Great stuff Jimmy….Mass Revision update coming?

This is eqivalent to putting a finger in a leak in a dyke.  The Church needs to admit it made a grave mistake by changing the liturgy in the first place and take some real corrective action.  All they’ve done thus far is window dressing.  Unfortunately, the so-called “Novus Ordo” has become a charicatur of the Mass.  It’s like dressing your grandma in a halter top and mini-skirt and thinking people will still take her seriously.

My wife and I joined an FSSP chapel in our hometown and we won’t go to a NO Mass anymore.  I wish it wasn’t like thag but without exception, to varying degrees, those masses are aweful.  If they don’t right the ship, it will eventually run aground.

Clarity good?  Absolutely! Great expose Jimmy! Liturgical abuse should never be taken lightly, even if it seems benign because that opens a path to further error.

My parish is generally very faithful to the norms but it did have this practice of adding tropes. In order, Lamb of God, Bread of Life, Wine of Peace, Hope for All, and finally Lamb of God repeated for the final verse ending “grant us peace.” This past week, it was just three “Lamb of Gods.” I thought it might be related to a change in the Mass setting that occurred the same week, but now I wonder if it is a reaction to the document.

Vatican II brought forth many abuses.  In a parish here, the choir stands in the low part of the altar instead of on the back choir loft at the back of the church and the priest allows it.  It seems to me the choir wants to be the CENTER of attraction there , instead of the HOLY SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD! RIDICULOUS!

I have attended N.O. Masses for about ten (10) parishes in my Diocese.  I have never heard any tropes yet.  However, I am happy that the Vatican has issued such a directive.

The parish we attended prior to our move added tropes which I liked but didn’t realize this was not permitted. Our new parish sings the Agnus Dei at every mass.

Here’s something else to consider. Sometimes it happens that a foreigner who doesn’t speak the local language visits Mass. I realize that this is more common for us in Europe than it is for folks in the United States.
For example, I sometimes attend a Mass in Polish. This is not a problem, because I know exactly what is happening because I know the Mass in my own language.

Suppose they would add all kinds of ‘innocent’ stuff to the Mass. I would feel totally lost, because I don’t understand what they are doing, which makes it extremely hard, if not impossible to focus on Christ. There’s a reason for those rules…

I couldn’t stand the tropes, and refused to sing along when they added them.  Instead of “taking away the sins of the world” the tropes took away the sanctity of the mass for me.  So I am glad they took care of this.

@ Post by A. Nonymous on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2012 9:43 PM (EST):

“If they don’t right the ship, it will eventually run aground.”

That will never happen.

We have a promise from Jesus Christ that it will NEVER happen.

Douay-Rheims Bible— And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The validity of the Eucharist is THE most important thing, for it is He who is, and thereby the Eucharist is the most important in all eternity.

The Mass is about Jesus Christ. Period.

Sure, people can be quirky in places but one ought to keep the matter in perspective—infinitely more important than style is the Eucharist itself, and THAT is why we go to Church.

OK, point taken, some Masses may have some less-than-proper elements—but the Eucharist is infinitely more important.

The Eucharist is infinitely more important.

The Eucharist is infinitely more important.

One would do well to keep that in mind.

Given that the Eucharaist is valid, it is thereby IMPOSSIBLE for New Order Masses to be “aweful”.

That is Jesus Christ himself there in the Eucharist and, as such, all good, all true, and all beautiful.

We do not go to Mass to be pleased or entertained—we go to Mass for the Eucharist, Jesus Christ.

Here’s a nutshell to consider—
Go to Confession, often.
Receive the Eucharist, often.
Pray for mercy, often.
Repeat.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

chant cafe anything not chant or polyphonic is pop music. I have never heard any of the hymns published by ocp on the radio. chant cafe had their way catholics would be chanting like buddhists.

The fact that this discussion is even taking place speaks volumes and is indicative of what has happened to the Mass after V2. Go to a Tridentine Mass. There is absolutely no doubt or discussion as to the focus of the Mass…..Glorification and Praise of God through His Son. The entire liturgy emotes reverence, sacredness and holiness. In comparison, the NO is more of a kumbaya event. Abshp Annibale Bugnini et al deliberately modified the Mass to appeal to Protestants. It has been widely successful as millions of Catholics voted with their feet and became “Protestants”. Although the NO is a valid Mass, it’s like saying that a VW Beetle and a Bentley are both cars. A correct statement for sure. They are both cars but given a choice one would choose the Bentley over the VW….unless you were not aware of the Bentley’s existence let alone it’s availability and benefits. Case closed.

Thank goodness, it’s about time.
Also, how about a 50 year rest on any over-used hymns written in the ‘70’s, 80’s, & ‘90’s?

We had been using the tropes in my parish for years, but our choir director was recently advised by the higher-ups that it must stop.

@ Gary - Actually Gary, if ChantCafe had their way we’d be chanting and singing like CATHOLICS (not Buddhists), you know, in the same way the Church raised its voice in song and prayer from the time of the Apostles through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and into the present day (where the tradition has been maintained).

It’s a little offensive to suggest that plainchant is merely an imitation of Buddhist chant. While there are certainly parallels it grows out of an entirely different religious and musical tradition.

How does one subscribe to the CDW Newsletter ?
Thanks !

I’m astonished at all the negative comments against the Ordinary Form that have appeared here, which really have little to do with the subject of this blog post. Does liturgical abuse never happen in the Extraordinary Form? I grew up attending the Tridentine Mass exclusively and saw my share of rushing and mumbling on the part of priests. And it is difficult, often impossible, to know whether the correct words are always said. “Active participation” certainly is possible but requires a lot of education and effort.

Most offensive to me are comments that describe the Ordinary Form, which I have come to love (yes really), as dressing up one’s grandma in a halter-top and miniskirt. The OF, done according to the norms, is beautiful and reverent, and makes it much more clear what depths of mystery are taking place. Instead of reading that the altar boys say “Habemus ad Dominum,” we actually say “We lift them [our hearts] up to the Lord.” Instead of hearing the priest or choir say the words of the Sanctus, we ourselves are privileged to sing the words of the very angels in Isaiah 6, bringing out the fact that the Mass is the meeting of heaven and earth. We have more Scripture on Sundays and holy days (two readings replace one epistle reading), and the Psalm/Introit gets more focus too. I have great affection for the Tridentine Mass but there is no need to promote it by denigrating the Ordinary Form.

Thanks for posting that Robyn! I think abuses (particularly changes/additions of wording/language by the celebrant) are much easier to work into the Mass when celebrated in the vernacular than in Latin, but it is true that when celebrated with STRICT adherence to the rubrics, and in continuity with our liturgical heritage, the Mass in the Ordinary Form can be as inspiring and worshipful as the Extraordinary Form.

I particularly like and agree with your last comment: “there is no need to promote it by denigrating the Ordinary Form.” As easy as it is to slip into this habit, Catholics, IMO, must attract others to the Extraordinary Form by promoting its inherent goodness rather than by constantly running-down the Ordinary Form.

Mark Kamoski,

Yes sir, we must indeed keep foremost in our minds why it is that we attend mass.  It is not because of the church’s man made rituals, but because of the body and blood of Christ, which “eat the host and drink the wine of communion”.

Second to this, I believe,  is our praise and thanksgiving for what our Lord sacrificed and carried for us.  Because of this and the fact that Christ is head of the church of God and sits at His right hand, I think that we must show our respect, belief and adoration through the acts of prayer and song.
So, I would say that we had better get it corrected.

I am glad to see the Roman Church finally taking a firm stand on willy-nilly unauthorized additions to the liturgy.  If it had followed this rule in 1054, and not tried to ram “filioque” down the throats of Eastern Christians, it could have saved itself a lot of trouble.

Seriously, though, with all that is wrong in the church today, this is all Pope Benedict XVI has to worry about?  How about he stops harboring Cardinal Law in the Vatican and orders the Irish to round up Patrick Colleary and send him back to Arizona to stand trial?  Or is the harboring of fugitives from justice a new Catholic doctrine?

Robyn,
I know, & I’m not a died in the wool “Latin Mass Only” person,but it still occurs to me that if everyone could participate in an opera or concert it would be a great experience, but who’d want to listen to it?
I’m fine with letting others respond/chant when appropriate.

The article and comments here just reinforce my decision to change Rites and become Byzantine.  No liturgical abuses in the Romanian Rite, and a sung liturgy.  Deo gratias!

ATTN Mark Kamoski:  What you’re saying is objectively true; however, when the Mass is celebrated in such a profoundly banal and vapid way then the persons receiving the Eucharist very well may not be properly disposed to do so.  The Mass is a prayer and prayer should draw us closer to our Creator.  The NO Masses I’ve attended are focused on the people or the priest, not God.  There are witticisms, puns, jokes, funny stories, syrupy music, etc., but the reality of the Mass is lost among all of the tripe. 

I converted to Catholicism only a few years ago from Protestantism and if I’d wanted the same gimmicky, flashy, feel-good nonsense I would have just stayed there.  I didn’t because I’d had the providential good fortune of stumbling into a very traditionally Catholic church in Germany several years ago which had made lasting impression on me. 

You can have your parish councils, altar girls, Breaking Bread ‘missal’, greeters, carousel music, etc.  I don’t identify any of that with traditional Catholicism but rather pointless innovation.  Believe me, you probably lose more Protestants than you gain by your blessed “New Mass”.  Thankfully, the old one is going to be around for quite some time.  It was an experiment that has failed miserably and the numbers prove it but I suppose out of pride no one of these old hippies in the hierarchy has the guts to admit it so they do things like “the Reform of the Reform” - a phrase that makes me chuckle since it’s so blatantly transparent.

I think if anyone objects to prescribed form they should think while
attending mass:

“As I stand, sit, kneel here before the cross, what is happening all over the world and in heaven, too, and the timeless expanse of past and future——in this exact same breath?

If all of the “other” including Mary and the disciple whom Jesus loved were/are/will be striking their breast three times, how is
it, then, if I would be just carrying on and on and on and on in another
tangent?”

JESUS, the Christ, was only sacrificed ONCE….as HE is very present
as we are present at this sacrifice. 

@Post by Smacking on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 12:20 PM (EST):

The Eucharist is infinitely more important than anything.

If one focuses on the Eucharist, then one is going to be OK regardless of whatever else is going on.

The distractions such as “witticisms, puns, jokes, funny stories, syrupy music, etc” are as nothing when the Eucharist is present.

Furthermore, one may be a model of prayer for such.

