Name of Church St. Anne
Address 2337 Irving Avenue, San Diego, CA 92113
Phone number (619) 239-8253
Mass times Sunday, 6, 7:30, 9, 11 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 6 p.m. Monday – Saturday, 7:15 & 9 a.m. All Masses are Latin Tridentine. The 9 a.m. Sunday mass is live-streamed on the parish website.
Confessions Monday – Saturday, a half hour before each mass, Saturday, 5-6 p.m.
Names of priests/Homilies Fr. John Lyons, pastor. Fr. Joseph Loftus and Fr. Earl Eggleston, assistant pastors. Priests are members of the Fraternity of St. Peter (https://fssp.com/), approved by Pope John Paul II in 1988 to offer the Traditional Latin Rite of the Mass and Sacraments to the faithful according to the liturgical books of 1962. The Fraternity priests are well formed, orthodox and offer reverent liturgies.
Music Weekend sung or High masses make use of Gregorian chant, polyphone and hymnody. There is an organist. Weekday Low masses have no music.
Special parish groups Altar Guild, Choir and Choristers, Holy Name Society for Men, Women’s Guild, parish picnic, annual fiesta, Christmas pageant, youth and young adult groups, Legion of Mary, homeschool groups, Cleaning Guild, Helpers of God’s Precious Infants.
Devotions Friday exposition, 5:20 – 6:20 pm; Holy Hour for Moms on 3rd Fridays, 10 a.m. Devotions to St. Anne Fridays at 6:30 p.m. and Padre Pio on 3rd Mondays at 6:30 p.m.
Fellow parishioners The church is located in the predominantly Latino Barrio Logan neighborhood of San Diego. Many come from outside the parish boundaries, drawn by the traditional liturgy and sacraments.
Parking There is a small parking lot. Park in the neighborhood, but not in the alley alongside the rectory or in front of the homes that are directly in front of the church on the Irving Ave. side.
Additional observations St. Anne’s has been staffed by the Fraternity of St. Peter since 2008. It is “the premier traditional parish in San Diego County,” per the parish website. It is a small church; overflow seating is available in the courtyard. Business has been booming, with additional masses added. The dress code of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome is in effect; see the parish website for details (please leave the correction of offenders to the priests).
Obviously a vibrant parish with great community and familial outreach.
Go there while you still can, Bishop McElroy is not Latin Mass friendly and may shut it down at anytime. Shame more Catholics don’t avail themselves of the beautiful and reverent Masses offered by FSSP priests.
“The dress code of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome is in effect; see the parish website for details (please leave the correction of offenders to the priests).”
Business is booming only because the preconciliar Mass has been prohibited almost everywhere else. There isn’t greater demand; it’s just the only game in town now for those stuck in the past. Soon enough this parish will celebrate the Novus Ordo.
Stop celebrating, many of your Catholic brethren have been pushed out of their parish homes. Usually that kind of thing is met with compassion, not high fives.
They haven’t been pushed out of anything. Their home parishes still celebrate Mass, and they can still go there. What were they pushed out of? Oh, I get it, now that their home parishes only celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass those people don’t want to go to Mass there anymore. Proves Pope Francis was right about TLMers rejecting the Novus Ordo and rejecting Vatican II.
76% of Novus Ordo Catholics don’t attend Sunday Mass at all, compared to 97% of traditionally minded Catholics who do. Taking away the TLM does nothing to address that 76%.
What this shows is the length some old-style Catholics will go to to avoid the Novus Ordo. That’s not a healthy spiritual attitude, and I’m glad Pope Francis sees how harmful it is for the church.
I am a priest who know that the desire for the Mass of Pope St. John XXIII is strong in the diocese of San diego. A few weeks before the cancellation of this celebration I supplied at a north county parish at its 4 Masses. More people attended the Mass of Pope St. John XXIII than the other 3 combined. Now they are being directed to the Mission in Pala, not St. Anne’s. The Mass is always beautiful, reverent.
I go to the Mass in Pala, after being kicked out of my home parish, St. Margaret’s (not by its pastor but by our bishop). The TLM community at Pala is thriving but bittersweet. While Prince of Peace Abbey agreed to our having TLM Masses there, the bishop mandated that we go to Pala, a “non-Church”. It’s a large assembly room with a stage where the “altar” is located. The Norbertine priest is very orthodox and faithful to our “community”. We are doing everything to make it work.
