Name of Church Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Address 2121 S. Rural Road, Tempe AZ 85282
Phone number 480-967-8791
Website www.olmctempe.com
Mass times Saturday vigil, 5 p.m. Sunday, 7 a.m., 9 a.m., 11 a.m. & 5 p.m. Monday – Friday, 6:30 a.m. & 8 a.m. Saturday, 8 a.m.
Confessions Saturdays, 3 p.m.
Names of priests Father John Bonavitacola, pastor. Frather Camilo de Villa, parochial vicar. Father Bonavitacola is a faithful priest, a strong homilist, a talented writer, a supporter of 40 days for Life and a Courage chaplain (the Catholic Church’s ministry for persons with same-sex attractions). He’s also publicly shared that he’s a recovering alcoholic, 25 years sober, and has a sensitivity to those struggling with these addictions. Read his letters here; listen to his homilies here.
School Yes, K-8.
Special parish groups and activities Adoration Mondays & First Fridays; Living Rosary Groups; Catholics Come Home; Full Circle (for youth at risk); Knights of Columbus; Meals for Moms; Ministry of Care; Our Lady’s Men of Christ; Pro-Life Ministries; Rosary Makers; Sacred Silence Meditation Group; St. Vincent de Paul Society.
Fellow parishioners Tempe is a Phoenix suburb.
Parking There is a large lot behind the church.
Additional observations Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish was established in 1932; the current church was built in 1968.
If a church does not have a traditional Latin/extraordinary form Mass, it is not worth driving to.
Heretic.
another TLM/EF nut.
caritas: another NO/OF nut.
Warren thats fine. Im sure that is how you feel and thats ok. But please dont discourage others who need to look for a parish that have holy OF mass that are done in accordance to GIRM. They need to meet their Sunday obligation. So with that in mind, lets pray for the salvation of all. Help them attend Holy Mass and be open to the graces needed to help them obtain salvation. Pax Christi.
@warren memlib. Lighten up and move on.
Dear Anon:
How am I a “heretic” with my above comment?
Or with its reciprocal or corollary? – namely: If a church has a traditional Latin/extraordinary form Mass, it is worth driving to.
“Warren Memlib” is correct: all Catholic Churches that say the TLM/EF are noteworthy, and an object of attention.
As recent history within the Catholic Church has shown, the TLM is a precious gift, one that has been fought against by almost every priest and bishop in the Catholic Church over the past 50 or so years. Thanks to Benedict XVI, we have Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, modern foundational documents for Catholic worship.
No, all “licit” Catholic masses are not the same, and the literature is vast on the extraordinary graces obtained through the TLM that are not available with the N.O. Further, the TLM focuses on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, while the N.O. focuses almost exclusively on the “meal” (to avoid offending Protestants). For this reason, Bishop Sample (Portland) said recently that he will require all priests to learn the Latin Mass (and Bishop Sample often says the N.O. in Latin, and ad Orientum). FInally, the TLM also fosters the sense of the sacred regarding the Eucharist. No women clulster around the altar and distribute the Host like so many Girl Scout cookies (while “blessing” people that come to communion). In the TLM, only a priest touches the Host and gives out communion (on the tongue, while the communicant is kneeling).
The current institutional Church is vested in the N.O., and its theology (with more changes likely to come in October) has come to favor the informal and the sloppy.
St Christopher, please stop rewriting what Warren wrote. He did NOT offer that all parishes that offer TLM are worthy of driving to – which, if he had said that would not have been objectionable. What he DID say is that a Church that does not offer TLM is not worthy of driving to. So first, Warren offers the heretical implication that ordinary masses are not worth driving to. Then, you come along and lie about what he wrote. That lie is not heretical, but it is indeed sinful just the same.
‘Worth driving to’ would indicate that there is something unique going on somewhere. If the mass being offered is the same as can be found 2 miles away, why would another chapel be considered ‘Worth driving to?’
Your spidey-sense for what constitutes sin is off, Anonymous, and looking for offenses that just aren’t there. That said, your continued calumny against individuals is a serious issue…. for you.
Thank you St. Christopher!