Anything a human does to make the Mass more “reverent” or “holy” is as nothing when compared to that which DOES make the Mass holy and good—namely, Jesus Christ.

In the abstract sense, one can participate in the call of Christ to “feed my sheep”, to help them along the Way.

Douay-Rheims Bible—John 21:17—“He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

Instead of running away from someone who does not know how to pray, why not take our a Rosary and show a good way to pray?

Yes, there is room for human improvement—so if one is human then why not work towards that improvement instead of avoiding it and leaving it as-is?

Jesus came to call sinners. Jesus seeks mercy—let’s try to show some.

If a person walks away from the Eucharist because the celebration is not good enough for that person, then that is a sad matter indeed.

The Eucharist is infinitely more important than anything.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

My church was notorious for adding their extras to the Lamb of God, but they did stop with the restored liturgy. However, now they have turned the Gloria into this horrifyingly bad piece of music so that they can add a refrain and make it twice as long. In doing this, they have split it up so that it is not a continuous prayer to God.  They sing amen and then go into their refrain…...just one more time.
I would also give anything to actually hear the psalm of the day being sung instead of singing a song made up containing some of the words of the psalm. Is this how people learn the psalms? I don’t think so. It is all about the music group, ya know.

Oct. 10th:  A question: a Priest in my Parish, after the prayers of petition, adds: “through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus” we pray ...Hail Mary…some have wondered if this means that the power of the Mass is not sufficent to aid petions and petitioners, so a Hail Mary is needed just in case…it may not be a big deal but…we were wondering. Thanks Jimmy, florin

Amy Welborn has some interesting observations on the Mass in France. She’s been roaming around over there for about a month.
http://amywelborn.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/ill-informed-superficial-observations-on-french-catholicism/
“During the village Mass, the sung Mass parts were clearly deviations from the text in almost every case.  I have no idea what they were singing for the Agnus Dei, at all. Tropes, indeed.”

Also read some of the comments over at http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/10/04/no-more-agnus-dei-tropes/
It seems they really like to “trope it up” in Europe in the OF!

In support of what Mr. Kamosky is saying, we must remember that our Lord is the faithful bridegroom offering Himself unto death for his true spouse, the Church.  I recently read the “Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible” on the page dedicated to Song of Solomon 2:16 at bible dot cc.  I thought Gill’s (English Baptist) commentary was quite touching.

As much as I want to see a beautiful, conservative liturgy, black and red, I too try to remember that not only is “the Mass the thing”, as an Irish priest liked to put it to me in his brogue, but the presence within the Mass of our Lord’s Body and Blood, freely and luxuriantly given, is the specific thing.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

I’ve been to various parishes with the tropes, and I’m glad they’ve been “dealt with.”  As stated, the Agnus Dei is a prayer, not a song.  On a similar note, I detest settings of the Gloria which are used in many parishes where the words, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will,” is sung repeatedly as a refrain, breaking up the prayer of the Gloria.  Where do the composers get off changing the Mass?  I’ve heard perfectly good Mass settings in which the Gloria is sung as a prayer.  Why are we plagued with the song version???

Deblette ,
Our former parish turned the Sanctus into a Harry Belafonte number.If you’ve ever heard it, you’ll know what I mean.
:)

In my most uncharitable opinion, for many, it is all about the music and not about the Mass. Entertain me, make me feel good. When the Mass basically halts so that the music group can play an extended version of every single prayer, with the crashing of drums and twanging of the electric guitars, we have somehow lost focus on the Mass. I have been assured however, that the music brings people in and then they find their way to Jesus. The point is to come and worship Jesus, to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (as it used to be called) I have also been assured that because it is the “culture” of some churches, we need to leave it alone. It isn’t Catholic, but that isn’t the point. The folks in the pews are really into the music. If we play it, they will come. I have been crying over it for three years and have been assured that I am the problem, not the music. Now I go to daily Mass at my church and Sunday liturgy elsewhere. Where they actually follow the GIRM.

I would probably puke at the Belafonte number. I have missed that one. Thank you Jesus!

Two points:

First, “troping the lyric” is apparently not a 20th-century invention, see Gregorian chant Kyrie trope from the Choralschola, Niederaltaicher Scholaren
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/gregorian-chant/id213747023 track 4, “Rex Aeterno - Kyrie (Kyrie trope of the Missa de Angelis)”. Wonder what to make of that now?

Second, “Novus Ordo” and “Latin Mass” are not mutually exclusive terms. in fact, there is a Latin form of the NO mass which does not suffer from either the translation difficulties of the English, nor from the tendency of English-speaking musicians to think they can add things that aren’t in the ordinary of the mass (those who don’t really understand the Latin tend to recite it as is, and those who do tend to respect it enough to leave it alone).

ok, a third point. In agreement with Jen, Deblette and who knows how many others, I find the mucking wih the Gloria even more offensive, as it seems to go on interminably and in bad musical taste.

Darn autocorrect. That should have said “troping the Kyrie”. At least I managed to correct the “correction”  from “troping” to “groping”!

The archdiocese of los angeles uses the:

Jesus, Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Prince of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Son of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Word of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Tree of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Fire of Love, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Bread of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Hope of All, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Calling the attention of Archbishop Jose Gomez !!!

Thank you! If you attended Mass in Bolivia you would surely faint after listening and watching how is it done here :S. Pray that our priests and members correct themselves in each Mass.

Sadly Vatican II threw the baby out with the bathwater. Our Tridentine Mass whether sung or spoken was constructed with wisdom and knowledge by those who were divinely inspired. Wise, in that it became the construct through which we were all able to more closely approach Him.

Knowledgeable in that our early Church fathers in order to create the “channel” to Him knew how to create the highest form of worship, the Mass, utilising tonal cadences unique to the Latin and by promoting and utilising the power of thought,(Hoc EST Enim Corpus Meum) knowing that “as ye think so shall it be”.

Sadly by moving to the vernacular the mystery and magic of the Mass has been diminished, the result is what we have today, empty and dying Churches.

I am astonished that a trained priest or bishop would allow such obvious alterations to the liturgical rite without permission or authority to do so.  Experimentation like this is absolutely WRONG because of the confusion it creates in the most holy prayer to God and also because of the scandal involved.

They may say it is good to do.  But, one might make the same arguments about evil acts which are oriented toward a good outcome. 

I’m not saying the additions are evil; the disobedience is evil however.  Christ only did what the Father willed.  Church leaders should also follow Christ’s example of obedience.

And a note to those who use this situation to bash Vatican II:  pray about your own spirit of disobedience and why you manifest it in bashing Vatican II which represents the Will of God through His Holy Spirit.  If you bash Vatican II, you bash the entire Church and its entire Tradition.  You call the Holy Spirit a liar.  While you may not intend to do this, it is the effect of your action.

Gary,

Polyphony was once prohibited for use in the mass because it was the pop music of the day and was viewed as too “decadent” for worship.

Not saying that the vapid music that permeates most US masses today is the polyphony of the future, but it does provide interesting context.

Lex orandi, lex credendi! Don’t tinker with the true Mass.

@ Post by jacobum on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 8:25 AM (EST): ...Although the NO is a valid Mass, it’s like saying that a VW Beetle and a Bentley are both cars. A correct statement for sure. They are both cars but given a choice one would choose the Bentley over the VW… unless you were not aware of the Bentley’s existence let alone it’s availability and benefits. Case closed.

Dear Jacobum—

It seems to me that that statement is VERY strange indeed, to say the least.

The following is a fact.

Every good action that every created being (angel or human) has ever done or ever will do (through all time, space, and eternity) is as nothing when compared to the Eucharist.

The “Bentley” (your metaphor) is the Eucharist—it is infinitely more important than anything any creatue can or ever will do.

To suppose that we (creatures) can make somehow make the vehicle better is laughable.

The Eucharist

Sure, humans can (and should do better)—to follow the norms more closely, not go overboard with song-celebration, pay more attention, etc—but we MUST admit that whatever we do adds NOTHING to that which is of infinite perfection—the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is perfect.

That’s another good, simple, clean, way to think about it.

The Euchraist is perfect.

See the emphasis?

That is an eternal and infinite perfection.

Right?

Regarding the statement that “millions of Catholics voted with their feet and became Protestants”, that simply underscores the tradgey. It is probably the case that a rational and humble human who believes that the Eucharist IS the Body, the Blood, the Soul, and the Divity of Jesus Christ will never leave it for any reason. To leave the Eucharist is a sad thing indeed and we must pray for those who choose that path.

Let’s not start a “not holy enough” war here—people need to get to the Eucharist and get to Confession. Sure, we can do our best to do it right, but in the end, it seems to me that perhaps the best response before the Eucharist (God) is to try to humble oneself, to beg for mercy, to pray for forgiveness, to ask for love.

Oh Mary, pray for us.

HTH.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Good stuff, thanks for the information.  My parish has not done this fortunately. 

And I completely agree with the above comment about the hymns of the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.  For a 2,000 year old organization with all the beautiful music over the centuries, why this horrid pablum?  How about more 18th Century Anglican hymnody too? 

Would like to get to know the Tridentine Mass, an adult convert of 14 years and only been to one; confusing and hard to follow, but beautiful.  I would like it if my parish started offering the Tridentine Mass.

I am a parish liturgist, and I had a discussion with OCP regarding this issue last spring.  I asked them why they continued to publish these other “tropes” that we shouldn’t be using anyway.  They informed me that according to the USCCB document, they were acceptable.  So, I simply took some white out and erased it from every copy I gave to my musicians.  ...Looking forward to not having to do that in the future.

By the way, I know lots more protestant coming to the Church than Catholics leaving the Church—its the MASS,THE EUCHARIST THAT ATTRACT!!!!! 

Those who stop coming usually don’t become protestants, they stop going to Mass and abandon the Church.  For someone like myself, who came to the Church, I consider them a challenge.  Most of them miss the Eucharist, even though they have abandoned the Church.  Interesting, eh? They know that protestantism—even evangelical, which I was—offers Christ-lite, not Christ’s body, blood soul and divinity.  That is the hook.  Ask whether they miss the Mass and even the hardest cases will usually admit that they do. 

Mary, pray for your Son’s lost sheep.

All of this talk about how the Eucharist is perfect therefore the Mass, regardless of how poorly celebrated, is ipso facto perfect makes me want to throw up a little.  Yes, the Eucharist is perfect; there’s no argument there.  However, if the Mass (or “Mess” as most of them are these days) is “celebrated” irreverently then how on earth do you expect the folks in the pews to take the Eucharist seriously?  YOU CAN’T!  That’s the point!  Tell me, please, how do I see Christ in the Eucharist with guitars, tambourines, drums, silly hats with flashing lights (yes, I saw that - the priest was donning it just after communion), etc., etc. 

