with. This may account for the apparent fact that SANCTITY among then never reaches the level of our canonized (exception are martyrs) since they at BEST have only two Sacraments :Baptism and Marriage, whereas the Orthodox obviously DO..

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 11:15 AM By k
Maryanne Leonard, any baptism which is done in the Trinitarian form (some just baptize in the name of Jesus) where the intention is to do what the Catholic Church does is accepted. If there is doubt about it, a person entering the Church can be baptized conditionally. “If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:16 PM By JLS
There are two protestant churches. One of them is ideas, and the other is people. What is the intent of each individual member of a protestant church? It is this intent, and not some phony intent but an intent based on what the individual actually is informed of faithwise. Is, for example, that individual protestant growing in true faith or otherwise? When I was a protestant, I grew in faith until I ran into Catholic doctrine (in the Bible of all places … amazing but true), which moved me into communion with the pope. Now Catholic I still continue to grow in faith through the Sacraments (although sometimes awfully slowly).

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:21 PM By JLS
In other words, an individual who is not growing, ie has no faith dynamics, is a spiritual vegetable, no matter whether Catholic or protestant. Jesus spits out the lukewarm, the presumptuous, the static soul; yet, He can work with those who are passionate about God, either for or against. Because it is they who recognize God, and not the lukewarm who are so apathetic that they do not care, believing the lie that they have arrived and need bother no further about faith. Every committment or promise a Catholic makes requires action, unending action — because God is pure action and we are made in His Image and Likeness, and thus faithfully increase our action as our inaction decreases … as St Paul says, from glory to glory until that final day when we are merged totally with Pure Action.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:23 PM By Anne T.
Pete and K, regarding your last posts at 10:42 AM and 11:15 AM, you are correct. I use the term Protestant far too often as before I converted that was what most of my family members called themselves. I believe the Magesterium of the Catholic Church now uses the term Separated Brethren for those Protestants about whom Pete wrote. It means that although they are Christians in some sense of the word, they are not fully incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church, since they do still hold some heretical doctrines. K, although I was baptized in the Methodist community, by sprinkling, in the name of the Holy Trinity, I was rebaptized into the Catholic Church conditionally, by the formula you mentioned in your post. The reason was that the Catholic Church requires that the water at least be poured over the forehead or some part of the person’s head.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 6:29 PM By Anne T.
Also, JMJ I should tell you that it is best to use a hand sanitizer after using money if your hands need to be clean for any reason. I was once trained in first aide and was on a triage. As far as Mother Teresa, she was probably immune to most germs as she lived in an area where they were so common, and they did not have many pairs of gloves. Although, Mother Teresa probably did not use gloves most of the time, I am sure she must have sanitized her hands by more primitive methods, sometimes just plain soap.I was trained to use gloves and so are all my medical providers, but that is because they are plentiful in this country.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:34 PM By Anne T.
The editor did some editing on my last post. I do not mind, but it did make my last post somewhat unclear. Mostly what I was trying to get across to JMJ in my last post is that I do know something about “picking someone up off the street”. One of the first things people are told in a first aid (I misspelled it before) class is that one is not to put oneself in any unnecessary danger as an injured or dead person cannot help someone else. In other words, take care of yourself and get rid of a danger to yourself first before going into an area to help someone else. I am sure Mother Teresa knew about that, and if she did kiss the wounds of those she helped, I am sure she did it in a way that was no danger to herself, the patient or her helpers. In other words, so she did not spread an infection to herself, her helpers and other patients.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:54 PM By Angelo
This Thread reminds me of articles in the “Wanderer” in the 80’s addressing this very problem during Mass. They said concerning all this, “Pass the Martini’s and REALLY make it a party!” Shocking, that things are worse now than then.

Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:07 PM By Anne T.
For all any of us know, many of the people who posted who did not want to get “germs” on their hands might have small sickly children or fragile elderly parents at home, and they do not want to spread any viruses or infections to them that could be deadly for certain people. It does not mean they are doing it our of pure selfishness on their part..

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:03 AM By Warren Goddard
pete wrote “It is POSSIBLE that these graces [of Justification] can be bestowed EXTRAORDINARILY BY CHRIST but it is NOT ASSURED THAT THEY ARE” Be assured that they are not for the dogmatic Council of Thrent tought that without the Sacrament of Baptism no man was ever justified.