St. Anne’s is a beautiful church and the FSSP priests are amazing. I would go there in a heartbeat but the parking is very bad. With the increase in Masses, the impact of parking unavailability may be lessened. I will check it out.
I thought you retired to some other state, Father.
I disagree. Many are attending St. Anne’s who normally wouldn’t be going to Mass at all. The traditional liturgy is striking a cord with many disconnected Catholics and bringing them back to a Sacramental life. Praise God.
Although I don’t serve the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, they wouldn’t have so many Masses unless people were attending (contrary to what some readers here post). And, look at the photos on the website. Unless, like the Vice President, they’re using actors, lots of people, including young people, are showing up. The Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated reverently as well. People are longing for reverent worship. I’m for people, young, old and in-between, attending Mass, of either Form. I think the bishops will work with the Pope and the hastily, frankly sloppy and imprudent and difficult to implement Traditionis Custodes, issued in his name. Bishops who have followed the Pope’s directive to spend time with their people and acquire “the smell of the sheep” know that many in the fold have been blessed by the TLM and people attending or returning to Mass, of either Form, is a very good and necessary thing. There is no need to or benefit from suppressing the TLM. Those I know who attend accept the validity of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, are not schismatic and are not bitter, complaining, divisive troublemakers. In fact, young and old, they seem joyful. My thoughts.
Ok then. And I ask this respectfully of course: if as you say “Those I know who attend accept the validity of the Ordinary Form of the Mass,” then these priests of the beloved FSSP should be ready, willing, and able to offer the Ordinary Form of the Mass at St. Anne’s in San Diego. Since that’s where things may be headed down the line, they can start transitioning their parishioners now by starting to offer the Ordinary Form as part of their parish Sunday line up.
How about if I make you speak only Spanish because it’s nice for cohesiveness in CA. You’d object.
That’s illogical: the point is not the language in which the new Mass is celebrated. The point is that the old Mass was reformed and replaced after Vatican II, so it shouldn’t be celebrated anymore. We are not going back to pre Vatican II. Pope Francis has taught and declared that the Novus Ordo is the unique liturgy of the Roman Rite. Sorry, TLM. Bye bye. It’s church teaching now.
Why such nastiness? If you like the Novus Ordo, then you have lots of options. But why insist on stopping the few options that those of us find enriching in the TLM? Leftists always seem so unhappy and want to make everyone think and do as they want.
The next pope can make Latin Mass the only Mass, then you will be in our position.
YRU, if the next pope or any pope makes the Extraordinary Form of the Mass the ordinary form, fine. He is the Pope. You are making an idol out of the form of the Mass. You are supposed to worship the Father through Jesus who is true God and true Man. He is in the Blessed Sacrament, really and substantially. Extraordinary form or Ordinary form of the Roman Rite or any other Rite of the Catholic Church. Please try to understand. It is not a contest. Many longed to see the day that the Extraordinary form was restored to use in the Catholic Church. Some lived to see it; some did not. We may go through it again. If we do, it is because God wills it to be that way.
jon, they don’t have to do that. Nobody has asked them to do that. If the Pope wants them to do that, he will ask them.
jon, the FSSP certainly does not need to say Mass in the Ordinary Form to please you. You have absolutely nothing to do with them. The FSSP was formed and fully approved in 1988 as a Latin Mass-only society, by Pope St. John Paul II.
The Novus Ordo can be said in Latin. The pre-Vatican II Mass shouldn’t be celebrated anymore. Priestly societies whose “charism” is to celebrate an obsolete liturgy that the Vatican II Council directed should be reformed and replaced should not be permitted to ordain any new priests nor accept seminarians.
If I were Pope Francis, I’d direct these traditionalist orders to transition to Novus Ordo exclusively within two years.
No more– The FSSP are priests, and you should respect them. They do not have your untrained layman’s ideas. As a mere layman, you must choose which Mass you prefer– and learn to respect the beliefs and choices of other good Catholics. You are certainly not a priest, nor a lay Canon Lawyer, nor a Ph.D. liturgical specialist, nor a lay theology professor. Both forms of the Mass are good. The current pope is very liberal. You may change your tune, if the next pope is like Pope Benedict.