It’s embarrassing to be a Catholic these days.  I can’t bring myself to try and convince anyone to convert because the Church is in such disarray.  This is the “fruit” Vatican II - disunity, disharmony, and discord.  The best thing that could happen is to revoke the entire thing and start from scratch.  That’ll never happen, of course, because these guys are far too proud to admit they screwed up.

Finally, as a recent convert, this all has been very difficult for me.  I’ve thought about leaving the Church many times.  Right now I’m in limbo.  I’m staying for my wife; if it wasn’t for her I would have left a year or so ago.  But I’m not sure how much more I can take.  There was a time when I thought the RCC was a beacon of light in a world of darkness.  Now, I’m just not so sure that it’s not yet another man-made invention to explain something that is fundamentally inexplicable.

Sigh…

Dear Mark:

You miss the point.  The Bentley vs Beetle is a HUMAN analogy. No argument about the sublime Eucharist. V2 managed to take the sublime and unilaterally lower it to a liturgy not really worthy of it’s sublime nature in comparison to the Latin Mass Liturgy. Reason the Sublime was de-emphasized in order to to make it more “acceptable” to the vernacular culture. All this was done by a very small group. It was not called for or directed to be done anywhere in the V2 docs. The liturgy was hijacked to appeal to “Protestants”. It has been wildly successful in accomplishing that. The fact that there were 6 Protestant ministers on the advisory group that formulated the NO which was lead by Bugnini is odd at best. In my analogy, the Tridentine Liturgy is the Bentley. The NO is the Beetle. If you still think the analogy is strange, then I invite you to look up Cardinal Ottaviani, Dietrick Von Hildebrand, and Abshp Annibale Bugnini. If none of these names ring any bells for you then make sure you are sitting down when you do your research. Hint: Hildebrand was considered the greatest Theologian of the 20th Century by PP12. (His wife Alice is still alive and active) He warned in writing and otherwise..to paraphrase..If the contemplated changes to the liturgy of the Mass were to be implemented, IT WOULD DESTROY THE CHURCH. Unfortunately, his warnings look prescient.
Again, Don’t know anyone who would knowingly trade a Bentley for a Beetle. That is what happened with the NO. You can’t give what you don’t have and you can’t sell what you don’t own. The Latin Mass was/is beautiful,reverent,sacred and mystical. Likewise, the NO is sacred because of the Eucharist. But the NO liturgy is not beautiful, reverent or mystical by comparison to the Latin Mass. They are two different liturgies designed to evoke different results from those in the pew. The Latin Mass emphasized reverence and God. The NO emphasizes the individual and community.  Unfortunately, the vote is in by the pew sitters. The empty pews and silent voices speak volumes.

God Bless, J

It seems to me that some who pine for the old days in the Church—which I am ignorant of since I was not in the Church in the old days—have lost sight of the wonders of the Church, the Eucharist, the Magisterium, the history, the consistency, the wonder of the Mass, yes, even the current Mass.  I suppose it is easy to grind your teeth over the changes you are not comfortable with, but really, would you give up what you have over it all? 

Revel in what we have, look for the Tridentine Mass, which is increasingly available in my area at least. 

@ Post by jacobum on Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 3:31 PM (EST):
Dear Mark: You miss the point.  The Bentley vs Beetle is a HUMAN analogy.

Yes, and anything human (created) can do nothing to undermine that which is Divine, namely the Eucharist, the Church founded by Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

The point that I am making is that nothing any creature can do can detract anything from the Eucharist.

CCC. 1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

Anything any creature does cannot change that.

In fact, anything ever done by a creature, (V-1, V-2, V-3, ..., V-N) is INCONSEQUENTIAL when compared to the reality of the Eucharist.

Sure, fix the Mass (where necessary), help people learn to pray, etc. That’s all good. But one ought not kid oneself that it really amounts to anything when compared to His Grace. It is all Him, very little (if any) us.

Guess what? The Mass changed after V-2.

Guess what? The Mass will change again.

Guess what? The Eucharist will never change and He is what matters most.

I am saying that all this concern over tropes should be kept in perspective. OK, the Holy See says “tropes are bad”. OK, skip the tropes. No problem. Move on. Its going to take a while to circle the wagons on teh “no tropes allowed” mandate so let’s not hold our breath. In the meanwhile, let’s ask the infinitely more important question—Do we still have the Eucharist? The answer is “yes” and thank God for that. The rest is going to clear up.

For crying out cornflakes, maybe I wish the kid in front of me at Mass would stop picking his nose, but that should not (God help me) be a problem—I need to stay focused on what matters—The Eucharist.

With respect to all concerned, Jesus Christ promised that nothing will ever “DESTROY THE CHURCH”. The gates of hell shall not prevail. That is a promise from the lips of the Lord himself. Let’s keep it in mind and have a little Faith.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

Jacobum - your metaphor is rather telling, and in a funny and probably unintended way, most apt. YOU don’t know anyone who would trade a Bentley for a VW. That doesnt mean they dont exist.

I speak as one who personally prefers, in the abstract, Bentleys and stately, beautifully sung high masses in Latin. But in my corner of the world, the pews are always full at the “VW” masses and the “Bentley” community that appreciates gregorian chant or the tridentine (or other ancient rites, all of which are equally sublime and beautiful - think Rolls Royce or Daimler) can only fill a medium-size church by assembling people from across a 30-or-more-miles area. I would that it were otherwise, but it is the reality in many parishes in this metropolitan region.  It is hard enough to get Americans to study a modern foreign language, but alas, Latin is even less often chosen even when available as an option -which is rare outside of some Catholic institutions, and sometimes even there.

Bentleys are lovely, sublime machines, but their upkeep is tremendously expensive and they are not very gas-efficient. Which vehicle you prefer depends greatly on what you want to use it for.

What does VW stand for? VolksWagen, which literally translates as the common folk’s car. It was designed for farmers and factory workers who were not out to impress anyone with their style or elegance, but to accomplish the mundane tasks of peasant and proletarian life with wide and generous operating tolerances. The NO mass was designed to prevent those not well educated in classical languages (or, indeed, in highly nuanced use of their own language!) from feeling utterly alienated and uncomprehending, and thus uninspired and unawed by the elegant and historic pageant you and I appreciate and favor. To the unsophisticated poor who usually walk, a VW is an awe-inspiring machine. It’s all a matter of perspective.

It is sometimes hilarious to me to see some Roman Catholics talk as if this or that or the other form of the mass is the “only true mass” when the Vatican has clearly said otherwise, and when the Orthodox churches (Greek and further east) find the Latin rite as just as much an inappropriate alteration of the “original” liturgy of which they are the custodians. Try to remember that the 4th century Latin edition/translation of the bible made by St. Jerome is called the VULGATE (from vulgare, to make known to ALL, from vulgus, the common people) because it was written in the (then-current) VERNACULAR that was actually spoken by ORDINARY PEOPLE. From the earliest days of the church, Jesus and His truest followers have always wanted to make His message accessible to EVERYONE regardless of intellectual and cultural/educational limitations. This effort should not be thwarted by an insistence that the only “true” mass is one frozen in a historical moment, however meaningful that version might be to YOU (and me).

Speaking of tropes, on a Marian feast day, as part of the response to the prayers of the faithful, instead of the usual “Lord, hear our prayers,” the response was something along the lines of Mary, pray for us, or something.  I found it odd, but don’t know if that is proper or not.  This is a usually pretty orthodox parish, and therefore am curious about this.

these changes wont affect my faith. what will shock me in the not so far future is when the priest raise the bread and wine and declare it as a mere symbol of Christ and we are all born again in His eyes and therefore no difference with other christian denominations. every mass i attend i pay attention to that one since they started it here in the philippines.

I have always found the “riffing” on the Agnus Dei grating, long before I read that it was not permissible.  It is so hard to focus the heart and mind on the Sacrifice being offered when the moment is crowded out by all these other images of who Jesus is.  Yes, He might well be all those things, but At That Moment, He is the Lamb of God.  We need to be contemplating that aspect of Him, because it is the paramount one.  It is the whole point of the Mass.  We are being distracted from the communion with the Body of Christ, Militant, Triumphant and Suffering by the riffing.  It is not necessary.  Having wanted a moment or two to allow that profound fact to sink in before receiving Communion, I am glad that they are finally being more definitive in their direction.  Now, I can print this out and take it to the music director.

Not that anyone will read this, but I am glad I had a place finally to say my piece.

I am so glad to hear this. I hate hearing those twenty some odd verse Agnus Dei at mass.

My personal favorite is “Cup of love, you take away the sins of the world…” frequently used on the Boston catholic cable TV channel!

I think that one of the Vatican’s points, besides the many others duly described here, is that the use of the Christological tropes tends to say “Look at how clever this music director (or cantor) is. Do you like the clever tropes I picked today, or for this season?” And “Be sure to listen attentively to me when I resume the invocation ‘Lamb of God’ because then it is time for you to sing ‘grant us peace.’” It encourages bravado. Just a thought.

You forgot to list, “Wine of Hope”

I wonder if they can intersperse the latin form the with the English one or in cases where there is a high population of a certain other language if they can use that version. maybe the English then the Spanish then the English again. Using different translations of the agnus dei qui tollis pecca ta mundi phrase. If so this might work well to extend the time in large parishes where there might be several prevalent tongues and still fulfil the basic effect of the rule. What do you think Jimmy does it keep in the rule or not?

Kathleen, your comment on the hymns from the 70’s, 80’s made me laugh.  I don’t like them either and I’m being charitable.  They distract me from the Eucharist because they put me in a bad mood.  Music in church should not put a person in a bad mood.  You should hear beauty and it should make you want to worship God.  Oh well, there’s the Easter vigil next year I can look forward to since the music is beautiful then.

Restoration Radio XIII: The Second Vatican Council
Live Call In to be aired October 20th

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio

You should attend the Latin mass, and you won’t have any abuses at all.  It adheres to the rubrics of the mass, without exception.  Remember, Vatican II changed the mass with ecumenism in mind.  Vatican II had “6 protestant ministers as ‘observers” on the liturgical committee.  You wonder why the mass looks like a protestant service?

Bp. Sanborn: Live Interview Today 3PM EDT

IT HAS been fifty years since Vatican II opened and hit the Catholic Church like an atom bomb.