Taken from liturgy guy website:
The Pastoral Necessity for Priests to Know the Latin Mass
SEP 14
Posted by liturgy guy
“Pastoral. That’s the buzzword today. We have heard it repeated ad nauseum. The Church needs to be pastoral in Her response to the faithful. And yet, at times, we do not see that same approach being applied to the faithful who long for the Traditional Latin Mass. Instead, we still hear views expressed like those above. A true recognition of the necessity for priests to know both forms of the Mass in the Roman Rite is still deemed by many to be superfluous.
At the same time, I have discussed this with priests who know both masses. To a man, the priests I have spoken with who are able to offer both forms of the Roman Rite believe they are better for being able to do so. Their understanding of the true sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the theology and spirituality of the mass, is further enhanced by their knowledge of the older liturgy.”
https://liturgyguy.com/2014/09/14/the-pastoral-necessity-for-priests-to-know-the-latin-mass/
continued…
St. Christopher does not lie. You have lied about his faithful intentions. Shame on you. St. Christopher is encouraging the same pastoral care and knowledge that Archbishop Sample spoke about. Read where Archbishop Sample says “Even if you never have a chance to celebrate it, knowing it, experiencing it, I guarantee you will affect the way you celebrate the ordinary form. It will do so.”
St. Christopher is also encouraging the attaining of more knowledge in the pursuit of holiness and being “pastoral”.
Taken from liturgy guy website:
“And that’s why, too, for this liturgy to flourish in the Church is a great blessing, and I’m not at all embarrassed or ashamed to be celebrating this liturgy. I’m sure it will raise a few eyebrows. But it’s the liturgy of the Church; it’s a liturgy permitted by the Church; it’s a liturgy even encouraged by the Church.
I learned this liturgy when Summorum Pontificum came out. I’d never celebrated it before as a priest or in my early years as a bishop. I had always been interested in it but had never taken the time to learn it. When Summorum Pontificum came out and the Holy Father said: this is one of the forms of the Latin Rite, the extraordinary form. I said, ‘I am a bishop of the Church, I must know this rite.’ And I encourage my priests and my seminarians to learn and to know this rite.
“taken from the ‘liturgy guy’ website”. Are you frickin kidding me right now? the ‘liturgy guy’ website!?
….language, mous, language.
Once again….
“And that’s why, too, for this liturgy to flourish in the Church is a great blessing, and I’m not at all embarrassed or ashamed to be celebrating this liturgy. I’m sure it will raise a few eyebrows. But it’s the liturgy of the Church; it’s a liturgy permitted by the Church; it’s a liturgy even encouraged by the Church.
I learned this liturgy when Summorum Pontificum came out. I’d never celebrated it before as a priest or in my early years as a bishop. I had always been interested in it but had never taken the time to learn it. When Summorum Pontificum came out and the Holy Father said: this is one of the forms of the Latin Rite, the extraordinary form. I said, ‘I am a bishop of the Church, I must know this rite.’ And I encourage my priests and my seminarians to learn and to know this rite.
Even if you never have a chance to celebrate it, knowing it, experiencing it, I guarantee you will affect the way you celebrate the ordinary form. It will do so.” – Archbishop Sample
Anonymous, your vulgar language intent does not do much to get people to want to attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
Bad behavior drives people away.
Al, are you honestly telling me that the bad behavior of those who post here about the TLM is better than the single use of the word “frickin”??? Many TLM advocates come on here and imply that the NO is invalid, or unworthy of driving to, or is unworthy compared to the TLM. Get a frickin clue, my catholic friends. Christ himself makes the NO worthy, and nothing that I say can detract from it or add to it. You all TLM nazies want to make it about whether the rest of us are polite or kind or whatever else. Not so!!! Christ is present in NO, and if you deny that, you deny Christ himself. Get a frickin clue, my friends.
Al all this started because of warrens comments against the OF mass. Stop this mind games your playing. What real agenda do you really have here. This dialogue must not be suppressed because you lack the ability to see the root of it all.
Anonymous you didnt have to reply to Al that way. It can be fustrating at times. But there are better ways.
….your post reads as if you’d countenance any abuse within the liturgy, Anonymous. You may want to get the clue that those who advocate for the TLM do so precisely because they do know Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament and that He deserves our best.