jon, as a layman, your opinions are just for yourself. Every layman– and every pope and prelate, too– has their own opinions on the Mass. There is no “right” or “wrong,” both forms of the Mass are good. And the Tridentine Mass is about much more than Latin! The liturgical form for the Tridentine Mass extends all the way back to the original, first Mass, in the first century, A. D. And the Mass was stabilized and standardized by Pope St. Gregory I, “the Great,” who died in 604 A.D. He was known throughout the Middle Ages as the “Father of Christian Worship.” Next, the Mass was revised at the Council of Trent, during the Counter-Reformation era. It was last revised in 1962. Then, we have the radically-different, “modernized” form of the Mass, the Novus Ordo, of 1969– heavily purged of “Catholicity,” for ecumenical purposes, to be closer to Protestant forns of Eucharistic worship. It is published in Latin in the Roman Missal, and translated into vernacular languages. Historically, the Tridentine Mass is a form much closer to the original first Mass. Both forms of the Mass are perfectly fine, and equally legitimate. The Mass is what Christ left on earth for us, until He comes again, in glory, and takes us with Him, to Heaven!
People, just listen to the responses you’re giving: they’re totally inadequate: “what if I make you speak Spanish only”; “they don’t have to do that to please you.” Really folks? Why are they so afraid of the Sacraments of the Church in the Ordinary Form? It is precisely to preserve the unity of the Church that these priests of the beloved FSSP ought to take the initiative to offer the Ordinary Form. There is only one Roman Rite people, and it has two forms (well, until recently). As Fr. Z has said, a “priest who knows only half his Rite, is only half a priest.” Again, why are these people so afraid of the Ordinary Form?
People, Jon insists TLMers are afraid of the Ordinary form. But people, this is Jon’s consistent judging of motives where he has absolutely no window into these souls. So people, please join with me in praying for Jon to eschew such presumption.
Dan is wrong as usual. I am not so much assigning a motive here, as I am asking questions. The priests
of the beloved Institute of Christ the King, the FSSP, and the other former “Ecclesia Dei” communities
don’t seem to want to touch the Ordinary Form with a ten-foot pole, so the natural question is “why”.
And the most charitable adjective I can come up with is “afraid” (which is what some exclusive TLM
goers have asked concerning some bishops and priests as in, “why are they afraid of the TLM”).
So Dan, what adjective should I use instead of “afraid”? Why are they “abhorred by”? or “disgusted by”? “in awe of”? Or some other adjective? Which? So what adjective to use Dan? We only want to know why.
Fine Dan, but don’t use jon’s “People…” It’s annoying and one user of it is enough.
For unity, why not have everyone follow the FSSP?
Peggy asks a question that overlooks the significance Second Vatican Council. The Conciliar Fathers, Peggy, resolved to reform the Mass of John XXIII (that’s the TLM for you unchurched out there) because among other things “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” If you have been to the TLM (that’s the Extraordinary Form for you protestants out there), one can argue that the level of active participation of the assembly is not as manifest as in the Ordinary Form. Additionally, the Conciliar Fathers also wanted more of the richness of the Scriptures available for the laity during Mass, giving us the three-year Sunday cycle of readings and the two-year cycle on weekdays, and other reforms. Therefore Peggy, to ask, “why not have everyone follow the FSSP” is called a retrogression, a return to an earlier state which may or may not be a better one. People, there were a lot of accretions that had grown in the TLM over the centuries. The Mass had to be reformed, the Church firmly believed. I mean, some of these historical accretions even contradicts the witness of Scripture, which is the “norma normans” of the faith (that’s Latin for you monolinguals out there). No Peggy, “following the FSSP” would not bring unity. At this point in the history of the Church, the Ordinary Form reverently offered in light of tradition is the unified way to the future.
1 Corinthians 1:10-15
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to* Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
The FSSP follows Jesus Christ in the Holy Catholic Church headed by the Pope.
jon, the parishes of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter use a different form of the Roman Rite. And, they clearly have a goal of unity and communion. See below.
Should their Mass be suppressed as well?
And, the Latin Church does have different rites, as I think you know. (I do acknowledge the distinction between rites and forms.)
Of course, our Eastern Catholic Churches have several different rites and Liturgies of our own as well.
Later this month, some of our parishes will celebrate the Divine Liturgy (Mass) of St. James. It is among the oldest Eucharistic services in continuous use. It is the ancient liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem and is attributed to the Apostle James the Just, the Brother of the Lord. It is often celebrated on October 23, the feast of St. James, Brother of the Lord.
I think some confuse unity with uniformity. I hope that helps explain why some think the Novus Ordo doesn’t have to be the only Roman Catholic Mass permitted.