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, has long been known for his perceptive analysis of the theological errors that flowed from the Council.

Join him and Stephen Heiner for a live and lively discussion of the disaster that was Vatican II:
•TOADY Saturday, October 20
•3:00 PM EDT
•Listen on the Internet at Restoration Radio
•Send your questions via Twitter @truerestoration

Seems like a great deal of time and effort went into automobile references, as well as complaints about poorly written music over the last 30 years.  I personally look forward to the ousting of Altar Girls, women anywhere near the Altar in general (unless they are cleaning), and the complete ban of the English language used in any Mass.  I am looking forward to the New Newer Mass, completely said in Mandarin Chinese (too many people are familiar with Latin).....Oh, sorry, I forgot the article was about alterations to The Lamb of God.  Yeah, we shouldn’t mess with that.  (I bet there was a conspiracy during Vatican II).

@Mark Kamoski

That is not the attitude to have. The spirit of the liturgical changes in VII gets distorted so much that some people think it’s valid as long as the words of consecration are there (“This is my Body…This is the chalice of my Blood…”). We are ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church. One in doctrine, one in the Body of Christ, one in faith…and one in liturgy. We can’t be truly one if everyone is saying his own version of the Mass.

@ Post by mkc on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 8:38 AM (EST):

Regarding this…

That is not the attitude to have.

...on the contrary, to know always that the Eucharist is primary, infinitely more important than anything else in all eternity, it exactly the attitude to have. If fact, it is transcendental, reality itself—existences—it is He who said “I AM”. That is the “dominant term” in the equation of reality, to borrow a phrase from math. Other matters are important (form, rubrics, postures, dress, motions, etc) but one must first know the relative proportion and

I am not saying that the form of the Mass or how it is celebrated is not important. I am saying, however, that one not let a peccadillo of a Priest (or congregation) unseat one’s recognition and focus on that which is THE most important reality—The Eucharist.

Yes, again I say—“fix the Mass”. Yes, stop messing with the Agnus Dei. Yes, I agree. But, I also say, don’t let it shake your Faith. The Church is eternally blessed and guided by Jesus The Christ himself, so do not worry too much about it—not TOO much, as I am suggesting some are doing so.

Also, I am objecting to the Vatican II bashers who come out whenever this type of topic is raised. And so too the New Mass bashers. There is nothing (nothing at all) intrinsically wrong with the New Mass. To say “the Old Mass is better than the New Mass”, as many suggest, is (I am saying) an incorrect statement. By “Mass” here I mean “the prescribed form of the Mass which is handed down by Tradition through the oversight of the Holy See”. That “Mass”, the New Mass or the Old Mass, is good and true and especially so given that it is the event at which He comes to us in the Eucharist in distinct and direct manner.

The “Mass” is perfected solely and only by the fact of the Eucharist, (The Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ himself).

Nothing any human can do can detract from Eucharist—nothing at all.

We are talking about an omnipotent being, Jesus Christ—what is a human by comparison.

Nothing, that’s what, and so too all human action.

And yes, He gives us the grace to respond, the free will to choose Him (or reject Him) and that is (probably) the single and sole human action that has any significance in terms of eternity.

Regarding this…

>>> The spirit of the liturgical changes in VII gets distorted so much

...yes, I agree and it is true, but that does NOT detract from the Eucharist. It is an important thing to fix, yes, I agree. Let’s fix it. But let’s not get to in-fighting just because of a mistake in implementation or a misguided attempt to do something a person thinks is the best way to approach the implementation. For crying out cornflakes. We need unity, not finger-pointing, and unity comes through slow, patient, calm, human interaction. This is a matter of “implementation” only and it has nothing to do with (as some suggest) the fact that the Mass is in Latin or whatever other Pre-Vatican-II implementation detail is preferred.

Yes, you are right—“We can’t be truly one if everyone is saying his own version of the Mass”—that is correct. That’s fine. Yes, make sure folks stick to the Lamb Of God text as written in the Roman Missal. But, come on, there is a matter of degree here too. Let’s try to keep the matter in perspective. Just mention it to the Pastor if you see something amiss. That’s all. Send an email. Mention it in passing. “Hey Father, that was a great homily… oh, by the way, I think that version of The Lamb Of God is not quite by the book so you might want to check that out… oh, yes, see you at bingo on Thursday… thanks for your service Father… see you later… God bless you”. Done. Is that so hard? Sure, if it keeps up, then talk to the Deacon too. Fine. That’s probably all it will take. Is a full-scale assault on Vatican II really necessary? Yikes, the sad case of SSPX (et al) ought to teach us something about trying to avoid schism and the like.

As such, mkc, I must still put forth that the attitude to have is to remember that “the Eucharist is infinitely more important than anything in all eternity”, and so I must respectfully disagree with you if you are suggesting otherwise.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@Mark Kamoski

Actually, you’re kind of making my point. The Eucharist *is* the most important thing in the Mass and taking liberties with the liturgy makes a circus of the whole thing, and thus does not give the Eucharist the respect and dignity required as the “source and summit” of our faith. While it doesn’t (in your words) “detract” from the Eucharist itself, it does detract from the solemnity of the Mass as a whole, which is the most solemn thing we as Catholics do. Wearing a swimsuit to Mass would also not “detract” from the Eucharist, but would it be giving the proper respect to Christ in the Eucharist?

In college, I went to a liberal church in a liberal diocese where the priest improvised the Canon. Of course it did not invalidate the Mass, but it made me very sad. Those parishioners were deprived of the true solemnity of the Mass because it had been turned into a sandbox for the priest to test out different ways of saying the Prayer. What are we as Catholics looking for here: simply something to call a valid Mass and be able to check off a box on Sunday, or to worship God as He ought to be worshipped?

Secondly, it is through the Eucharist that we have unity/communion. The reason we don’t permit people of other faiths, including Protestants to receive the Eucharist is that we are not communion with them. While these liturgical infractions are not as serious as offering communion to someone of another faith, improvisation and blatant changing the words of the Mass are not keeping with the idea of what the Eucharist is.

I believe this article was intended to raise awareness of a particular liturgical infraction that many already feel uncomfortable about, but may not have the knowledge or confidence to approach the priest about. Plus, since so many have lived with liturgical infractions for so long, they may have become complacent, or worse, never have learned the correct Litany.

Also, I would also like to say that I am not a traditionalist nut. I am a lover of Vatican II (not the distortions perpetrated by so many modernists) and a lover of the Novus Ordo (done correctly).

Mark Kamoski You said you love the Novus Ordo (done correctly).
Then you must just love the cheeze-head priest mass, the circus mass, the balloon masses, the girls dancing around the table masses, the beach masses and around the coffee table masses, the guitar and dance band music, the female Eucharistic ministers…...  Do I understand you correctly?

Oct. 24t: Joe…how shallow you are!!  Mark Kamoski clearly said he loved both the new and the old celebrations of the Mass ‘when done correctly’ so you have to blather disrespectfully and add nasty comments…you apparently are not capable of understanding a sincere and beautifully written comment so you go shallow…think and pray before you make such ridiculous comments - please!

Mark Kamoski—Do you accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 844. Sec. 3 that states that the Eucharist can be given to schismatics and heretics?

  Compare to the Council of Trent: “If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema.  But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”

Did the noble Council of Trent get it wrong?

Also, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 731 states:  “It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they may be in good faith and ask for them.  It is necessary that they first renounce their errors and become reconciled to the Church.”

Did the 1917 Code of Canon Law contain an error, in your opinion?

florin,  I know facts are miserable, but the fact of the matter is that the words of Consecration are changed in the novus ordo missae.  The “mystery of faith” is no mystery but dogma.  Transubstantiation is not longer acceptable in it.  Furthermore, florin, the ‘celebration’ for the assembly/People of God is done upon a wooden table without the Tabernacle, the Crucifix, and holy relicts…....  Now if that’s not enough, the novus ordo missae is EVERYthing Martin Luther proposed when he separated from the Roman Catholic Church.  Its changes were to not be offensive to separated brethren and all are called forward to receive the bread in the hand which has been condemned no less than 5 times by Pontiffs.  There are many errors in the novus ordo missae. 

Have you read the book, “Work of Human Hands” by Rev. Anthony Cekada?

How does one do sacrileges well, may I ask?  Where does it state it is perfectly acceptable to be offensive to God just as long as it is done well?

Joe, did you not read what was written? Mark specifically stated that he honored both forms of the Mass…the ancient and the Vatican II liturgy -WHEN PERFORMED CORRECTLY!!! So why do you continue to throw in instances where those Masses are not performed correctly???

Oct. 24th:  Sorry Joe, I just realized that you probably belong to the Lebfevre group who claimed that Vatican II and anything that came after that were diabolical…he even called Pope John Paul II diabolical…

florin, how does one do sacrileges correctly?
The novus ordo missae violates the First Commandment.  It was fabricated by ‘Archbishop’ Bugnini and 6 protestant ministers.  http://www.novusordowatch.org/bugnini.pdf
Did you think there was any fidelity by these men to the Roman Catholic Church when beautiful altars were driven to the dump, changed the words of consecration giving it new meaning, communion rails removed, statues thrown into the rubbish, altar stones installed as floor tiles, Eucharist ministers passing out the bread , ,  presbyters being entertainers at the ‘table’, presbyters stripped of priestly attire,………? All this and more was changed in order to adapt to a protestanized, pluratistic, ecumenical service. 
I am not part of the ‘recognize and resist’ crowd.  One can no longer trust which priests are legitimately ordained according to the Order of Melchizedek in the SSPX.
Have you read the book, “Work of Human Hands” by Rev. Anthony Cekada?

@ Post by Joe on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 10:20 AM (EST):

Regarding your statement…

>>> You said you love the Novus Ordo (done correctly). Then you must just love the cheeze-head priest mass, the circus mass, ... [etc] ...  Do I understand you correctly?

...no, it appears to me that you do not understand me correctly, or at least not completely. My “love” of the New Order Mass (and the Old Order Mass) is singularly and wholly driven by my love for the Eucharist, Jesus Christ.

What I am saying is the following.

The Eucharist is infinitely more important than any other thing in eternity.

That is as simple as I can state it in a short-form right now. However, if that is not clear in any way, then please let me know and I will try my best to clarify my point.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Joe on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 10:44 AM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding this statement of yours…

>> Mark Kamoski—Do you accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law

...my answer is “yes”. (Add an exclamation point if you like.)