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:23 PM By Canisius
K your response to Bob One was perfect, I usually just cannot tolerate even talking to liberals because of the wreckage they have caused to the Church

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 2:19 PM By JonJ
People waste so much time and vitriol worrying about trivialities. Gosh, are people so desperate to come up with reasons to think themselves superior to other people that they will start criticizing “unholy” breathing patterns?

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:00 PM By JLS
Not what I read, Warren.

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:02 PM By pete
Warren Goddard. The Council of Trent includes in the word Baptism through water and the Trinitarian formula, baptism by Desire and by Blood. Baptism by Desire makes it possible for those not baptized sacramentally to be saved and thus somehow justified.

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:34 PM By JLS
“somehow justified” means that Jesus is our justification.

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:18 PM By Anne T.
Jon J, if you practice the Jesus Prayer the Othodox teach their people a proper way to breathe. If one does not do it right, they can go into a trance and it can kill you. So I guess there really is an “unholy” way of breathing for some. (Lots of laughs.)

Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:28 PM By Anne T.
There is also, Jon J, an easier, safer method of saying the Jesus Prayer by just using the name Jesus, which is taught by some Catholic priests. There is no danger of the person going into a trance, but it lowers stress and probably one’s blood pressure. So I guess you can call that “holy breathing”.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 12:20 AM By pete
JLS Well, of course! By the grace of the Holy Spirit and thus belong to the SOUL of the Body of Christ BUT NOT YET TO THE BODY AND THE SOUL AT ONCE. And by justification one means eventually when one dies. Our Lord is free to use His left hand as well as His right. The full and ORDINARY WAY IS IN THE COMMUNION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS etc. such that those saved and thus eventually justified are saved by the WHOLE CHRIST HEAD AND MEMBERS, THUS BY THE ENTIRE CHURCH WITH MARYAS PERFECT PERSONIFICATION AND UNIVERSAL MEDIATRIX BY A SPECIAL GRACE. So no one is saved without the Church interceeding, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THOSE SO SAVED ARE VISIBLE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 7:12 AM By MacDonald
Time to use our inside voice…

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 8:08 AM By JLS
pete, in addition to caps would you also put some of the letters in bold face, some in italics, some with different colors so that it is easier to read?

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 10:04 AM By pete
JLS My PC is an old laptop that does not provide those options in posting comments to articles, so I’m left with one option Capitalization. If it makes the recipient slow down in order to read, that would be good, since this medium does not lend itself to reflection on the text but encourages speed reading. Thanks for the attempt to help though.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 10:57 AM By MacDonald
Killed by the Jesus Prayer? I think not. It’s a wonderful prayer, good for focusing on the Lord, asking for his mercy and grace, and calming one’s mind. Not afraid of dying while doing this prayer…

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:26 AM By Mary Lou 
Re feb 17th 8 am post from JMJ: you call me a hypocrit, well, I am not going to defend myself on that, because Our Lord knows me far better than you ever will know me, so I will not be offended by that, but I do feel very sorry for you having such a sour outlook on someone else’s opinion. Being a retired nurse, a good Christian one by the way, I am very conscious of germs. And yes, I would gladly accept money from someone else’s hand, but I’m just not comfortable with hand shaking, in most situations. So please do not sit in judgement of me, that is God’s job. God bless you JMJ.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 1:10 PM By bev
Catherine 2/16 1:39p – FYI I do not sing in the choir at my church.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 2:27 PM By bev
Failure to stand during the Our Father when everyone else is doing so, is a sign of disrespect towards others around you. You are not attending a Mass just for you. Although I do not attend the TLM, if ever I was in the position of doing so, I would certainly observe all the rubrics as an act of courtesy towards those nearby. In doing so, we are presenting ourselves to God as a reverent group of people. We also need to be aware when traveling that a few rubrics can change from diocese to diocese. When in Rome…