To argue that the Extraordinary Form should continue because of the existence of other “uses” of the Roman Rite is not convincing, Deacon. Missing in your argument is the difference in the historical origins between the Anglican Use and the Extraordinary Form (this is a significant difference which you should take into account), and most importantly what should be taken into account is the present ideologization of the latter: that is, the Extraordinary Form becoming a statement to divide and to manifest one’s disagreement with the Second Vatican Council. Because it is being used to divide the Church, the Pope has judged that only the Ordinary Form be the unique expression of the Church’s lex orandi. So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the Pope on this. And if you are indeed a deacon, expressing your disagreement with the Pope’s judgement in such a public way is not prudent.
jon, Can you explain the historical difference (that matters in this discussion) between what used to be called the Anglican use Liturgy and the Tridentine Mass to which you refer? Both are historic Masses. Who is using the Extraordinary Form to divide the Church? I don’t know of any. (Admittedly, I don’t have contact with the SSPX and others who are not in good standing with the Church. I’m referring to the FSSP and Institute of Christ the King.That’s who we’re talking about here.) And, why the “if you are indeed a deacon?” You’re the one hiding behind anonymity. And, I’m glad that we both agree with the Pope on abortion, marriage and artificial contraception.
“Deacon,” just to recapitulate: as I recall you were the one who raised the comparison between the Anglican Use and the Extraordinary Form, asking “should their (the Ordinariate’s parishes) Masses be suppressed as well.” That question sounded rhetorical based on your statement that the Ordinariate uses a “variant” of the Roman Rite. Then to conclude you explained that because of the existence of other “rites” in the Church, the Ordinary Form doesn’t have to be the only Mass permitted. “Deacon,” I am merely pointing out that if you are going to make this comparison (between the Anglican Use and the EF), you have to at least consider the “origins” of both, because by considering that you’ll find that just because the former exists doesn’t necessarily mean that the latter should as well.
jon, I did not intend that as a rhetorical question. Do you think the Ordinariate’s Mass should be suppressed?
And, my point is both their Mass and the Extraordinary Form are historic forms of the Mass (more historic than the versus populum, facing the people, Ordinary Form). What is the significant historical difference that I should take into account? (And, I ask that sincerely as well.)
I’m not for suppressing any legitimate form or rite of the Mass. And, I think this will all get “sorted out,” so to speak, and we’ll continue to be one Church, even if our Masses aren’t identical. I don’t understand why some people who don’t prefer the Extraordinary Form get so worked up about it. On a personal note, I prefer the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or a Novus Ordo Mass done properly and reverently). But, I’m glad whenever people worship God at Mass.
And, this is sincere too, why the quotes around Deacon? I don’t “ask”, “If you are indeed a jon” or put your name in quotation marks.
Oh, additionally “Deacon”, to your question of “who is using the Extraordinary Form to divide the Church.” I refer you to the Archbishop of Dijon and to the Cardinal Archbishop of Guadalajara. Look them up.
Yes, “Deacon,” your question was either rhetorical or that you really aren’t aware of the issues raised by the Holy Father in his “Traditionis custodes.” Neither the Holy Father nor anyone in the Church including myself, is calling for the suppression of the Anglican Use. So why should the question be asked? “Deacon,” I strongly suggest you read (or re-read for that matter) the Pope’s “Traditionis custodes.” This is because there the Holy Father already refers to part of the recent history of the current use of the Extraordinary Form which explains why the EF is being phased out. Without having read the motu propio, the essential point you’re making and the questions you’re asking sound either uninformed (at best) or impertinent (at worst) or disobedient (at the very worst, for one who claims to be minister of the Church).
The Archbishop of Dijon and the Cardinal Archbishop of Guadalajara can tell you who are some of those who are using the Extraordinary Form to divide the Church.
@ jon – your use of quotation marks around Deacon Craig Anderson’s name (as you wrote, “Deacon” numerous times), is so condescending, as though you don’t believe that this good man is actually a Catholic Deacon. Mind you, I always appreciate the good laugh you provide with your imperious responses.
Deacon Craig Anderson, there are people who are using the Latin Mass to divide the Church. Before that, they used pro-life. They use “Pachamama.” They use a footnote in a papal document. They use Fr. James Martin. They use anything they can and they make money doing it. Their goal is not to divide the Church. It is really just to get followers for themselves. I could name names but I think you know who they are.