Your misconception of what you are fixed in believing others intend has seemingly blinded you to the implications of your own words.
Anonymous, the vast majority of those who attend the EF (Latin Mass) recognize that both forms of the Mass – EF and OF (vernacular language) are Holy.
Both Forms of the Mass are valid.
Both Forms of the Mass include the Real Presence – the Eucharist.
Most of the complaints about the OF Mass are ABUSES by Priests or the Laity who do NOT adhere to GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) as required.
Sometimes these abuses make a mockery of the Liturgy, other times it is distracting away from the GOD we have come to worship.
GIRM: https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
and
https://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-Pastoral-Letter-with-Decree-Bulletin-Insert.pdf
Unfortunately, many Priests do NOT correct abusive Laity, so it continues and/or gets worse.
And unfortunately we do not even know who is and is not Catholic posting on this or any other site. So you have no idea whom you are accusing, but then you could be a Troll yourself for attacking the EF Mass (we don’t know).
Trolls love to cause dissention. Some trolls use crude language while others do not.
There are a few posters who should better state the actual ‘abuses’, rather than appear to attack either Holy Mass.
All abuses should be reported to the Diocese Bishop.
VATICAN II – “Sacosanctum Concilium” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
# 22.3 “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”
The EF (Latin) Mass must adhere to the 1962 Missal.
No Warren, your statement was heretical because Ordinary Form masses are true masses, in which Jesus Christ offers himself for our salvation. If you don’t believe that witnessing that is worth driving to, or walking to, or getting in an airplane and flying to if you have to, then you are, in fact, a heretic.
And since Our Lord is offering Himself for our salvation, He should be surrounded by the very best that we have to offer in union with His sacrifice. That is why there is such a serious need to educate Catholics about the TLM. So that they will, indeed, understand the very auspicious majesty of what the Sacrifice of the Mass is all about.
That’s not heresy, Anonymous, but common sense.
And just precisely what about Latin makes the sacrifice of the mass “common sense”? If common sense entailed Latin in any form, common sense would entail its use in everyday communication to buy food, to purchase shelter, to interact on Facebook, for crying out loud. Common sense suggests that a salvific act which entails a creator taking on the form of a human would speak the language of those he is trying to save. The savior never uttered a single word in Latin. Latin is neither the language of those he appeared in front of, to Peter and the Apostles, nor is it the language that was used to spread the Gospel, nor is it the language we all use today. Why, therefore, is latin the “best” that you have to offer to his Father? Your argument makes no sense, let alone common sense.
Anonymous good comments. The way you explained it sure conveys another perspective. It sounds humble and charitable. Unlike the comments that degrade the OF. I understand and respect those who love the EF mass but thats no reason to put down the OF mass either. Its disrespectful and a sin. Especially Because both forms are holy when done in accordance. Let us not forget that we also have the Marionrite mass, the Byzantine mass etc. Also beautiful and holy. The Marion Rite its done in our Lord’s Aramaic language too.
Let’s look at the claim that “the Savior never uttered a single word in Latin”, first of all.
In John 18:33-38, Jesus has an exchange with Pilate at the Gabbatha, the Stone Pavement, the place of judgment in the procurator’s palace, which (if we believe the Scriptures are an actual historical account (cf. Dei Verbum, Vat II) shows Him competently speaking in Latin. We know also that Jesus had a fairly intricate exchange with the centurion whose servant was dying (Luke 7:1-8): it is not reasonable to suggest that the centurion had mastered Aramaic: Jesus spoke therefore Latin, being fully informed by his divine nature. So the first claim, that “the Savior never spoke Latin” is false.
Let us look at the second claim that the Apostles, including Peter did not speak Latin nor did they use it to spread the Gospel: Well, this would seem to make nonsense of Peter’s preaching in Rome, and Paul’s witness to all he met in the Mamertine prison in Rome while awaiting their martyrdom under Nero (Acts 28:30-31), Paul “preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence…” We can also look at the preaching and teaching throughout the dying Roman Empire of St. Cyprian, St. Clement, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome—all from the very birth of Christianity. Of course they spoke Latin. So, the claim that Latin was not “the language that was used to spread the Gospel”, nor (implicitly) the language used (as well as Koine Greek) in the preaching of the Peter, Paul, the early Apostolic Fathers and the Western Doctors of the church — well yes, it is Anonymous-nonsense.
Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church since
It is very important because living languages change, the meanings of words change, slang changes meanings, etc.
Latin does not change.
In addition, prior to Bernardin and cronies making a mess, one could go to any Catholic Mass anywhere in the world and it would be the same.
It was understood by all Catholics.
Sunday and Daily Missals always had the local language next to the Latin.
Now one does not know what to expect because too many Priests and Laity are doing their own thing.
In fact, look at the green cover on your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997.
It clearly states: QUOTE ” revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II”. UNQUOTE
In fact VATICAN II’s “Sacrosancum Concilium” – Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) clearly states:
” #36 1 Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
The USCCB got special permission for the OF Mass as we know it today – and people are still ignoring GIRM, and their Priest does nothing to correct them.
They do the hokey pokey lifting their arms up and down during the Lord’s prayer, hold hands, and wave and holler to those not near them for the sign of peace.
Anonymous, Latin was the norm for the Roman Catholic Church from the 3rd Century, and is supposed to be today based upon VII Docs.
It brought unity of Liturgy throughout the world.
The Laity’s behavior was more respectful, people knelt to receive our God, and there was no chatter inside the Church prior to Mass to allow for silent preparation.
…it’s more than the language, Anonymous. ‘For crying out loud,’ why can’t you absorb that simple reality without having to begin at square one or rather square .001 would be a valid question for you to answer. And yet common sense, in light of your posting style, would indicate you do understand that it is not about the Latin language, per se, but rather the form of the mass that makes the TLM better.
God bless
“Quack-quack-heretic!!” Warren, beware the brave Anonymous Novus Ordo Ducks! They are likely to waggle in on any post, those noble defenders of their own Novus Oregon Duck – style orthodoxy: they know, they know, they know, true Catholic belief, they and none other. And they have such a hard, uninformed job to do, defending the current pontifical ramblings, the Nervous Ordeal version of the liturgy (with apologies to those who do celebrate it reverently, but we know it can be changed on the Celebrants whim). Beware, the jabber – quacks, my son, …
Anon, can we all stop calling others heretics! Let’s have discussions that help form our thinking without calling people names. Thanks.
Bob one if the word is used properly then its ok to use it. At least its not made up words like quack quack or Novos Ordo ducks. That is not proper behavior. So anonymous got a little carried away but do you blame him or her?
No we can’t. Heresy needs to be named.
“No we can’t. Heresy needs to be named.” = Spoken by a sad soul who refuses to even use a name.
There is no mystery to this. The reason being, we would soon learn who the real so called “in full communion” heretic is.
…then be accurate instead of pronouncing that which isn’t, =says. And understand that by tossing terms around erroneously one naturally stirs up the observation that may lead to a quack, quack commentary regarding said inclination.
IOW: “Heretic” is not the accurate term here and the perpetuation of erroneously using said term comes off like the quacking of so many ducks moved to quack by herding instinct rather than use of reason and logic.
So yes, some accountability must be borne by the quackers.
Ann Malley, “heresy” IS the accurate term. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that.
Or, self-gratifying misogynistic name-calling.
Kind of like our sovereign pontiff’s ever-so-charitable comment about “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians.”
It is a New Church today.
You can repeat the charge of heresy as much as you’d like, but your erroneous assertions can do nothing to make them true, Anonymous. Not even capital letters will lend credence to your slander.
Please try to follow “good” example in future. That might help your evangelization efforts.
Then Ann Malley would it be fair to consider you one of the real quackers alongside with those who argue in the same manner, hows that for size? Just a question, but no worries I won’t be joining you in that style of rude dialogue! If Anonymous called you a quack before Steve started that you would be all over it as being rude and such but now its OK if you dialogue in that manner but you sure criticize the language of mous but you are OK to use any language you prefer. I detect double standard and lack of charity! There is no need of such name calling! You must rise above that. You feel comfy to call people quackers yet its not OK to consider you that?