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 4:21 PM By Anne T.
Mac Donald, yes the Jesus Prayer is wonderful when said the ordinary way. I use two methods myself at times. Nevertheless, in some countries the teaching monks teach the people to say it a certain way using a special advanced breathing technique, which can be dangerous if the person does not do it in the proper manner. That is why they have special teachers called staritzs. I do not think I spelled that correctly, but I cannot look it up now. I do not think Eastern Rite Catholics or Latin rite Catholics teach that method, though, but I could be wrong.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 4:31 PM By Anne T.
Mac Donald, certain types of pagan Eastern meditation can be dangerous too if the person goes into a trance. That is one reason why Christians avoid types of meditations where the mind is emptied and use the Jesus Prayer or the name of Jesus as a praise mantra instead. One can also use words such as Holy Theotokas pray for us. That is a prayer to the God Bearer (the Virgin Mary) asking for her intercession as you probably already know.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 4:44 PM By Anne T.
Bev, everyone should stand for the Our Father as it is in the rubrics and the General Instructions to the Roman Missal unless they are handicapped in some way and must stay seated, but we do not have to hold hands. It is not in the rubrics or the General Instructions to the Roman Missal. It is a novelty brought into some churchs. We also should not judge those who stay seated or do not hold or shake hands as they could have medical problems or a virus. Most priests understand this, and any priest who would not take this into consideration is being un charitable, and so are the laity who do not consider this.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 7:05 PM By warren Goddard
pete, there is no baptism of desire in Thrent. Thre is the water of regeneration and the desire for it; both together necessary for Justification.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 8:22 PM By bev
Anne, my comment was made primarily for Life Lady, 2/16 6:46a. Of course, people who are not well or who have sore knees, should be excused standing/kneeling during Mass.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 9:22 PM By Anne T.
Oh, I see the post of Life Lady’s that you mean, bev. Life Lady is kneeling as is done in the Traditional Mass for the Our Father, but standing can also be a sign of honoring the Lord at the appropriate time if it is in the missals and liturgical books, and it is.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:49 PM By pete
One interprets a Council in continuity with the Tradition and DOES NOT ISOLATE IT APART FROM THE WHOLE. In any case, all who are saved are justified. Not all who are saved are members of the Church on earth. Those who have been baptized outside the Church are nevertheless baptized with the Catholic Sacrament and have the grace of justification (sanctifying grace) ; should they lose this by mortal sin, it is POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO GRANT THE REGENERATION OF THE SOUL BY THE STRONG DESIRE OF REPENTANCE, but we can have no certitude of this, though there can be HINTS it may have happened, such as complete change of life that only grace could accomplish. Such people are not members of the Church as the visible Body of Christ, though would be joined to Christ through the Soul of the Church, the Holy Spirit. With the Sacraments we KNOW infallibly the grace is offered, if there is no positive obstacle in the recipient’s will. That certitude does not exist for those outside the Church who sin after Bapism and do not have the Sacrament of Penance available.God is not limited by the ordinary way but we can not presume it is offered or received outside the Sacrament, EVEN THOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE. Likewise those not baptized outside the Church can have a strong desire for baptism, equivalent to catechumens. God can grant that outside the actual reception of the Sacrament, yet no one can be assured of that. The point is that Grace is not limited to the Ordinary means of the Sacraments, God can and does act extraordinarily because of His Great Mercy, WE can not actually know if this has happened in a particular case, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. But such persons are not members of the visible Church, until they should be moved by grace to seek and be received. This does not contradict Trent’s explanation of the Ordinary way of justification. And though possible, we can not know WHEN justification would take place, Thus the importance of the Ordinary way of justification, and God’s Mercy.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:58 AM By ANNE
Anne T., holding hands, mimicing the Priest by raising arms, giving the sign of Peace to those not near are all LAITY ABUSES of the MASS, and as you have stated are not part of GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal). Parish Priests should correct the Laity or it should be reported to the Diocese Bishop. Due to arthritis in the knees, I can’t kneel, and I do not shake hands but merely smile and mouth “peace” only to those on each side of me, since GIRM is very clear that peace should only be given to those near (next) to you. If enough of us behave properly, it will eventually catch on.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:51 AM By Anne T.
Anne, regarding you post Feb. 21 at 1:58 AM, you are exactly right. One can gently wave the hand to a relative or friend who is further away without upsetting anyone else too.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:06 AM By Anne T.
I would add that since we are all human, we all have broken some of these conventions at times, quite often in innocence. I know that when I have not seen someone for quite some time and see them in church, I have sometimes gotten excited and spoken too loudly, so we all need to correct others charitably and try to talk outside the sanctuary whenever possible, or quietly so we do not disturb the prayers of others.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:01 PM By Anne T.
Of course, I am not saying that one should stand for the Our Father at a Traditional Latin Mass , Extraordinary Mass, as their rubrics and Missals are different from the post Vatican II Masses, and they kneel for the Our Father which is perfectly appropriate for that type of Mass.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:39 PM By Warren
pete, doctrinal definitions are immutable; not open to interpretation. Only Catholics are saved from Hell; “outside the Church there is no salvation”. Lateran Council IV There is but one Baptism; that of water. “Baptism of Desire” is at best but a theory. Desire alone does not incorporate. There is no such thing as being out side the Church and joined to the Soul. God cannot act extraordinarily with the sanctifying grace of Baptism. Justification takes place by the Sacrament of of Baptism.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:45 PM By Anne T.
And yes, Mac Donald in our quiet indoor voices. Are you a teacher?