I am cancelling my subscription to this deplorable “Catholic” website, that deliberately prints extremely disrespectful trashy public comments from a so-called “jon,” to the good Deacon Craig Anderson, as well as other fine members of the clergy, at times. Many comments here that are from excellent Catholic commenters, are either highly edited or else ignored and never printed at all. The above news story is a fine one, from one of the finest Catholic churches in California! And yet a great many of the comments you have chosen to publicly print, are from ignorant, uneducated radical, “anti-Tridentine Mass” liberal leftists, who do not appreciate a fine Catholic church that serves our state! Cancelling this website right now! You owe Deacon Anderson a huge public apology.
Jon @9:36am is soooo wrong because the boys from Dijon and Guadalajara are 2 of the most divisive ones out there! They’re all about dividing the Church and kicking traditionally minded people to the curb. Suggest Jon find better uniters.
Hey Cancelling, if you leave then the jons of this site will go unanswered, and their kind need to be countered with truth. Stay and join the Catholic side of the debate.
Apologies due immediately for publicly insulting a fine Catholic cleric, Deacon Craig Anderson.
For the record, the Archbishops of Dijon and Guadalajara have continued to provide for the faithful in their respective dioceses who are attached to the Extraordinary Form. They’re not divisive at all, as “So” has so erroneously asserted. For instance, with the former, he has provided I believe his own priests who know the Mass and who can therefore minister to to his flock. And with the latter, he has merely abolished the quasi-parish, but he also seems to desire to have his own priests minister to the faithful. Yet in the meantime the beloved FSSP is still in his territory, albeit with an uncertain future. All of this to prove that “So” is so wrong to assert that both archbishops are divisive. They’re not. They’re merely wanting to drive away the divisive elements in their territories. They have continued to provide for their faithful. God bless them for their graciousness and generosity.
Sorry but “Cancelling” is wrong. This blog is not “deplorable” (except perhaps if you’re Hillary Clinton). We should all trust the good editors of this here blog. They’re editing comments for a good reason. Free speech entails responsibilities, people; sometimes you need a different set of eyes (like the editors here) to double-check things. If they edited your comment, “Cancelling,” it’s for a good reason. This blog has given you, “Cancelling,” a forum in which to voice your opinions. Use it responsibly to build up the Body of Christ, not by tearing it down by thrashing the Pope, the bishops, and Vatican II.
Jesus wouldn’t kick anyone out because of how he’s dressed. Let the children come to me… do not shut them out.
He would if they were immodestly dressed (not the proper wedding garment as in his parable). People can be attractively and modestly dressed whether their clothes come from high end stores or thrift shops. In fact moderately priced stores usually have more beautiful modest clothing of good quality, whereas some high-priced stores charge “an arm and a leg” for a bikini, though there is not much cloth to cover nor sewing done in that.
The special seamless robe of the Lord Jesus, for which the soldiers cast lots, was probably his temple garment, most likely woven by the Blessed Mother.
I will add personal observation. My wife and I attended Sunday Mass at a rural parish with predominantly poor (by USA standards anyway) and all were dressed in clean and well mended clothing. The young girls were all in dresses and the older girls well covered.
I just tell folks that Jesus is there in the sanctuary and we want to give him our best in everything especially when we recieve Him.
I think many of the FSSP do not want to serve the newer mass as they are afraid some spiteful bishop would make them serve at one of the clown masses or one of the other blasphemous or heretical ones. And some are heretical. When a priest comes out as “gay” and pushes same sex marriage and so forth, and the parishioners agree, that is heresy or down right apostasy — no if’s, and’s or but’s about it. The FSSP teaches the teaching of the saints, including the saintly popes, and not the teachings of the modernists
Sorry that I put this post in the wrong place. It was in answer to those who thought the FSSP should have to serve at the post Vatican II masses. Quite frankly, I am sure that there are those in the Eastern and other rites that would not want to serve in some, and I said some, of the post Vatican II Latin masses that do not go by the proper rubrics, or the people do not believe in the church’s moral teaching. I have heard good priests tell parishioners not to clap at mass, and they still do it.
I agree. My mother-in-law had eleven children, but they never went to mass, in a very hot climate, in shorts and flip fops. They were always in clean, well pressed pants and decent shirts, and the girls properly dressed as well.
My grandfather, a Protestant, wore denim overalls most of the week, but on Sundays he put on his best khaki pants and a decent shirt to attend church services. There was no hand clapping in the sanctuary. We were there to worship God, not ourselves. Decent fun for all was done in the hall.