Given that the Imprimatur is valid, the Nihil obstat is valid, and the Code is presented to the faithful under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—yes, of course I accept it.

In better words than mine, I quote from the beginning of the Code itself…

Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit, and with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised.

I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned in order that it may be observed.

...

I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation with a sincere spirit and good will in the hope, that there may flower again in the Church a renewed discipline and that consequently the salvation of souls may be rendered ever more easy under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.

...in the excellent words of Blessed John Paul II, God rest his soul.

Regarding your question…

>>> Did the noble Council of Trent get it wrong?

...the answer is “no” but they may have not gotten it “perfect” and or “completely perfect”.

Again, since is such good wording, I quote the 1983 Canon on this matter, as follows…

“During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that in constant fidelity to its divine founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted to it.”

...so that is the answer, in general and specific. It is a matter of adaption to His Grace, as we move through space and time. Adaption is normal and necessary, as the created order changes, and humans make various changes (AKA “choices”). The syntax and circumstance changes as space-time moves forward, and we humans change too. That is the natural order inscribed by Life, Jesus Christ.

With the written word, this change is especially relevant because words carry meaning. For example, if I say “it is raining cats and dogs” in 2012, then most folks in the USA will know what I am talking about, here and now. However, if I keep that same phrasing up until the year 20120m then the phrasing may need to be adapted to avoid confusion. Maybe. Maybe not. Etc.

And so, those are my answers to your questions.

FWIW, I too share concern for the seemingly careless way that some handle the Mass. I worry about it. Yes, I do. However, when I come before my Maker, Jesus Christ, and I leave my worries at the foot of his Holy Cross, and ponder the tears shed by his Mother on that Holy ground, and maybe I can sense a shadow of understanding in the words “all is vanity” and maybe begin to see that I am as nothing before the Lord, and for that I try to be grateful.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Oct. 24th: Joe, I am sorry that you seem to have attended many, many Masses that were celebrated in a sacriligious way - or did that happen all in one place. As far as altar rails being thrown out, etc…that should not have happened but there were no altar rails at the Last Supper..try to get beyond the ‘surface’ appearance to the essentials - try to find a Church that satisfies you, if possible. There are, and have always been, abuses - make them known, in a respectful way, to your Bishop and if that does not work, write to Cardinal Raymond Burke in Rome - meanwhile, as I said, try to find a Church that pleases you or you will be vulnerable to satan and he will use your dissatisfaction and criticisms to break you…we will pray for you that you find some peace of mind and soul.

Oct. 24th: Thanks for your post Robyn…there is beauty in both forms and since both are sanctioned by the Church, both are dear to the Heart of God.  How the Priest celebrates the Mass can annoy some…rushing, going too slow, mumbling, etc…but we are there to worship our God, to adore, to join with the Catholic Community throughout time and eternity in praise and in prayer, and if we let things annoy us to the point where, instead of worshiping we mumble and criticize throughout the Mass, then we give satan pleasure, not God.  If there are serious issues, present them respectfully to your Bishop or to Rome…if anyone prefers one form of the Mass over another, that’s one’s own business..but to denigrate the form of Mass you don’t like is just wrong…try to focus on Christ, on the Mystery of Transubstantiation…and the Lord will help you get past that which is blocking genuine worship—satan is very powerful and a favorite tool is to create division, to block the path to true encounter with Christ by letting little things annoy us, take up our time, our thoughts so we miss the beauty and the power of the Mass…I am not talking about major issues…there were serious issues after Vatican II not because Vatican II got it wrong but because it was misinterpreted, misrepresented by some Priests and Religious. Try to find a place where you can worship peacefully…let God show you the way.

florin you said, “but to denigrate the form of Mass you don’t like is just wrong…try to focus on Christ, on the Mystery of Transubstantiation…

Catholics have a duty to denigrate what is a sacrilege.  Actually righteous indignation is called for when Our Lord Crucified for the sins of the world is mocked at the table by presbyters.  Souls are harmed by these outrages for there is no grace from receiving it.

There is no “mystery of Transubstantiation” in the novus ordo missae because protestants detested it and all must feel welcomed to the table, so they say.  Protestants designed the nonvus ordo missae.  The Mystery of Faith as spoken in the n. o. m. is no mystery but dogma.  A legitimate bishop or priest would never participate in this sacrilege.

-

florin, it is much more than a matter of what pleases me when I go to Mass. It is the fact that the conciliar church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Conciliarists have got to admit they are in a denomination amongst many others as so stated in Lumen Gentium paragraph 8.  The conciliar Church does not safeguard the Total Deposit of Faith because as L. G. states truth is found outside of the Church.  Furthermore, Vatican II is clear that exclusivity must stop and the Church must continually be purified.  Heretical!!!  That’s not misinterpretation it’s called let us gather together to form one world order religion.

Mark Kamoski, I asked if the noble Council of Trent get it wrong?  And you replied, “...the answer is “no” but they may have not gotten it “perfect” and or “completely perfect”.
Mark Kamoski, a pope promulgates a legitimate Council or it is a heretical council.  Popes do not correct their predecessors.  That is dogma.  Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  If you accept that popes and councils can err with the infallible spirit endowed by Pontiffs, are you also stating that the Holy Spirit was not completely perfect?
Do you know what you are saying, Mark Kamoski?  Are you saying there is no truth and the Holy Spirit can be corrected or the Holy Spirit can change dogma?  No wonder people are forming their own consciences as allowed by Vat II with this kind of reasoning. 

Mark Kamoski, you say you are “wholly driven by my love for the Eucharist, Jesus Christ”.

If that were true, you would never attend the novus ordo missae that makes a mockery of the consecration.  These are not the essential words that are to be spoken for a consecration plus many other factors make it an illegitimate consecration.
Read:  “Work of Human Hands” by Rev. Anthony Cekada.  We live this live for the hereafter and we must be vigilant and faithful to Church Militant.  Yes, that means protestants and those who are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not receive the Eucharist.  In the conciliar church, however, anything goes for it really does not matter.

Oct. 24th…Joe, I won’t respond anymore…you are mired in bitterness and you seem to be painting all Masses as heretical which you don’t like for some reason…I’ve been to many Masses across this country and I am a committed Catholic, daily Mass, and I have seen things that have been off but no major ‘scandals’...I don’t know where you go to Mass but it seems you are making it seem that this is a really vast scandal - you are judging pretty widely and I wish you would sit and write down for yourself the names and locations of every single Church, every Mass, every Priest that you feel is heretical and send the list to your Bishop or to Rome…with the reasons you feel the way you do.

Joe, it is obvious that no matter how Mark Kamoski attempts to answer you thoroughly and deeply, you come back with a dissertation attacking the new Mass and, it seems to me, trying to show that you have a deeper knowledge and understanding than anyone else..after reading your essays, I have come to believe that you should seek help for your troubled soul and mind…I’m sure you feel you are absolutely right…but your essays are twisted and bitter and self-righteous, seeming to defend your own ideas rather than the teachings of the Church.  I hope you will find peace and stop looking for things to attack.  Meanwhile, I will ask the daily Mass goers if they have found problems such as you seem to find everywhere…

good work again by Mr Akin,  I never heard of tropes or been at a mass where tropes were brought into play.  Lucky me,  always learning and my Akin does his work well.

@ Post by Joe on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 5:37 PM (EST):

Dear Joe—

You obviously did not read my post above.

I will give you a very brief synopsis, which captures the essential elements.

You asked “did the Council of Trent get it wrong?”

I answered “no”.

Then, I explained a bit, regarding the need for the 1983 Canon, by quoting the 1983 Canon introduction itself, which sums up the matter beautifully, clearly, and simply as follows…

“During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that in constant fidelity to its divine founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted to it.”

And that is it, in a nutshell.

Of course Truth, Jesus Christ, is absolute. Don’t be silly and please do not put words in my mouth or twist my words, that’s just plain wrong action. I have never said or intended or thought anything contrary to the fact that the Truth, Jesus Christ, is absolute, unchanging, and perfect.

I was wondering why there is so much disconnect between what I write and what you think you understand about my writing. Now, I think the largest part of this disconnect is the fact that you are a sedevacantist (or similar), and that would explain your disregard for the Holy See. It seems to me that the SSPX followers are either schismatics or sedevacantists or both.

See…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism (derived from the Latin words sedes or “seat”, and vacans or “vacant”)[1]) is the position, held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics,[2][3] that the present occupant of the papal see is not truly Pope and that, for lack of a valid Pope, the see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. A tiny number of these claim the vacancy actually goes back to the death of Pope Pius X in 1914.

I have answered all of your questions, Joe—so let’s see if you can answer one of mine, clearly and directly.

So, let’s cut to the chase here…

Joe, are you a sedevacantist?

Please advise.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Joe on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 5:46 PM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding your comment…

>>> never attend the novus ordo missae that makes a mockery of the consecration.  These are not the essential words that are to be spoken for a consecration plus many other factors make it an illegitimate consecration.

...for me to address this meaningfully any further I must know whether or not you are a sedevacantist. I asked this question directly in a post above and I ask it again now. Without that answer, our conversation is likely to continue to be a simple contradiction of each others points, which is not very fun. Regardless and of course, I do put forth that the New Mass does have a valid Eucharist and I reject as anathema any suggestions to the contrary.

Regarding the book that you keep recommending, I am very sorry but my reading list is already way too and I cannot add any more to it at this time. In general, I have more work than time. I thank God for that state-of-affairs and pray that it will continue. So, I regret to say that it will probably be some time (if ever) that I have time to read your recommended book. However, I would be very happy (and interested) to read a synopsis/summary of it. If you can point me in that direction, that would be great. A link on the web would be nice and helpful. And, if I can get to such, I would be happy to let you know my analysis of it, etc.

Regarding this…

Yes, that means protestants and those who are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not receive the Eucharist.

...this is exactly the current approach in Catholic Church, headed by the Holy See in Rome. (See the quote below CCC 1400.)

Regarding this…

In the conciliar church, however, anything goes for it really does not matter.

...I do not know what gave you that idea but whoever did so is sorely mistaken.

Please note the following from the current Catechism Of The Catholic Church…

CCC. 1400. Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.“239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

....so that puts to rest any notion that “anything goes”, in terms of inter-communion and other matters.

Besides, it is funny that you would even bring up the point of inter-communion being a probably in the current Catholic Church (headed by the Holy See in Rome), because you have stated that you believe the Eucharist to be invalid, (which I must say is a false claim), so the matter of inter-communion would not be a problem and the matter would be a moot point. So I wonder why you even bring this up? Again, it gets back to the central question—are you a sedevacantist or not?

