Matt,
I’ve only been to one Tridentine Latin Mass, and wasn’t that enamored by the rite.  Only because I couldn’t follow it well, due to the lack of experience.  However, after attending numerous masses in Italy on pilgrimage, I’m convinced that Latin in the NO is FAR better than some of the standard fare we experience without Latin. 

My opinion, (worth about a plugged nickel!) is that every Catholic parish should have at least one Tridentine Latin Mass each weekend and holy day, and that all North American priests and bishops should trained well enough be able to celebrate it.

It really is bothersome that today, through the NO, we Catholics do not celebrate the rite that St. Francis and many other saints experienced.  That loss of tradition should not be allowed to disappear, despite the cultural concerns.

I am a young priest who has always been fascinated by the beauty and transcendence of the Tridentine Mass.  I have a degree in Latin, and when I was ordained a priest just 5 years ago, I began to make preparations to celebrate this Mass, especially so after the Moto Proprio.  However, in coming into contact with a number of people who are devoted to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I quickly changed my mind.  It almost seemed like an alien religion to me, and had little to do with Jesus Christ, and more to do being right, being superior and following rules for the sake of following rules.  The phrase “You strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” often came to mind.  The prominent sense I received from so many (but certainly not all) of the devotees of the EF was… anger.  It became clear to me that this was not something I wanted to get involved with.  Instead, I learned spanish and began to offer the Novus Ordo in that language, as it seemed much more relevant and necessary.  I have nothing against the Tridentine Mass and still see it as a beautiful expression of the faith. Its proponents, however, have absolutely soured my desire to offer it.  That being said, I also am disgusted by the frequent abuse of the Novus Ordo and am saddened by those priests who make it their own pet project of experimentation. 
The Novus Ordo Mass is clearly the Mass to which most Catholics will feel a calling to and which is, by the teaching of the Church and the example of the Pope and others, the primary act of worship of God’s people.  It rests upon the Church leadership now to continue to form good priests who will offer this Mass faithfully and prayerfully.

Tridentine Mass. I have been attending for one year now and never went back to Novus Ordo since. The ONLY time I enjoy watching the Novus Ordo Mass is at EWTN. At least they give it some dignity although the Tridentine Mass feels, sounds, seems like more the proper sacrifice to God at the altar. Even the way I think in Mass is great… its really peaceful and deeply profound. You can really feel that God is there——-regardless of the chaosness and bullcrap that happens in our world.

First I would like to say that you have completely missed out the point of the Mass being in Latin, it has very little to do with the fact that it is and was a dead language long before Vatican II. I think you need to do more reading on the subject. And by that I do not mean contemporary commentary but rather actual documents like the Council of Trent and documents that were promulgated from it and work your way back.

I was born long after the council in 1978 and I when I was younger obviously the only Mass I attended or even knew that existed was the Novus Ordo even at that age though the Mass always seemed odd, clunky like it was missing something. I would have to admit that I was too young to even fathom what it might have been about it that seem so superficial about it, however it was there.

There was one thing I did know the NO was and that it was reverend and well done. I went to a beautiful Church which was fully Catholic, I received my first communion on the tongue and kneeling at the altar rail given to me by a priest.

Yet as many teens I simply fell away from the Church and in fact was very much against it for the next 12 years. Yet I came back, I realized how foolish I had been and came back to the Church.

The Church that I came back though was not my old Church it was a modernist looking Church, it was not a shock as I was familiar with such churches even when I was a young child. However now as adult the things that seemed to bother me a little when I was child was horrific to me now. So I began to read to see if this was the way it had always been and if I was wrong for feeling the way I did.

It was through reading that I discovered Vatican II and its documents and promulgation of the Novus Ordo. As I read I discovered that many things that Vatican II talked about were either done badly or completely ignored in the Mass that I was familiar with. The documents did not seem to match the reality in many places when it came to liturgy and devotion.