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:38 PM By JLS
Blessed Mary Ever Virgin along with some other women and St John stood at the foot of the Cross during the fulfillment of the first Mass (note: theological speculation on my part here). Can it be that the Church is wanting us all to be standing with them and praying the Our Father at this point in the Mass? But there likely were people on their knees at that moment as well.

Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:42 PM By JLS
Not only are there priests who sway with the crowds instead of stay with the Lord, yet there are priests who put themselves on death’s doorstep every time they say Mass, and their sermons show it. Everything they’ve got is fully devoted to God and the Mystical Body of Christ, and those who hopefully gain membership in Christ.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:45 AM By pete
Warren, The principle is right, the conclusion you make is wrong: confer Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th ed. 1960, pg356, par 4,2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism the LONG excursus from the Tradition. You’re taking the teaching separated from the Tradition and in a literalist way (fundamentalistically). The Vatican under Pius XII condemned Fr. Feeney’s assertion that only members of the visible Catholic Church can be saved. Secondly, there is development of doctrine,ie, deeper and fuller understanding of a dogma that maintains the substance of the truth in it but in a fuller context and deeper meaning. That truth is that the Church is necessary for salvation of all. And THAT is because the Church (in 3 states: Heaven, Purgatory, visibly on earth=ONE CHURCH) IS INFALLIBLY JOINED TO CHRIST THE HEAD, WHO IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF SALVATION. THAT means that the WHOLE CHRIST HEAD AND MEMBERS TOGETHER is necessary for salvation of all.The conclusion is, WHOEVER IS SAVED IS SAVED THROUGH THE WHOLE CHRIST HEAD AND MEMBERS, ie. NOT WITHOUT THE CHURCH IS SALVATION, (i.e. interceeding). This is confirmed by Fatima, where O.Lady said that many sinners were lost BECAUSE THERE WERE NO BELIEVERS PRAYING AND DOING PENANCE THEM,( with no limitation on the word sinners!) and by the Divine Mercy revelation, in which Our Lord Himself said He would refuse no grace for mercy for others at the hour he gave over his spirit and died, etc. Cf the Catechism of CC index and the WHOLE teaching on salvation.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:09 PM By Warren
pete, The Ott catechism says that the Sacrament of Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation and then in contradiction gives substitures for it. In the hierarchy of authoritative teaching, catechisms are way down on the list. Though Ludwig Ott was a baptism of desire supporter he said it does not confer Church membership. The Vatican vindicated FR. Feeney and has said that his followers may teach as he taught. Development of a doctrine can not change its meaning as defined. The defined salvation doctrine is “OUTSIDE the Church there is no salvation” There is no “WITHOUT the Church there is no salvation” doctrine. Fatima and DIvine Mercy are privare; not of the Church.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:48 PM By PAUL
There are catechisms with errors – per Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) in the ‘Ratzinger Report’. The first official “Catechism of the Catholic Church” was written over 500 years ago by St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Charles Borromeo. The second official “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” was available in the USA in March 2000. Forget the other catechisms and stick with the CORRECT and OFFICAL versions. “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5)

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:41 PM By JLS
Phrases such as “baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation” are vague because they do not treat the individual, but rather an idea. It is critical to differentiate an idea from a person. This is one of the genius aspects of Bl John Paul II’s life work of philosophy of the person. He went to the trouble to lay out the theology of human nature in its individual and personal essense. The Church is people, not ideas.

Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:02 PM By JLS
Warren, when a soul is in a condition of salvation, then they are obviously not outside the Church. When a soul is not in a salvation condition, then they are outside the Church. There are two states, one being in the Church and one being outside of the Church. Jesus can save anyone He chooses to save; St Paul eg was at one time outside the Church, but was taken up to the Third Heaven and into the Church. Had there been no Church, then there would have been no salvation. But there has been the Church for twothousand years now, and salvation has been happening in this span of history. Interesting also, Warren, is that souls who died prior to the genesis of the Church have been saved … to wit, the Transfiguration. Now, I’ve tried to show the difference between the Church and what is outside the Church from several different perspectives. Warren, you have not taken up the challenge to define “outside the Church” … so, what’s keeping you?