Oh yes, here is one more VERY important question that I would need you to answer directly and clearly in order for our conversations to be good, as follows…

Do you accept the most-recent Catechism Of The Catholic Church as a “sure norm” for Catholics?

It would helpful to know your position on this. I realize that if you are a sedevacantist then you almost certainly do not accept the current Catechism Of The Catholic Church. But, if you are, in fact, not a sedevacantist, then I would still need to know your answer to this question. Please let me know ASAP so that we may proceed with our discussion in a good and true way.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark Kamoski - I read your posts and will give you answers but I’ve got a time constraint.  Two things: #l I’ve given references to what I believe to be truth.  I intend to substantiate what I believe for there are difficulties.  #2 Visuals are helpful and I have posted some online visuals but they are not allowed by the moderator.

  As for putting words in your mouth I’ve asked you questions in order for you to clarify what you are referring. I will debate the Vatican II documents and the novus ordo missae validity.  I will not debate personalities nor point accusations at you, but I have one exception and that is with the general editor of the CCC who is Christoph Cardinal Schönborn and also the author of YouCat.  As you know YouCat has been recalled because of errors.  C.C. Schönborn is the current ecclesiastical advisor at Ave Marie University, Naples, Florida.  When the university was being built I pledged money to help build and when I discovered that Schönborn has twice given the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great Award to pro abort politicians I was outraged.  He also is known for the balloon masses and other controversial issues.

http://catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=47112

Many say the errors and abuses are due to misinterpretations of the Vatican II documents. Schönborn has been around for a long time. If a man of his power and position “misinterprets” what can one expect from our youth and all the People of God?  More later.

In regards to administering the Eucharist to non Catholics:
The 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Canon 844, Sec. 3: “Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed.”

Sec. 4: “If there is danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic Faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

In the “Directory for the Application and Norms of Ecumenism” dated June 8, 1993, a new law was extended to allow the “eucharist” to be given to non-Catholics during the ceremonies for mixed marriages.

“At mixed marriages, between a Catholic and a baptized Christian who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, a eucharistic sharing is possible.”

…………………….Compare this new law of 1983 to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 731:

“It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they may be in good faith and ask for them. It is necessary that they first renounce their errors and become reconciled to the Church.”

Furthermore, the Council of Trent taught:
“If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”

Some information in regards to the novus ordo missae:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/mass.htm

Oct. 26th: Mark, it is now obvious what Joe is trying to do…he has come to this site as a Lefebvre follower and will use his responses to your arguments as a way to link to sites that stand against the Catholic Church-you may not have followed his last link but it leads to an article that tries to prove Vatican II was illegit and links to books, one of which is written by Lefebvre…you may want to continue to debate Joe but I believe he is just using you to get to others on this site ... if you think debating him will help, I’ll be praying for you.  But those who declare that Vatican II and the Popes that follow are evil, are themselves instruments of satan and channels of evil…I’ll be praying for you - and for Joe who is very confused and bitter. God bless you both.

In the document of Vatican II’s “Unitatis Redintegratio”, no. 3 states that Protestants are not charged with sin for men of both sides are to blame and, “are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” protestants “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” because “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using separated brethren (or those by imperfect communion with the Catholic Church) as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

There you have it:  Schismatics and heretics with their defects are to be honored and esteemed, but never is the Traditional Catholic looked upon as honorable and neither can they nor will they enter in.

florin, I’ve stated I’m not part of the “Recognize and Resist”.  I’m stating facts and you are adding senseless and unkind words because you do not know how to defend conciliarism.  Character assassination is very unkind and commonly used when one can not properly refute nor defend their position.

Oct. 26th:  So, Joe, you are not posting links to sites that stand against the legitimate Catholic Church, with books written by Lefebvre? There is only ONE legitimate Catholic Church whose head is Pope Benedict XVI…and although there were misinterpretations of Vatican II, the Council itself was legitimate and if you read the documents, you will see for yourself.  Instead of immersing yourself in anti-Catholic literature and arguments, go to the Source and pray for enlightenment and guidance.

Oct. 26th…and where do you see that the ‘traditional Catholic is not looked upon as honorable?’ I am a ‘traditional’ Catholic and have never been looked upon as dishonorable.  But, if by ‘traditional’ you mean those who reject Vatican II, then perhaps…although I would use the term ‘misguided’...if you are seeking the truth in sincerity of heart, you will find it.  But if you are seeking excuses for rejecting the teachings of Vatican II ...legitimate excuses, you will not find them. Read the documents and see what happens…

@ Post by Joe on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 4:30 PM (EST):

Regarding this…

>>> I read your posts and will give you answers

...well, actually, you have given answers, through what you have written. I have your answers to the central questions at-hand, as follows.

I asked: Are you a sedevacantist?
You have indicated via your latest post of Oct 25, 2012 4:30 PM (EST), and your other posts above, that you answer “yes” to this question.

I asked: Do you accept the current Catechism as a sure norm?
You have indicated clearly via you post of Oct 25, 2012 4:30 PM (EST), that you answer “no” to this question.

That’s about all I really need to know in order to proceed.

(As a matter of good form, I will add the caveat that if my analysis of your position on these 2 questions is incorrect, then please do let me know and I will adjust my reply. However, given what you have said, unless virtually everything that you wrote is a “typo”, I cannot honestly see how anyone could maintain that your actual position on these 2 question is any different from what I have discovered through my present analysis.)

Since you do not accept the Pope’s authority and you also do not accept Catechism, then there is really little left for us to discuss on the matter. If (as you suggest) in the current Catholic Church headed by Rome, the Pope is not valid, and the Bishops are not valid, and the priests are not valid—then, the Mass is not valid and the Eucharist is not valid. And so, I am not sure why you bother trying to correct the Novus Ordo Mass. It seems silly. If it is, as you suggest, worthy only of being ignored, then why don’t you ignore it?

I know why—because a mistake (schism or sedevacantism) must be rationalized to the human mind OR that human mind needs to find repentance. Since pride is the obstacle to repentance, a human mind that wishes to rationalize a mistake must be under the influence of pride. That’s it in a nutshell. The Father Of Lies, of course, is the source at the core of all such temptations.

Here is why sedevacantism is wrong.
Sedevacantism is wrong because Jesus said so. It is wrong because it would mean that the Church has fallen, which is impossible. Why is it impossible for the Church to fall? Well, simply because Jesus promised it. That is a promise from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Nothing could be more true than words from Truth itself. He-who-is said: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”, [Douay-Rheims. Mathew 16:18-]. That’s it. It just is impossible for the Church to fall. It cannot happen because it would be a contradiction to Truth itself. The Church He founded, (which is the current Catholic Church headed today via apostolic succession), cannot fail. Ever. It cannot be unseated. It cannot be overthrown. It can have human-generated problems, yes, but these “shall not prevail” against His Church. It is just not going to happen. He promised it. Period. End of story.

Here is why schism is wrong.
Schism is wrong because Jesus said so. “And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”, [Douay-Rheims. John: 17:20-]. Things that detach from the whole (Protestants) and others (SSPX) are not in unity with the Church, not in full communion with His whole, the Church He founded. So, Jesus wished such that we “all may be one”, in Him. Breaking off from the Church is NOT an answer to any sort of so-called problem the Church may have due to human action. He does not want division he wants unity. He prayed for it. Period. End of story.

Now, let’s go full circle, as I have been saying all along, as follows.

- The Eucharist is infinitely more important than any other thing in all eternity.

- There is no human action that can detract from the Eucharist.

- The source and summit of faith is the Eucharist.

- Humans should focus on the Eucharist.

We ought try our best to respond to His grace as best as we can, yes. However, our primary focus must be on the Eucharist, (the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ). If we focus there, then we are all set. He gives us this faith.

This post of mine sums up the matter pretty well, in the limited skill that I have for such matters. I am happy to try to make all that more clear, if you like. However, this post of mine (and those above) relay my position on these matters.

This is a weird conversation, I must say. I am saying things like “let’s focus on the Eucharist” and you seem to be saying things like “let’s overthrow the Pope” and “let’s burn the Catechism” and so on. That kind of stuff that you are saying and suggesting is just so WAY out-there that I am surprised we are in the same space-time locale. I am happy to try to help you. However, I am wondering if my overall alignment to reality may not be intrinsically disparate from yours. Etc.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

florin, misrepresentations are drops of poison that kills souls.  These misrepresentations in Vatican II are “contradictions” to Sacred Tradition and explained by one very notable person as “a countersyllabus”.  Holy Mother the Church does not deceive nor is deceived.

Are you acquainted with the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX December 8, 1864. In it he states:

“15. Everyone is free to follow and to profess the religion which the light of reason leads him to judge to be the true religion. CONDEMNED

“16. Men can find the way to eternal salvation, and they can attain salvation in the practice of any religion whatever”...CONDEMNED
“77. In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.CONDEMNED

  Many of what is in the “Syllabus of Errors” is now acceptable practice.  Furthermore, Traditional Catholics cannot have the time Immemorial Holy Sacrifice of the Mass said in any of the U S bishops’ Churches.  Have you asked a priest who does the Latin Masses and the Novus Ordo Missae how many months did he study Latin and how can he explain two very different consecrations?

If you would rightly admit you are in the conciliarist church than we have no arguments.

Mark, refute what I say and stop this character smearing.  It’s a waste of space or are you embarrassed that you have very little knowledge of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial Teachings handed on? Sacred Tradition, the Magesterium and Sacred Scripture must stand together.  These are the three pillars of Holy Mother the Church which do not contradict in subsequent generations.  To say that the dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church promulgated must “change” or “adapt” or “give new meaning” is conciliarism and in fact is a church among many other denominations holding particles of truth in each as stated in Lumen Gentium paragraph 8.

You say that, “There is no human action that can detract from the Eucharist.- The source and summit of faith is the Eucharist”.

Msg. Bugnini and his protestant ministers who designed the novus ordo missae knew what is a legitimate consecration and they chose to change a an essential part of the Mass plus many other rubrics of the Mass.

IF you truly believed what you said about the Eucharist than how do you tolerate UN-CONsecrated hands - Eucharistic ministers handling the hosts and putting it into thands and given to those not in communion with the conciliar Church?

mark, This OK with YOU?  You made no response to von Schönborn’s balloon Mass, awards to pro aborts and other errors.