It wasn’t until much later when doing some research in the internet when I came across a picture that I will never forget it was a priest, at least I assumed it was but he wasn’t facing me he was facing the altar where there sat a crucifix and six candles. His vestments or at least what I could see had a cross on it and in the middle the inscription IHS. At the time I simply thought that the priest in the picture was a Jesuit as I knew that to be their symbol. However I continued to be drawn to the picture he was holding the Eucharist up to heaven and above him was the crucified Christ, God the Father, the choir of angels and the Saints all kneeling before the sacrament. At that point many things became clear, the mass never seem so alive and so intrinsic as it did when I saw that picture I immediately got so many of the concepts that my catechism classes often taught but never understood the “sacrifice” of the Mass the Lamb of God, The last supper and Calvary became one by looking at that one picture. Under the altar the inscription “Sanctus” repeated 3 times. A quick search revealed to be Holy and suddenly that became clear also.

It wasn’t long after that I discovered the Tridentine Mass and what had transpired at Vatican II. I decided after that I would go to a Tridentine Mass and much like other people the first time is always a shock. Yet I went again mainly drawn by the music there is nothing in any NO parish in my entire diocese that compares to Gregorian Chant. Then after that came to the richness of 2000 years of Church history things long ago forgotten by today’s Catholic because for most the Church just started back in the 60s and everything before that was either silly or evil, just like the Crusades.

The problem with the NO is not just the Latin it so many more things, there is the rubrics which it lacks, the orientation of the priest that of facing the people is an outright protestant idea which only helps to convey the denial of the real presence in the tabernacle. The fact is that just as Pope Benedict has pointed out many parts of the NO are innovations with no basis on tradition which in the end do more harm than good.

As far as salvaging the NO, yes I think it can be done. And think that a greater awareness of the Tridentine Mass is a good start.

As far as the anger of some Traditionalist, yeah it exists but then again these people have been treated worst than protestants for the last 40 years. I don’t think I would expect them to feel any other way. Local parishes will celebrate any kind of innovation or destruction of the liturgy including dancing, clowns, lay ministers, puppets and supper soakers filled with Holy water but never a Traditional Mass. That is very much a slap in the face.

The question of which is better, the Novus Ordo or the Tridentine, is a bit of an odd question, as the intrinsic real value of the Mass cannot be measured by any means we possess.  Fundamentally, all valid Masses from a Pontifical Solemn High Mass to a Neocat Mass all have the same value, that is to say Christ offering Himself to the Father on our behalf.  Keeping that in mind we must look at the effect of the Mass on each individual.  From my limited understanding and experience, I can identify two such effects that can be used as measures.  1.  How closely the form of the Mass represents a sacrifice, as indeed It is a true Sacrifice, the very same Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, the only Sacrifice that is pleasing to God, and 2. The fruit of the Mass in the lives of the believers. 

1st issue.  Here in my understanding the Tridentine Mass (well, its far older than Trent, its essential parts were in place with St. Gregory the Great d. 604, the Canon of the Mass being much older than that) more fully represent a sacrificial nature than does the Novus Ordo.  I think this is the case for the following reasons
a.  Ad Orientum posture.  This displays that the prayers of the Mass, while some are said for our benefit, are not to us, but to the Father.  The Priest, in the Person of Christ, is praying to the Father, not announcing to us. 
b.  Prayers at the foot of the altar.  These prayers are reminiscent of the prayers the high priest would say before entering the holy of hollies.  The priest would do this to purify himself from sin as to make a worthy offering for the people.  The priest does the prayers at the foot of the Altar for the same reason, and note that he does this before the Introit, almost as if before he begins the “meat” of the Mass he must beg pardon for his sins, recognizing that he is a sinner and that he comes as a servant. 
c.  Motions.  The motions are much more reverent, more genuflecting and the like, and a small motion that was started due to necessity but that can have great meaning attached.  The Deacon and subdeacon hold the edge of the Chasuble when the Priest incenses the altar.  This was done due to the constricting nature of early chasubles but who can see this without thinking of Moses having his arms held up by Joshua and Aaron? 
d.  Offetory.  No part of the Mass was more attacked than this with the reforms of the council, on the grounds that it was a needless repetition, and that it confused when the wafer became the Hostia.  Nonsense.  This is nothing less that the preparation of the Victim, and if one reads through the Pentateuch (and visualizes the scarifies) and sees a traditional Mass the link becomes clear (read those prayers!)
e.  Silence.  This argument is the same as the argument for Ad Orientum posture, this isn’t about us, its about God.  This silence is real, part of the right, and encourages contemplation, silence in the Novus Ordo encourages daydreaming and (at least with me) a since of “hurry it up padre” as the silence seems imposed and unnecessary. 
f.  Communion.  The Christian kneels, and humbly receives the Sacred Host, the Lord of Heaven and Earth.  No “popping” Him in the mouth, no taking Him back to your seat, no sacrilege, just open your mouth and receive, like a baby bird, or more specifically, a baby Pelican (look up Pie Pelicane, not sure on spelling). 