“So yes, some accountability must be borne by the quackers” that is Anne’s style of dialogue just like Steve’s..I nod with a no. .You sound hypocritical to tell Anonynous to set a good example yet you are not one to give it or follow your own advice. No one needs to give you anything in return especially since you tend to lose civility. Sometimes you deserve what you get in reply.
I do not mean to sound harsh but somebody had to tell you. Take care…don’t hold it against me, but only time will tell.
Steve Phoenix its not a new church….you are new, you did not out grow the church to call it a new church. If you study the faith, you will learn that Christ came way before you were born. If you do not like my response then please sound more intelligently next time!
Catholics are required to speak/post the TRUTH.
CCC: ” 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it:
It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.
They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”
CHURCH DEFINITIONS – – – –
CCC: ” 2089
INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
SCHSIM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. “
Thank you Leigh i agree. Good comments.
Ann Malley, you are correct that most people are not well educated about the TLM. Let’s keep in mind that a number of factors are at play here. The NO has been the norm across the country since the 60’s. I a person is 40 years old today, they were born in 1975, at least ten years after the NO became the norm. The average age of Priest today in in the mid-60s. That means they were born in 1955, which means they were only ten years old when the NO became the norm, so they don’t remember mush about it. By the time they were ordained in 1985, they likely were not trained in the TLM or in Latin. Some seminaries now teach Latin. Consider a grandchild being graduated from college this year at about age 22. They were born in 1993, so they have never seen a TLM, or maybe never heard about it. And yet, we have people on this site telling people that they don’t receive grace and imply a trip to hell because they don’t like a ritual they know nothing about. Most of the comments from the TLM mafia are disparaging to anyone who doesn’t like, love, attend or whatever the older ritual. That drives more people away from wanting to know about it than it attracts. At some point we have to come to grips with the notion that a person can be a good and faithful Catholic without attending the TLM every weekend.
A bit of an overstatement, “Bob One”: no one has implied “a trip to hell because they don’t like a ritual they know nothing about”. However, wilfull ignorance of the Faith may well gain Catholics (and certainly clergy) a trip they certainly would not want to take.
A central problem with the Novus Ordo is that it is the tale wagging the dog of “The Springtime of Vatican II”. What does this mean? It means that Vatican II implementation has sprung up a whole new Faith. What is being taught now in Catholic schools, catechism, during homilies, in Catholic publications, is not necessarily Catholic. The NO encourgaes many Catholics to simply not be Catholic, when combined with weak clergy, feminized teaching, and a pretty complete failure to teach about sin and the need for redemption.
Having said that, it is also clear that the N.O. is a licit Mass. And, through (at least) the Doctrine of Indefectibility, Catholics can rely on the Church (which cannot be defeated by Satan) to provide for the means for salvation. Presently, the Church approves of the N.O. mass as licit, and it is (and there can be N.O. masses which are valuable, although, as Bishop Sample learned, it is better if the N.O. is said in Latin, and ad Orientum, and that the Host is not handed out like so much Halloween candy, but respectfully placed on our tongue, by a man, hopefully a priest acting in persona Christi).
Nobody said one couldn’t be a good and faithful Catholic without attending the NO, Bob One. And the TLM ‘Mafia’ is a bit much. That said, if a Catholic is driven away from the TLM by what they read here, that is their choice. Some could actually be motivated to try to understand ‘why’ there is such a strong feeling toward the TLM.
Kind of like the seeds of the Faith being martyrs. On the outside, nobody wants to join an organization in order to die. Kind of goes against human nature. But an organization that holds something worth dying for is very intriguing.
Not all people respond to gentle, gentle, gentle. If so, the martyrs would never have been as dying for the Catholic Faith would have been a big turnoff to being treated – well – gently.
Maybe it is time for those who don’t know or understand what a TLM is to find out. Even if it seems challenging…. or perhaps because it ‘is’ challenging.