On Pentecost Sunday 2012, the Archbishop of Vienna Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn told the faithful that “His Holiness the Dalai Lama” was an honored guest at the Mass being said in St. Stephen’s Cathedral. In fact, the Dalai Lama, dressed in his saffron robes, was seated ostensibly in the choir of the presbytery for the whole audience to see. “A person who is deeply rooted in his own faith can show deep respect for the faith of others,” said Schönborn, praising the pagan leader for his “attendance.”
See Volume IV of Atila Guimarães’ Collection on Vatican II, titled Animus Delendi II (Desire to Destroy II). He explains the various stages of ecumenism that lead to a Pan-religion. First there is a thawing in the militant position of the Church toward the false sects, followed by dialogue. Then comes “communion,” which seeks an accord that will promote actions in common with the followers of other creeds.

How is this accord reached? Because the doctrinal differences tend to divide and lead to polemics, the progressivists conveniently set them aside “and try to establish a practical ecumenism, an ‘existential’ or ‘happy-to-be-together’ ecumenism.”

@ Post by Joe on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:15 AM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding your comment…

>>> Mark, refute what I say

...I have done so, quoting the words of Lord Jesus Christ, above.

It that is not good enough, then nothing can be.

I prove above, by simply quoting the Lord, the following.

Sedevacantism is wrong.

Schism is wrong.

As to your objections to YouCat and the rest of it, there is no point in starting that conversation with a sedevacantist or a schismatic. The authority of those matters rests on the acceptance of the Pope and the Catechism. Since you accept neither, the details are not worth discussing. As such, we need to stick to the matters of sedevacantism and schism before we can sensibly talk about other matters.

I await YOUR response to the words of the Lord, as I quote above and here.

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”, [Douay-Rheims. Mathew 16:18-].

“And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”, [Douay-Rheims. John: 17:20-]

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Joe on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:30 AM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding this…

mark, This OK with YOU?  You made no response to von Schönborn’s balloon Mass, awards to pro aborts and other errors…

...please note that the matter at-hand is “sedevacantism” and “schism”. That is the primary topic at hand. Discussing Schonborn and the other matters you mention is moot if I am talking to a sedevacantist.

Discussing secondary matters before primary matters is kind of silly. For example, suppose Person 1 says both (A) “photography is not art” and (B) “the subject matter that photographer choose is not good art”. Well, it is a bit redundant, at the least, for Person 1 to say B after Person 1 has already stated B. B is implied by A—and in fact B says nothing new given that A has already been said. That’s like the current case here.

As such, I can just say—yes, Joe, of course a sedevacantist would find a lot wrong (probably everything wrong) with the current Catholic Church led by the Pope Benedict XVI. That’s pretty obvious. But, I say, it is the sedevacantist who is wrong, not the Catholic Church, for the reasons (quotes from the Lord) that I present above.

Look, Joe, I like you. I really do. You seem to have a love for the Lord, and such a love is commanded. So, where does that leave us in this discussion?

Well, I will put this anonymously by saying the following. The SSPX mistake, and that’s what we seem to really be talking about here, goes back a long way.

So, to a founding SSPX’er I would want to ask—Did you ever consider getting to a church and saying a Rosary or two? Did you ever consider talking to the Pastor each and every time you saw something “wrong” with the Mass? Did you ever consider doing some great research, printing it out, and giving it to the Pastor to help him? Did you ever consider talking to the Bishop? Did you ever consider fixing that which is in need of repair rather than throwing it away? Did you join the Parish Council? Did you teach CCD? Did you call the local ombudsman office of the Church (I forget the name of that office but I know it exists.) Did you write letters to Rome? Did you volunteer on the events that the Church organized? Did you help the Deacon? Did you serve at the soup kitchen? Did you wash the floors? Etc, etc, etc. For crying out cornflakes—there are BILLION good, honest, pure, true actions that could have been taken to help the Church and I am wondering, did you try them all?

Goodness sakes. Really? You really want to be a sedevacantist? You really want to overthrow the current Pope, Benedict XVI? You really want to burn the current Catechism? Really? You really want us to believe THAT is the answer a good way to go? That’s your solution? That is what you want to be your life’s work? Come on? Really? That’s the plan?

Sheesh, that is just boggling to me. I really do not get it. It is just so strange that it seems like, as I have noted, a foreign mode of perception or some other facet of existence with which I have virtually nothing in common.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Oct. 26th:  Joe, it seems that when someone responds with comments you don’t like you accuse them of smearing you…Joe, you are apparently cemented into your pre-Vatican II mindset - and do not and will not accept the validity of Vatican II or of the Popes who came after…I wish you well…and hope you find true peace in your choices to stand openly and adamently against Vatican II and the Popes who are the only legitimate successors of St. Peter…beware though that satan does not use you in your obstinate choices to stand against the successors to St. Peter and the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  As Mark said, Christ Himself said that there would be scandals and sins within the Church but that evil would not prevail and His Church would stand forever ...peace to you…

Mark,  it was not until I ran from the counciliar church that I started to understand more about the revolutionary, ecumenical,  anti Catholicism in the counciliar church.  The word counciliar was not even part of my vocabulary. My conservative friends and I never read the 16 documents of Vatican II and we rarely spoke of pre Vatican II encyclicals.  We anguished over the liberalness.  We approached presbyters (that was not a word spoken as a concilarist also) individually and collectively.  When receiving the ‘claimed consecrated host’ we deliberately avoided the lay ministers unless the presybter was sitting as he sometimes does during that time.  I was pro-active, very active.  RCIA I had heard was teaching errors so I joined them to find out for myself.  I was shocked at the RCIA speakers and even with the ‘pastor’.  The ’pastor’s’ interpretation of the Eucharist to the new comers was a desecration in itself.  What really set me off and I became very pro active against it was when I discovered the horrific sexualized catechetical education curriculum being taught in the parochial school.  Youth are being used as fodder to destroy Catholicism. 

See the “Growing In Love” curriculum at:  www.motherswatch.net part 1 and 2.  Read Randy Engel’s book, “Sex Education, The Final Plague”.  The Vat 2 document on education gave the green light to teach co-ed sexualized materials in spite of the fact that it has been Supremely condemned.  My grandchildren are affected by these men in black who allow such atrocities.  There is so much more I could say about this but space and time are a problem.

When I was introduced to the time Immemorial Holy Sacrifice of the Mass I never turned back.  The scales were removed from my eyes and I stopped making excuses for the “misrepresentations” as florin would say.  I was discovering why people were leaving the church; why sin was never spoken about; who contrived that lutheranized/protestanized version of a new order mass and why the Traditional Latin Mass was held in a tight fisted control.  Very few were offered and at very difficult times of the day.
I’m shocked that conciliarists continue to financially support what is destroying the precepts and principals of Holy Mother the Church in their weekly giving that goes to parochial schools.  Studies have proven that females at claimed Catholic colleges and universities are more promiscuous than their peers.  The St. Joseph’s Foundation, Texas, canonists say there is no recourse towards the teachers who collaborate with the U S Bishops to destroy our youth in the parochial classrooms.  I have extensive correspondence with them.  The Canon Laws changed to protect the guilty.  Only 10% of Teachers in parochial accept the teachings on birth controlling, remarriages and abortion. 

I’ve written to the Cardinal Newman Society that was formed to mandate that teachers in ‘Catholic’  colleges and universities teach Excordia Ecclesia instructed by John Paul II.  Today, there is not one Catholic university or college that teaches the true faith in the U S.  They abuse the name.  Now the same is true with pro-life groups.  Sexualized education encourages youth to become engaged in vices that puts all people at risk.  Abortion is secured by sex education per the Guttmacher Institute, yet the ‘men in black’ spoil the innocent minds of youth by placing information before them that will not only dumb down their ability to learn but will harm them for the rest of their life.

Claimed ‘Catholic’ Pro-life groups refuse, to address sex education in parochial classrooms.  It is out of their comfort zone and it is also not allowed by those who dictate what is opposition to abortion.  I dare say pro life groups have signed an agreement not to oppose the U S Bishops.  The U S Bishops could shut down the abortion industry if they had the will. 

I’ve said enough for now.  More later or any questions.  I wish I could discuss this more without the restraints of this media.

Mark K     There is something much more important than receiving the Eucharist and that is ‘obedience’ – obedience to the Commandments of God and all the Magisterial Teachings of Holy Mother the Church.  If once receives with mortal sin on their soul they heap condemnation upon themselves.  There is a scripture reference in 1 Corinthians in regard to not receiving the Eucharist with a grave sin unconfessed.  Therefore, separated brethren cannot and should never be given the Eucharist.  It is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.

@ Post by Joe on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 8:00 PM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding this…

Mark K   There is something much more important than receiving the Eucharist and that is ‘obedience’

...please note that I said…

The Eucharist is infinitely more important than any other thing in all eternity.

...which is a fact.

Please note that the word “receiving” is NOT in that sentence.

The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

As such, there is nothing more important in all eternity.

Roger on the “fit to receive” part, that stuff’s pretty academic, and so that leads us to the Sacrament Of Reconciliation, etc.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Joe on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:44 PM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding this…

>>> Mark,  it was not until I ran from the counciliar church that I started to understand more about the revolutionary, ecumenical,  anti Catholicism in the counciliar church….

...and your whole post there, the hard times you have seen, I am sorry. I am so very sorry that has happened to you. You are in my prayers. That is really a tough hand to be given. My experience has been virtually nothing (not at all) like that. So, we come from “different worlds”, in a sense. At this point, and ever, I am praying for all folks with heavy crosses, lives that have come to be challenged in many ways. I will do all I can to help you and others like you. I am really sorry that stuff has happened to you.

However, my faith has been tested in many ways too. I have not, and will not, leave the Church headed by Rome, the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. In a sense, I cannot. I have an indellible mark on my soul via Baptism into this Church and I have been further Confirmed in that Church. I love it and would be honored to give my life for it, here and now, it is is His will. I accept my yoke, whatever it is, because He promised he would help me with it. I reject my fear when I witness fallen faith, because He said nothing shall prevail against the Church. I reach my hand from this Church and will sacrifice anything He wills to help any human, because He wished for all of us to be as one. I will stand with my feet on the Rock that is the throne given to Peter and will love that Church, because He loved the Church enough to die for it. I will reject my worries about tomorrow, because He told me to do so. I am a sinner and imperfect. These words are big and they are hard to write and I do not even know how I will live up to them. I do not know if I will even remember them. But, I have faith that He knows and He will help me. And, I can say that for at least this moment in eternity, I can know that I am a creature endowed with free-will from my Creator, and I can say here and now that I am ready to do whatever He wants me to do, His will be done, and that is my level-best response to His Grace.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark, you do a grave disservice to the souls who are not absolving their sins.  We are all sinners - for we are a stiff necked people who do not reckonize the true condition of human nature.  First we must be cleansed and THEN we can receive the Body and Blood of Christ.  To supersede the Eucharist before the Sacrament of Confession (I know counciliarists call it ‘reconciliation’) is to harm one’s soul.  The counciliar Church has a tight fisted schedule on confession, has very short lines and very long lines of those receiving the host.  There is no wonder to the fact that the counciliar faith is being destroyed from within.