2.  Fruits.  We must see the fruits of both Masses to determine which is “better”, that is which creates a more positive change in the hearts of believers.  I used to go to a Newman Center which was liturgically (as well as politically) very liberal, though most of the students were pro life (that the Lord).  I can tell you that although many were fervent in college, many of those have fallen away now.  It’s easy to be fervent about anything in college, after a few years of working and speaking with other adults people change, if they don’t have a strong foundation that is.  While all Masses have good fruit, its Mass after all, it is my contention that the Extrodinary form has more fruit, that is I see fewer “fallen away” and more fidelity to Church teaching.  This may be that priests who say the old form of the Mass are more traditional in their beliefs, in their preaching, thus a well done Novus Ordo would have the same effect.  However, even if most of this difference is due to increased reverence, some also is due to the place the extraordinary form puts the lay believer in, that is, a place of supplication and obedience to God, a place where he knows that the Mass isn’t there to edify himself, but to Glorify God, which in turn, edifies him. The other day I went to a NO mass and they sang the song “We Are the Light of the World”, a song that mentions we and us more than God.  I had to stop singing.  No the message wasn’t bad, it was self centered.  No I don’t mean the way a toddler is self centered, I mean the singer was the focus of the song.  Much of the NO is focused on the Catholic in the Pew instead of God.  This leads to an increased since of narcissism and activism, people thinking they are going to save the Church.  The Church has a savior, and I’m not Him.  This attitude of activism can lead to everything from less effective abortion protests (one should go to the clinics to pray, not to condemn, thankfully most of the pro-life movement does this) to psuedo-catholic attitudes about social justice not in line with traditional Church teachings as seen in Rarum Novarum and Caritas in Vertitate.  Eventually, a spirituality of the activist, if left unchecked, distorts one’s values and leads to Washington “catholic” democrats, we don’t need any more of those.  Any good exterior action can only come from an inner conversion after the Heart of Jesus, and is not done for a cause so much as for a person (Mother Theresa didn’t fight against poverty, she loved the poor). 

Bonus section. 

We can increase the unity of the Church by bringing the NO more in line with tradition.  The new translation does much of this, we can also focus more on art.  Not just the art of the Church you are in, but the art of living, of worshiping.  The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is a great example of this.  Everything is meticulously done, with great care, not out of scrupulosity, but out of true love for the Lover of Souls.  Think about when you go to a restaurant and the waiter does a good job, takes pride in what they do, as opposed to someone who is rude and sloppy.  One should not have a children’s choir unless one is willing to dedicate the time it takes to accurately train children to sing well.  Your thoughts should not be “they are so cute” (they should, after all, be in a choir loft) but your thoughts should be lifted to heaven. 

We could also incorporate better music (i.e. more traditional) and an ad orientem posture.  This would increase reverence in the Mass and decrease narcissism.  It would also help the NO priest’s humility, it’s far to easy to have Mass become the Father X show.  Other ideas would be to restrict the role of lay roles in the Church and thus bolster the servant mentality of the laity.  I know it seems strange “decrease serving in the church to be more a servant” but hear me out.  Far too often serving at mass can be seen as either a status position or a position of pseudo authority in the Church.  A far better way to assist at Mass is through interior participation. 

Finally the insistence of a more reverent attitude regarding the dress code at Mass, talking while in the Church, and more Orthodox teaching would bring more people in line with Church teaching and lessen fear and distrust of the Extraordinary form.  People, young people especially, really crave authenticity.  The solution is not to make the Mass more protestant or to try and recreate and water down past practices that we developed out of centuries ago(called antiquarianism, this is what happened with EP2), the answer is to return to organically developed practices that were developed over the past two milienia, that is the Extraordinary or “traditional” form of the Mass.  We need to allow the richness of the organic rite to influence the newrite (which was NOT organically developed, it was written up in committee) and purge all elements of the NO which are less in line with our Tradition (guitars, sign of peace, protestant Our Father, lay “ministries”). 