Ann Malley, your comment about Maybe it is time for those who don’t know or understand what a TLM is to find out is interesting. My point, and I think i’m at least 70% correct, is that people under 30 or 40 don’t even know that there is a TLM. My second point is that, at least based on the comments I read on this site, is that people are not invited to learn about or attend the TLM, but are instead chastised for not attending. Pastors are chastised for not saying a Mass for the few that might want to attend. Parishes that don’t have a TLM aren’t considered worthy of a church worth driving to. It is as much about attitude as it is is knowledge. Think of the poor Priest. He says the Saturday evening vigil Mass, says three to four other masses in English and Spanish on Sunday and still has one or two funerals and weddings to attend to. He typically has a parish of 3000 families to minister to. Why would he want to get involved with a Mass for twenty to fifty people in a language he hasn’t studied and a series of rituals that he may have never seen before? What if each diocese simply had one TLM in each major metropolitan area? In large cities, maybe a few for those who want to attend.
…I am thinking of the poor priest, Bob One. For it is precisely the dignity and solemnity and fruitfulness of the TLM that grows parishes via grace. This relying on the Spanish Mass, the Folk Mass, the Kids’ Mass, the Teen Mass is divisive and also a very ‘human’ approach to inculcating Faith. And it has, in many instances, failed miserably.
It’s time to invest in that which has a track record of working – The Faith, whole and entire, the Mass, reverent and unified across the land. Reaching out to the Faithful with the fullness of Truth is a good thing albeit not popular.
This relying on what people ‘want’ is an issue, Bob One, and precisely what leads the faithful to reject that which they don’t want…. including what the Catholic Church actually teaches. For while you seem to believe the ‘poor’ priest of today is over burdened, and by today’s standards, they are, what of those priests who traveled the world to dangerous places to transmit the Faith to people in foreign lands at the risk of life, limb, never seeing civilization again?
They weren’t overly concerned with giving the people, what they wanted. They gave people what they needed. Getting that basic concept back and working hard toward it would do much to draw down grace from God, not accolades from the faith community.
There should be at least one Extraordinary Form of the Mass at every Parish. (aka EF, Latin, Traditional, TLM),
just as there are Masses in the vernacular in the USA – which in many cases do not include English.
I pass 4 parishes to get to an EF Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
Bob One, although I would guess I am your age, the number of young families, and teens attending the EF Mass are in the majority.
This was surprising to me the first time I attended an EF Mass.
Now, surely, the “quack-quack-heretic”-calling Anonymous clan and their cheerleaders will assail us for these facts (about the ancient tradition of Latin in the true traditional Catholic Church).
But if we were to also look at perhaps the “most ancient” unchanged liturgy, the Antiochene-Maronite liturgy, which still retains Aramaic in its “Eucharist Prayer” (Canon), the elements which mirror the Latin liturgy are notable. Both contain a preface of praise to the unchanging divine Trinity; they involve an epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit/Ghost); they mention “an unbloody sacrifice” (this is actually in the Maronite Liturgy for the expiation of the sins of the living and the dead (“Suscipe, Sancte Pater”:prayer, TLM rite—deleted entirely from the N.O. rite); words of institution (“for you and for many); anamnesis; prayers for the dead; and Our Father narrative.
The point is: Latin was preserved in the west to prevent changing the true content of worship: Greek, Aramaic, and other languages were preserved in the East. No where was the vernacular or common local languages ever permitted in tradition and history after the Apostolic era.
Aramaic, the language of Jesus makes sense. Putting Latin in the mouth of Jesus may have spiritual benefit for some people but insisting that it is superior to languages that preceeded it or followed it, not so much.
Anonymous, why do you hate the Catholic Church?
Why do you hate the Tradition of the Catholic Church?
Latin has been used during the Liturgy since the 3rd century.
Latin does not change. It’s meaning is always the same.
Even V II doc “Sacrosanctum Consilium” states that Latin must be used and that was just over 50 years ago.
So Latin has been used in the Litergy for over 1600 years,
but after V II there have been disobedient Bishops, Priests and Laity who thought they knew more than V II and Catholic Tradition “Paragraph 36 #1.
Now there are many very IGNORANT Catholics, who not only do not know Latin but also do not know the Faith. But many are willing to learn, and that is why there are missals with the Latin on one page and the vernacular next to in on the other page.
Al you are incorrect Anonymous here does not hate the EF mass. You are misjudging his or hers comments.