Lemme just reply to myself here by noting that the Mass attended and noted above was Novus Ordo and not TLM.
In Christ’s day, most people had respect for Him, and followed proper Jewish customs of respect for God and His holy Temple. Children also knew how to show respect for Our Lord and were proud to do so.
Even those in terrible situations (lepers, outcasts, the extremely poor, the blind, the terminally sick and dying, etc.) managed to show Him respect due Him, the best they could, despite terrible conditions– and were so deeply thankful for His blessings and healings. America is not an impoverished Third World nation. We are a wealthy nation, very capable of respectful dress for Our Lord in church, even in nice second-hand clothes from Goodwill stores. And a nice, modest skirt, below-the-knees, along with a nice blouse, covering the shoulders, always costs much, much less than a pair of extremely disrespectful, expensive pair of skin-tight, ripped designer jeans, and extremely disrespectful, slogan-filled, skimpy, immodest t-shirt.
Isn’t this Christ’s Day?
I’ve seen how people dress at TLMs…. Catholic Amish is what I call it.
You attend a TLM? What’s wrong with dressing modestly?
I don’t think the Amish dress up in suits and mantillas
The Amish respect God and always dress modestly. They have a distinctive, modest style of dress, and make all their own clothes. No flamboyant colors or styles are allowed, there are only a couple of clothing patterns they use, similar to a dress uniform. The ladies all wear pretty white bonnets, tied with white strings. All of their clothing is simple, modest, and lovely. The Amish seek to live their lives humbly, modestly, for the glory of God. They do not like to mix with worldly, pagan outsiders, who blaspheme God, and are immodest and disrespectful. It is reported that to live the Amish life brings great peace of soul. Some have married into the Amish culture, and happily adopted their religion and way of life.
chenhok, be careful about mentioning mantillas. Otherwise you’ll have our long-time scribe Linda Maria on the attack, under whatever new posting moniker she’s using. (I think “Christifidelis” is one of them.) Like jon, she’s never had an unpublished thought—but she’s not half as unintentionally amusing as jon is.
Both the traditional Amish way of life, and the Traditional Catholic way of life, in Tridentine Latin Mass parish communities, are reported to bring holiness to devout believers, and great peace of soul.
I’ve seen how they dress at NO masses, Catholic Woodstock is what I call it.
It is not the fault of the Mass. it is the fault of the person who dresses that way.
NO attendees dress way too casually for Mass, the people who attend TLM dress respectfully. When there is little to no belief in The Real Presence, it shows in lots of ways.
Those are just the facts, no need to make the egg and chicken argument here.
I believed in the Real Presence when all I could do was wear jeans to Mass. I believed in the Real Presence when my dress was slightly immodest because it was the only dress I could find to cover up my swollen belly after a miscarriage.
I agree with you on immodest and casual dress but it does not mean that people don’t believe in the Real Presence.
No one is asking people to dress like Amish. I have no problem with it if they want to do so, and Amish men DO wear black suits on Sundays. Many women at the Traditional Latin Masses in California like to wear the colors of the liturgical season — such as purple during Advent. red during Christmas and blue on feasts for Our Lady. I also like to wear traditional seasonal colors — pastels for Eastertide, brighter colors in summer, autumn colors during fall and purple and red shades with black during advent and Christmas, Most classical musicians and singers like black — always classy and slimming.
It is not a fashion show.
Tell that to the Catholic catalogues who sell vestments and other goods. By the way St. Gianna Molla was into fashion – of the good kind – and was quite stylish, but she still give her life for her baby daughter.
Anne TE, I think you thought that my comment of “It’s not a fashion show” was directed to you. It was not. It was a reply to “I’ve seen” ‘s comment about Catholic Amish dress.
The way this website posts comments probably confused you.
My apologies, st, and please excuse the typo in my last post (“give” should be “gave”). All that is meant is that respect be shown at any mass, and many poorer people are more appropriately dressed than many richer people. I understand more casual attire on weekdays when people shop or have to go to work, but it should be modest. Many women who go to the Traditional Latin Mass and other masses wear ladies’ pants for work and want to dress up on the weekends for the Lord, too. That is a fact.
Whoops! another typo. I meant CT not ST.