For more reference I suggest “The History of the Roman Rite” by Archdale King.  I will NOT be checking replies or follow up comments, so yelling at me won’t accomplish much.

Matthew,

I’m stunned that anyone who has never even experienced the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) would attempt to write an article on the topic. It’s like saying, “I’ve never been to Japan, but let me tell you why I think it’s not that cool.” You say the TLM has a “fairly rare occurrence.” While that may have been a fair statement in the 80’s, a simple Google search will show you the TLM is quite accessible around the country. http://www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

You call Latin, “a dead language,” but that makes me wonder if you know the lofty language with which numerous Popes have defended this “heavenly language.” John Paul II stated, “We strongly encourage you all that, by diligent study and effective teaching, you may pass on like a torch the understanding, love and use of this immortal language in your own countries.” Likewise, Pope Paul VI said, “The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of our fathers which were our glory for centuries.” And Pope Pius XII, of happy memory, admonished, “The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.”

This final statement rings especially true today as liturgical abuse, rampant apostasy, and outright defiance of Church teaching run wild throughout the Church. In my own diocese alone, I have been subjected to a laundry list of heresies that would have been unthinkable in pre-Vatican II times. I’ll spare you the litany, but I assure you, it ain’t pretty.

As you can tell, I am coming down squarely on the side of the TLM. Moreover, however, I am encouraging you, before you begin seeking ways to criticize “The most beautiful thing this side of heaven,” you actually attend one. And, not just one. In my experience, it can be awfully confusing and somewhat overwhelming in the beginning. You may feel like a Protestant who just started attending a Catholic Church at first. But, if you stick with it for about a month or more and get into the rhythm of it, you will find the reason this particular form of worship guarded the faith against heresy and produced countless saints for well over 1,000 years.

To CRJohnston - it’s rather angry and divisive of you to enter an online forum and take a gratuitous swipe at fellow Catholics. Would you do the same to Protestants, Jews, even Muslims? Perhaps you have another agenda.

To KTF - The funny thing is that he then wonders (CRJohnston) why people that attend that Mass seem so angry. He answers his own question, because he is the answer the his assertion.

I wish to express my support for CRJohnston’s comments. There is nothing gratuitous or angry about them; rather, he makes relevant and appropriate observations that many of us might benefit from taking to heart. It is easy to criticize someone for criticizing, but sometimes criticism is called for and I think CRJohnston has done so in a balanced and charitable way.

Like others I find the title off-putting as neither can truly be ‘better’ because both (properly done) bring us Jesus the ultimate good and both are far a cry from what we will experience in heaven.  Now, that being said - having been to a TL mass but attend the NO weekly/daily, I will admit my unfamiliarity w/ the TL Mass made it off-putting and distracting.  I found the ‘walking’ - I mean no disrespect for the use of the word - the priest and altar servers did from place to place odd to watch and I found myself wondering time and again - ‘why’.  Now, that being said - I loved hearing the Latin and I would welcome more opportunities to see and learn the ‘why’s and how’s’ of the Latin Mass.  And, again, like others, I am not for/against any Mass baring any intentional abuses and/or really, really bad music.  There is much to complain about in the Novus Mass but perhaps that is more because that is what we are most familiar with.  I remember my grandmother ‘complaining’ about what she witnessed when the TL mass was the norm.

We shouldn’t get caught up in what type of people attend what Mass, the question is on the Mass and it’s fruitfullness right?  So you can support CRJohnston’s comments but I could hardly agree they are made charitably.  Perhaps he has failed to meet many gratious TLM goers.  It’s easy for them to be mixed up with the schismatics because those are the ones who seem to get more airplay.  It would be like comparing every priest to a child molester priest.  We hear much more about them then the other 99%. There are plenty of TLM groups that are obedient to the local ordinaries. 