Al why do you think that someone who disagrees with you must do so because they “hate” the Church. Is it possible that people who love the Church disagree with you too, or are you just so fond of your own self and your opinions that you must conclude that people who disagree with you have ill will? Sacrosanctum concilium called for a renewal of the liturgy, in part, by use of the vernacular language, cautioning that Latin is to be preserved. Latin is still perserved. To return to the TLM would be to ingore wholesale the use of the vernacular called for in the Sacred Council.
So what is the point? Do the changes in any way change what HAPPENS at the Eucharist?? Are you saying that the NO is invalid? if it is valid, how has it changed what HAPPENS at the Eucharist?
BTW, I would be interested in attending said “Antiochene-Maronite liturgy”. Where can I attend it? If it is the most ancient, are you advocating that we all attend it?
One other point: I wonder if this is the Anonymous-duck that stated that the Roman catacombs were never places of worship. He apparently doesn’t know that there is an entire pre-Constantinian basilica, yes, underground at the Catacombs of St. Callistus (d. 222). Pope St Sixtus II and his deacons were reputedly martyred, having been captured when they emerged from the catacombs after having celebrated the Roman Mass..yes, that would be in Latin (d. 258). There is an underground basilica of SS. Nereus and Achiilleus that was built about 390 for celebration of the TLM underground next to the martyrs’ bones. At the Catacomb of St Domitilla, there is not only an underground basilica (rediscovered only about 1590’s), but several very early, not large, worship “spaces” (areas with enough for about 20-30 or more people) that were used for Mass underground, in the catacombs from extremely early times.
So, the catacombs were places of the Traditional Latin Mass, using the bones of the martyrs as their altar stones—something that was only ripped out of our tradition, say, about 1968.
So, let the quack-quack-attack begin!
Let’s look at the claim that “the Savior never uttered a single word in Latin”, first of all.
In John 18:33-38, Jesus has an exchange with Pilate at the Gabbatha, the Stone Pavement, the place of judgment in the procurator’s palace, which (if we believe the Scriptures are an actual historical account (cf. Dei Verbum, Vat II) shows Him competently speaking in Latin. We know also that Jesus had a fairly intricate exchange with the centurion whose servant was dying (Luke 7:1-8): it is not reasonable to suggest that the centurion had mastered Aramaic: Jesus spoke therefore Latin, being fully informed by his divine nature. So the first claim, that “the Savior never spoke Latin” is false.
Let us look at the second claim that the Apostles, including Peter did not speak Latin nor did they use it to spread the Gospel: Well, this would seem to make nonsense of Peter’s preaching in Rome, and Paul’s witness to all he met in the Mamertine prison in Rome while awaiting their martyrdom under Nero (Acts 28:30-31), Paul “preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence…” We can also look at the preaching and teaching throughout the dying Roman Empire of St. Cyprian, St. Clement, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome—all from the very birth of Christianity. Of course they spoke Latin. So, the claim that Latin was not “the language that was used to spread the Gospel”, is nonsense.
In order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 AD) using the Greek word “Katholicos” (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John, concerning the heretics of his day wrote: “They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ.”
For the sake of souls, please follow what the church teaches on church attendance and attend a parish that is holy and obedient to the Magesterium, whether it be OF or EF. God bless you
https://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/12/ten-reasons-catholic-church-is-one-true_23.html
V2 https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
PREFACE
1. Hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith, the sacred synod takes its direction from these words of St. John: “We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:2-3). Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. (1)
Pope Pius XII noted that:
“The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.” (MD 60)
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, we find the Holy Spirit still guiding the Church with regards to her highest form of prayer, the Holy Mass.
A discussion about our common language as Catholics, how we speak to God in the liturgy, is not ultimately a discussion of which Mass you prefer to attend. As Summorum Pontificum states with regards to both the Missal of Paul VI (the Ordinary Form) and the Missal of Blessed John XXIII (the Extraordinary Form):
“These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no way lead to division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact, two usages of the one Roman rite.”
The Catholic Church stated at the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent (Canon 9):
” If anyone says…that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only…let him be anathema.”
Pope Pius XII reaffirmed this teaching in one of the last major documents regarding the sacred liturgy in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council, his encyclical Mediator Dei (1947).
Read more on https://liturgyguy.com/tag/ordinary-form/page/2/