Today, I was blessed to attend the Archdiocese of San Francisco’s Men’s Conference. We had excellent speakers, opportunities for Confession and good fellowship. And, Archbishop Cordileone presided at Mass. It was the Ordinary (Novus Ordo) Form of the Mass, led ad orientem (with the priest/bishop facing “east,” like the congregation). It was very reverent. And, the acapella chanting/singing, in English, Latin and even Greek (the “Kyrie Eleison”) was beautiful. As a Byzantine Catholic, I felt totally at home, worshiping God. And, I’ve also felt totally at home at Masses with contemporary music (well and properly done) when our now-adult children attended a LifeTeen program in a nearby parish. There really is only one Catholic Church, and if you’re part of the Church founded by Jesus, you’re blessed to be in it (even if it doesn’t always look exactly the same).
I like contemporary Mass myself.
It’s difficult to understand this contentious problem with which language is proper for use at Mass. Which language do you think is needed, and best, for the Catholic Mass in China? How about Mass in Indonesia? How about Mass in India? The ordinary common people in these countries speak their own language, and number two billion or more. So please, let’s have an end to the absolute need for the traditional Latin Mass. We need to think of these people, and how the use of their own language will be necessary for Mass in these countries. (And how English or Spanish is also needed in our own country for so many new converts). If the Latin Mass is needed for your parish, do that. But please, no complaints if the new Chinese converts use Chinese at Mass, or new converts from West Virginia or California are more comfortable with an English Mass.
Language is a unifying force and when Latin was used exclusively, any Catholic could attend Mass anywhere in the world and understand it. Now we are a patchwork of diversity inspired services, some of which are barely recognizable as holy sacrifice of the Mass.
For centuries, Mass has been offered in those places you list, and people adapted. It’s not so tough, we just have to reject becoming weak helicopter mommies.
What an ill considered remark “weak helicopter mommies”. I met a priest from China, who was imprisoned for decades because he got caught saying the Rosary, as also were Brothers from teaching orders. Weak?? The Catholics in so many countries, for example, those who are in Communist and Muslim countries, are persecuted. They are in danger all the time, for saying Mass in their native tongues. The persecution would be far worse, if their Masses were in Latin. And where are the nuns to teach Latin? And how can Latin be taught, when the (e.g.) Chinese government forbids it?
The best church in San Diego, I was there over the Summer on vacation and of course standing room only, Latino, Asian, White, African-Americans all in love with The TLM and we all understood what was going on.
I doubt that they all understood what was going on. But folks, I’ve been to this Parish myself when I traveled there, because I do regularly attend the Extraordinary Form. The parking was indeed a problem. However, it will do a lot of good for the unity of the Church if the priests of the beloved FSSP were to offer the Mass in the Ordinary Form. Come on Fathers. Show us how the Ordinary Form ought to be celebrated. You can even do it ad orientem, and in Latin, and in as much polyphonic chants as you wish. You can do it. Don’t be afraid of the liturgy of the Church. Be brave!
No Jon they are not afraid of the liturgy of the Church they already offer it.
Oh? The last time I checked neither the priests of the beloved Institute of Christ the King nor the priests of the beloved FSSP is offering the Mass in the Ordinary Form, which is the usual, ordinary, customary, and most popular way that the faithful in the Latin Rite worship God. These are priests of the Latin Rite, right? So whey aren’t they offering it? Are they “afraid” of the Ordinary Form? “Afraid” of the most popular way that Latin-Rite Catholics worship God? And if “afraid” is not the correct adjective, what is?
If that is an issue for you be sure to remember it when your parish and diocese ask for your input with the synodality synod. Last Sunday, diocese were supposed to start their part of it.
I don’t know how many diocese were ready or have really even figured out what they are supposed to do and how they are going to do it. If your diocese has not done anything, you could politely inquire.
They are what they are. If you don’t like it, tough. Cloistered nuns don’t have to leave their cloisters because some lay person thinks they should. Priests don’t have to marry because some lay person thinks they should. Women don’t have to get ordained because some lay person thinks they should.
Lay people don’t run the Church.
Lay people do not run the Church, but the Pope and his bishops do. And when the Pope deems that certain groups are divisive, guess what, they have to mend their ways. I am presenting a way for these groups (the beloved Institute of Christ the King and the beloved FSSP for instance) to mend their ways: Offer the Ordinary Form. Take the initiative, Fathers. Don’t wait for the Pope or for the Congregation For Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to have to compel you to do it. Just do it. What do you have to lose? There’s nothing wrong with the Ordinary Form. Otherwise, why the reluctance? Fear? What?