One factor to look at is the religious vocations.  There continues to be a wave of young religious entering traditional orders who celebrate the TLM.  The Institue of Christ the King, the FSSP, the Carmelite Monks and Nuns, etc.  They are also being packed to the brim.  The youth and the zealous are drawn to tradition and those orders who are returning to the extrodinary form are receiving this benefit.

The one thing that the TLM has over the NO is that no matter where you go you can expect the same Mass.  I can’t even go to the same NO in my Archdiocese (Louisville, KY).  Everyone has something they add or some try to be more reverant or some try to be more liberal.  Well I applaud those who try to be more reverant but the NO is still a far cry from what was meant and intended.  For those who say they can’t understand what is going on, well thats the point in some sense!  We will never fully contemplate what happens there on the altar.  Having to study Latin and what happens at the Mass which demands me to focus and to prepare myself is what makes it worth it!  I feel as if most are going through the motions in the NO and the priets counter by trying to bring the Mass more to the people.  Well unfortunately for them they forget we have been lifted up to heaven already, so lets act like it.  Why can’t we genuflect in front of our Lord.  Even when people genuflect now they don’t even do it towards Our Lord (who is in some side room).  Again, before we had to know our Mass and prepare to be apart of it.  The NO is conformed more to our microwave society of I want things now and easy.  With this, we have forgotten the real meaning of our faith in which the Liturgy is the prime catechesis.  How many do not understand what the Eucharist is again?

As for an alien religion, the NO is obviously more the alien to anyone who has any sense of history and tradition in the Catholic faith but not to those who has any understanding of what the reformers tried to accomplish in the 1500s.  Cardinal Bugnini said it himself “We must strip the Mass of all it’s Catholic elements”.  Speaks for itself.

There is a reason we are hearing more about the TLM today and its not to just appease some of the schismatics.  The Pope wants TLM to enrich the Ordinary Form (as said in the Motu Proprio).  Just read what Pope Benedict said about the change in the missal when he was a Cardinal.  However, he is smart and he won’t make the same mistake that was made with teh radical change brought right after the council.  Oh and yes, the Vatican II council had nothing to do with the changes, it even specifies to keep Latin.  People misunderstand “active participation”.  It’s not that you have to have some physically active part but a spiritual one.  You make a sacrifice at the Mass with teh priest, just not the sacrifice of Christ.  You make it to be united with him. 

I primarily go to the TLM but will attend some NO.  However, as you in the NO continue to reform, I’ll be waiting at the finish line.  The Liturgy may not fully return to the TLM but it sure will look a lot more like it then today’s NO, that is for sure.

God Bless!

An unintended consequence of the use of the vernacular in the Novus Ordo Mass is the subdivision of many US parishes. In my parish, which is all I could ask for in terms of orthodoxy, we have two parishes: the English speaking and the Spanish speaking.
We sit in the same pews in same church but never at the same time. And we never see one another. We each have our own Masses in our own vernacular, and never the twain shall meet.
It is ironic that by introducing the language of the community, the people of Christ have been separated into two distinct communities. If all Masses were in Latin, our parallel Anglo and Hispanic parishes might become one. As it is, I doubt we ever will.

I wonder how many people have attended a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.  Even though we typically think of Novus Ordo as an English thing, that’s not necessarily the case since it can be in English, Spanish, Chinese, or even Latin.  It also is a great “middle ground” because there is no “my liturgy is superior to yours” debate, while at the same time there is a sense of the universality of the Church and an appreciation for her Latin heritage.  Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, we learn of the importance of Latin even if it is not being used for the Extraordinary Form, and we must remember that Latin (especially in the Ordinary of the Mass) and Gregorian Chant are to hold a pride of place.  Obedience really is beautiful because through it, we avoid both extremes (trying to be holier than the Church AND trying to be “progressive” in an attempt to “update” the Church as we see fit).

The key in all of this is that charity must reign, and since Pope Benedict has allowed the Extraordinary Form (while emphasizing that it is indeed EXTRAORDINARY), a question about one being “better” than the other is really not appropriate in this ONE, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic Church.  Thank you to Pope Benedict for his leadership in this very sensitive area.

There’s so very much confusion here, both in the original post and the comments. Many could be immensely profited if only they’d read these:

Open Letter to Confused Catholics

&

Pope Paul’s New Mass

Pax Christi!