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:30 AM By Warren
I deny that Ott CONTRADICTS himself. Fundamental theology is that branch of it that finds out what are the doctininal facts and to what degree, Scripture and Tradition, which includes Liturgy, Fathers of the Church. Note that his long discursus DOES JUST THAT. He traces the WAY THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD the necessity of Baptism. Since Pentecost Christ from Heaven can send the Holy Spirit anyway He chooses. We know that Baptism into Christ through the Sacrament is the ORDINARY way of salvation. It is not a contradiction for Him to go beyond the Ordinary. Feeney was reconciled to the Church but NOT on the basis that only Catholics can be saved. After many years he came around to accept the authority of the Church. There is no CHANGE in development of doctrine if the same teaching is SEEN IN A LARGER CONTEXT. This often done by an intuition of the spiritual sense. You are looking at the teaching from a narrow context, One can look at it from a larger context, such as the Divine Intention of saving all by granting all sufficient grace to be saved. Obviously those who are outside of the visible Church on earth are among those who have sufficient grace to be saved. OUTSIDE can be meant in two ways: a negative material one of physical place, such as you are meaning, and a positive spiritual meaning : WITH the Church there is salvation. Thus persons outside the Church physically can be WITH the Church BY A RELATION OF GRACE FROM THE CHURCH TO THOSE PERSONS, The spiritual sense of OUTSIDE and WITH the Church are a words with a complementary MEANING. Fatima is a PUBLIC PROPHECY (the miracle of the sun seen by 70,000 proves this) BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE REVELATION. As such it places an obligation upon the Church to LISTEN to the Prophecy, which is the WAY GOD LOOKS AT OUR WORLD’S SITUATION AND HOW HE WANTS US TO RESPOND. While one can not be REQUIRED TO ACCEPT IT, when the Church discerns it is supernatural, ONE IS A FOOL NOT TO and there will be consequences viz WWII.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:36 AM By Dottie
Thanks PAUL. Theologians made the mess after Vatican II. There are some good theologians and many with twisted thinking. To accurately know your faith, stick to the “CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”. Do not rely on theologians and bloggers unless you KNOW your Faith fully, so you can refute their errors.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:16 AM By Warren Goddard
Paul, You are correct. There are only two papally approved catechisms in existence; Trent and CCC and both have errors. For example, CCC corrections are on going: see “CCC Modifications from the Editia Typica” of 1998. JlS, The phrase “baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation” being vague, try people connected “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”. John 3:5 by which Our Lord bound man and Himself to the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church is people of faith accepting and believing what the Church has infallibly taught because She so teaches. Outside the Church is where there is no salvation; defined as not inside the Church and inside the Church is where there is salvation; defined as where “The priest himself, Jesus Christ, is the victim, his body and blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of bread and wine, transubstantiated by the divine power-the bread into his body and the wine into his blood-that, for the enacting of the mystery of unity, we may take from his substance as he himself took from our substance; and outside this Church no one at all is saved”. Latern IV. A development of this this dogma to have it mean that- those physically outside the “visable” Church are saved outside by some spiritual union with Her- is to deny it. There is no such thing as the invisible Church. Fr. Feeney’s centure was disciplinary. His was reconciled without abjuration thus vindicating his theology. Warren, the Ott catechism (not Ott) condradicts itself. At Fatima Our Lady spoke of sinners as those in mortal sin. The unbaptized can not be in mortal sin.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:04 PM By OSCAR
Warren, you are misleading people that there are ongoing errors being fixed in the CCC. There were translation errors only, Anyone who has the ‘CCC 2nd Ed’ first published in the USA in March 2000, has the correct copy. No one is working on making other changes. The front of the accurate translation should state: “Second Edition, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II.” This edition has been available for the past 12 years in the USA. – Nothing else is new.

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:32 PM By bev
JLS: 2/22 4:41p Right on! (Had to read it 2X!)

Posted Friday, February 24, 2012 3:03 AM By Warren
OSCAR, You are correct. Correction of 1994 mistranslations is finished; the errors remain.

Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 9:15 AM By Richard
Maybe it’s already here somewhere — perhaps I missed it — but did anyone mention my favorite phrase: “The Lord is with us.”? To which we are supposed to respond (?), “And also with (?) … them (?)” I’ve actually been told that it’s the domain of the priests to make up their own script, whereas the people in the pews are required to stick with their own. Doesn’t that beat all!