……..Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the devastation being wrought in the Church by “latent forces” contrary to the traditional way of being.  Would this process have been possible without the tolerance of John XXIII, Paul VI and other authorities of the councilliar Church (he was asked)?”  Even though he did not answer these questions, the Cardinal added, “It is my impression that the devastation that the Church has suffered these last 20 years is due not so much to the Council itself, but to the chain reaction set off within it, of latent forces that are aggressive, polemic, centrifugal and perhaps irresponsible.” ( in an interview November 1984)…..(as described in the book)  the spirit of the Council will provide examples from all the corners of the Church where counciliar winds are blowing…………..
taken from, “Animus Delendi-I Desire to Destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimarâes, pages 30-31.

@ Post by Joe on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 9:10 AM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Again I ask you to please refrain from putting words in my mouth, from insinuating that I said (or suggested) something other than I have.

If you are not going to play fair here in this discussion, then it cannot continue.

Of course, silly goose, everyone knows and it is dirt simple—the general rule is that if one is in mortal sin, then one must go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist, etc. I never said anything contrary to that. Sheesh. You REALLY are not reading my posts—that is painfully clear (or you are willfully being deceitful, which I shudder to imagine)—so, out of charity (for the of God’s command) I will assume the former and not the later.

Stay in touch and please do consider coming back.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Joe on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 9:14 AM (EST):

Dear Joe—

Regarding your statement that starts like this…

Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the devastation being wrought in the Church by “latent forces” contrary to the traditional way of being.

...that is an amazingly odd statement coming from you, a sedevacantist who seeks to overthrow that self-same individual, who is now Pope Benedict XVI?

Come on, you are either Pro-Benedict or Anti-Benedict but you cannot be consistent and be both.

The person who was then “Cardinal Ratzinger” and now is “Pope Benedict XVI” has been consistent throughout his career.

So, again, it comes down to the point of sedevacantism—you do not recognize the Pope Benedict XVI’s authority and I do recognize Pope Benedict XVI’s authority.

With that as a given, of course we are going to disagree about everything else.

Look, I probably am not going to be able to continue dancing around in circles covering the same points, but here it is one more time, for the record.

Jesus promised that evil “shall not prevail against” his Church, the Church the Pope Benedict XVI now heads—so sedevacantism is wrong.

Jesus asked for his to Church to be as “one”, the Church that Pope Benedict XVI now heads—so schism is wrong.

That’s it,—in a nutshell.

If you don’t bring something new to the table, then I think that is all we will be able to cover.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Joe, it is not Mark who is doing a disservice to souls…you are acting as if you are a high authority in the Church. You are obviously outside the true Church founded by Christ since you reject Vatican Council II and the Popes that come after…your soul is in danger and you can talk and talk and explain and explain but it gets you nowhere.  I’m sure you are trying to find your way but the way is not to be found outside the Church founded by Christ and which He assured us would remain throughout all scandal and failures - again, I ask you to list those Churches where you find such horrendous practices and scandal and the names of those Priest you find scandalous…every Church that you have personally experienced to be like that…I really would like to know how massive these experiences are that you keep talking about…I personally know Cardinal Burke in Rome and I would be happy to pass that information on to him…meanwhile, find a Church that gives you peace…God bless you

florin,  Why would you ask if I prayed the Rosary?  The Roman Catholic Church has not changed.  It it your church that demoted and removed the devotions to the Mother of God and Her name was not included in the novus ordo missae per the protestant ministers who fabricated it.  Most counciliarists followed suit.  Her time- honored pictures and statures were put into attics or thrown out.  The liturgical seasons based on Our Blessed Mother was trampled upon in the post Vatican II religion. The Mother of God would be an impediment to ecumenism, so they said at Vatican II.  Read about it.  “The Rhine flows into the Tiber” is a history of Vatican II written by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. pages 91-95.

“The point that I am making is that nothing any creature can do can detract anything from the Eucharist.”

This isn’t true, and a correction is germane to the topic. The mass earns two kinds of merit, intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic merit, because it is based on Christ’s sacrifice, is always the same and always perfect.Perhaps this is what you mean. But intrinsic merit isn’t the whole story.  The extrinsic merit can and does vary from mass to mass, depending on a large number of variables. Mass said by the pope earns more extrinsic merit than mass said by the bishop, other things being equal. The design and materials of the vestments and utensils used at mass can earn more or less extrinsic merit depending on their quality. Music of high quality at mass earns more merit for every person attending than mass of crappy music. This one is a good one: the greater number of persons in the state of grace earns the greater extrinsic merit. People who receive the sacred body of Our Lord sacriligiously decrease not just their own merit, but the merit of all. This is traditional Catholic teaching. You may find it captured very thoroughly in the writings of Von Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass being the most important. All masses simply are not equal. We have real difficulty these days, in the full pressure of liberalism, to make any judgements whatsoever regarding quality of anything whatsoever. God, not so much. He was quite specific in the old testament about what he found to be pleasing to himself, from the materials used in the Holy of Holies right down to the posture of the stone angels standing guard.

You can find an essay on the topic at
https://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/the-merits-of-the-mass-and-how-to-gain-them/#more-251

@ Post by Janet on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 9:04 PM (EST):

Dear Janet—

Regarding this…

“The point that I am making is that nothing any creature can do can detract anything from the Eucharist.”
This isn’t true

...it appears to me that you may have misread my statement.

Please note that I did say “the Eucharist” and I did not say “the Mass”.

The Eucharist is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is God.

Etc.

Nothing any creature (such as a human) can detract (diminish in any way) God.

That’s just a fact of reality.

That’s what I am talking about here.

Regardless, you seem to make some good points about “the Mass”; however, that is not exactly what I was talking about in my statement.

While there may be something to “extrinsic merit”, as you put it, I would still want to qualify that anything of human origin is still always going to be infinitely less important than the Eucharist. Setting aside the question as to whether humans, in an of themselves, can actually “merit” anything before the almighty God, (in the strict sense of the word “merit”)—which is a very real question mind you—we can see that even if we suppose that humans CAN somehow create “extrinsic merit”, that good is, by definition, going to be infinitely small (perhaps inconsequential) when compared to the good that is the Eucharist. That’s not to say humans ought not strive for “extrinsic merit”—they should—but it is to say that humans probably should also strive to keep the matter well in perspective, and remain as beggars before God, even when we are at “our best”. That’s just a guess, and I surely am a sinner wont to stupid ideas, so this writing of mine is just a shadow of a grain of salt, at best.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

BTW, are you a sedevacantist too, like Joe?

Just curious.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Obedience is the highest calling.  It does not matter the number of Masses attended nor the many Eucharists received.  If a soul is in disobedience the soul risks eternal bliss.

florin,  Why would you ask if I prayed the Rosary?  The Roman Catholic Church has not changed.  It it your church that demoted and removed the devotions to the Mother of God as well as Her name   not included in the novus ordo missae per the protestant ministers who fabricated it.  The redesigning of the Catholic Churches to accommodate the changes included removing pictures and statues of the Blessed Virgin Mother.  Most counciliarists followed suit by removing these in their homes and putting away their Rosaries.  The Mother of God would be an impediment and a stumbling block to ecumenism, so they said at Vatican II.  Read about it in the book …………….by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. pages 91-95.

Mark K., when I posted this statement I was copying words from the book, Desire to Destroy:

“Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the devastation being wrought in the Church by “latent forces” contrary to the traditional way of being.”

The gates of Hell have not prevailed against Holy Mother the Church, Mark.

Without obedience there is no legitimate consecration of the Eucharist.  Correct “Matter and Form”  in the words are essential.

Without obedience there are no graces.

Jimmy Akins articles attract quite a long blog train. He really has a knack for stricking a chord of interest.
Well done Jimmy.  So our parish is going to have an all night prayer vigil for God’s hand of intervention in the elections.  anyone else’s parishs envolved in prayer and fasting to stop the Obumma evil?
TS

Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Your altar. We are Yours, and Yours we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with You, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Your Most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known You; many too, despising Your precepts, have rejected You. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Your Sacred Heart.

You are King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken You, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned You; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

You are King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof; call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

You are King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Your eyes of mercy toward the children of that race, once Your chosen people. Of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

Grant, O Lord, to Your Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to It be glory and Honor forever. Amen.

Why pick on the tropes? 

Why not just let the spirit of Vatican II engage the modern world.

As Paul VI said, modern man doesn’t like mysteries.  He likes plain speaking.  And he doesn’t want any supernaturalism going on either.  Pope Paul VI tried to get you guys to understand that truth is merely opinion and that everybody’s truth is the truth. 

Can’t you guys get with the program? 

Vatican II is a new day and a new spring and the last thing we need is reactionaries get all up tight over some presbyter using his creativity.

Indy Pherrant - If conciliarists admitted they are in a new religion of the New Church meant to serve man, than we have no argument.  But conciliarists insist they are Catholics in spite of the errors in the 16 Vatican II documents and conciliarists are practicing what has been condemned by Pontiffs, such as ecumenism, religious liberty and sex education mandated in U S bishops’ schools and much more.

“And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”  And neither shall our own tastes, predilections, and whims prevail against it. The Mass, whatever its human form, is a taste of heaven on Earth.  Perhaps we should all pray to appreciate that Food given to us for our use, and spend less time criticizing the form in which it is presented to us. Catholics, we are the only Church, in all our various rites, to which the Eucharist is given. Yes, the form of the Mass must be treated with care and with respect and not tinkered with.  But let us never forget the great Gift that is contained within it, and which is its focus and substance.

John Sposato = the Immemorial Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is NOT of human form and was promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V in Quo Primum.

300 wellbutrin xl, homepage here: order wellbutrin - bupropion hcl sr, wellbutrin no rx

“Animus Delendi-I Desire to Destroy”  by Atila Sinke Guimarâes