Which is better? Neither!

That honor belongs to the Byzantine Rite.

;-)

I’m an ex-Evangelical and I far prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo appears to have been created with ecumenical purposes in mind and oversimplifies and eliminates beautiful elements of the Traditional Latin Mass. I find the Novus Ordo monotonous and cringe-worthy. The exchange of the peace breaks the flow of the mass. The prayers of the faithful are vague and sometimes cheesy. In contrast, the Traditional Latin Mass is holy and solemn and of a total theological clarity from start to finish. I don’t understand, given the doctrine of transubstantiation, why anyone would not receive the host on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest. Everything has been made too plain and down to earth in the Novus Ordo. I came to the Traditional Latin Mass after being exposed to the Latin Novus Ordo. In that respect the new Novus Ordo translation could encourage people to seek the perfect mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, by realizing that the prior Novus Ordo translation was so terrible. The Holy See needs to crack down on Bishops and priests who are actively refusing to make the Traditional Latin Mass available to the faithful who are asking, sometimes begging, for it. Everyone Catholic should have the opportunity to experience the Traditional Latin Mass, then decide for themselves. At the very least the increased availability of the Traditional Latin Mass would dispel misconceptions.

Friends, it’s just occurred to me that - in addition to the two books I recommended above - this could also be profitable in clearing up some confusion:

http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

I did not mean to offend anyone by my previous comment, but instead my desire was to point out a very real problem in the traditionalist community - anger.  To say that the anger is justified because of NO persecution is silly.  Thinking of the saints of our faith who have been persecuted throughout time to the point of shedding their blood, we do not remember them for their anger but for their love. 
As a priest for five years, I can tell you that I have never dressed like a clown, I have never put on a puppet show, I have never had any liturical dancers etc.  I have offered the Mass as the Church has clearly set down in the Missal.  I am not ignorant of disgraceful abberations in other places, yet it is my hope and firm belief that these will become fewer in the years to come. 
The new Mass is where I first grew to love God, and is where most Catholics will discover His love for them.  The EF is a beautiful expression of our faith, but as long as its proponents remain embittered and hostile, it will continue to be small - trapped by the very people who love it.
To speak of the EF as better or more perfect, is simply to stand outside the Church’s teaching.  It is the same Mass.

Father (CRJohnston),
Why are the congregation told to stand during your final blessing in the N.O. Mass?  How can you force yourself to say Mass with your butt facing Jesus? 

As far as “embittered”, I really don’t witness that.  Basically Trads ignore the Novus Ordo and Vat. II.  We really aren’t embittered by it.  We just don’t care about it anymore.  We do our thing, have huge families, pack the seminaries, and patiently wait for the day we take over.  Actually we are not angry or bitter at all.  We are joyful and thankful for having found Tradition.

I think this whole article a bit ridiculous. You began the article with a statement that you have never been to a Latin Mass and then a follow up of why you don’t agree with those who do. This is just a ploy to get the ire up of Latin Mass going Catholics. Give those who don’t like the LM a chance to to jab at those who do love and Vice verse and in general create more rifts. I also notice a lack of people simply discussing what a beautiful Latin Mass they attend why they attend and vice verse. I prefer the Latin Mass by the way and would never go back to the NO it has nothing to do with people Angry, happy, young or old does not matter. While community is good Commuion is the Communion with God not man. I go to a Latin Mass because never again will I have to worry about whether the Mass is valad or if I can recieve our Lord on my Knees or not.

Dear James 2,

You make the crass remark “...your butt facing Jesus” and yet you are puzzled that Fr. Johnston finds Traditionalists to be angry?

It would seem that you have just proven Fr. Johnston’s position.

Nota bene: Unless a priest is consecrating the host while holding it behind his back (THAT would be a novel liturgical abuse, wouldn’t it?), he doesn’t have his “butt facing Jesus.”  The reason behind for the Ad Orientem posture is not the presence of a tabernacle.  Indeed, it is a proper posture without a tabernacle present.  It is about facing the Lord and the crucifix and leading the congregation in Sacrifice.

I’ve already had a number of comments criticize even the posing of the question as to which form of the Mass people like “better”...and then they ironically go on to say which one they think is better. Very funny guys! :-) Obviously, both are equal in the sense that they are valid and licit when done properly. I just wanted to know what people liked better and why. I don’t really criticize either form in the post and I certainly don’t have to have gone to a Latin Mass in order to ask this question. I was hoping to have a civil conversation about it to see what all of you thought AND to hear some ideas on how to bring them together (or at least not allow them to divide us). I sincerely thank those of you who have done that and continue to do so. I really appreciate it and I know others do, too.

First of all, what is known as the “Latin Mass” should be properly called the “Roman Mass” because the official promulgated version of the New Mass is in Latin, too. It should not even be termed “Tridentine” because the Holy Council of Trent did not invent the Mass as the Concilium manufactured the New Mass in 1968; Trent merely canonized the Mass exactly as it had been offered since the 5th century. So I will use the term “Roman Mass.”

The Roman Mass is better from the standpoint of what Holy Mother Church teaches and proposes to our belief. The prayers and ceremonies are a perfect embodiment of Catholic Truth and explicitly denote the Catholic conception of what the Mass is—a sacrifice. The New Mass does not do this. Here is a general breakdown, comparing the Roman Mass with the New Mass. You can research the specifics on your own if you wish to descend into details, but here is the big picture:

ROMAN MASS:
It is clearly a SACRIFICE to God. A sacrificing PRIEST goes to God as an intermediary for the people present, as well as for those not present. By the priest’s genuflections and other actions, it is clear that God actually becomes physically present.

THE NEW MASS:
It is clearly a ceremonial MEAL. All present are there as equals, for the sake of “fellowship.” Even the priest is called the “president of the assembly.” Any concept of sacrifice is conspicuously absent, except for the Lutheran idea of a “sacrifice of praise.” By the few remaining genuflections, as well as the general demeanor of the people that is encouraged and elicited, it is not at all apparent that God is actually present in a real, literal, physical way; if He is, it is not clear if it is the actions of the priest that make Him present, or the faith of the congregation, which is the Lutheran and Calvinist understanding. The New Mass actually favors the Lutheran understanding.

THE ROMAN MASS:
The Offertory prayers offer to God the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ—which the host will become—in atonement for our sins.

THE NEW MASS:
The Offertory offers bread and wine, the fruit of the earth, to God. God doesn’t need bread and wine! He needs the Body and Blood of His Divine Son. There is no mention of propitiation.

THE ROMAN MASS:
There is an altar on which the priest enacts the Sacrifice of Christ. Altars, after all, are used for sacrifice. The sacrifice is everything—that is what the Mass actually is at its core—Christ’s sacrifice made present here and now so that it’s fruit—God’s grace—may come to us. No Mass—no grace.

THE NEW MASS:
The altar has been removed. Instead, there’s a table. Tables are used for meals, i.e., for the “Lord’s Supper.” The New Mass is clearly a memorial meal, like the Lutherans’ and Evangelicals’ conception of a communion service.

THE ROMAN MASS:
St. Thomas teaches that the reality of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the “unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.” The words of consecration in the Roman Mass, which are of apostolic origin, make a clear reference to this unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, they must, because for a sacrament to be valid, the words must “signify what they effect.” The reference is “This is the chalice of My Blood…which shall be shed FOR YOU AND FOR MANY…”

THE NEW MASS:
The official version of the New Mass is the same in the essential meaning of the words. But in most western countries, the translation has been so mangled that the actual meaning of the words are different. The only thing different (in substance) is that there is no longer any reference to the Mystical Body of Christ—which MUST be present for the sacrament to be valid (the words MUST “signify what they effect”). Almost everywhere in the western world, the “president of the assembly” says, “shed for you and for all.” Now I have heard the Pope say Mass on TV, and he says “for many,” not “for all.” Why then have the bishops and priests been saying “all” for 40 years? Christ did not say “all.” He could have, since Aramaic has a word that means “all” and a different word that means “many.” But He didn’t, nor did Peter or any of the Popes, or anybody else in 2,000 years. Words mean things.

The end of the last paragraph strikes at the root of why many prefer, from a subjective standpoint, the Roman Mass. It is this: there are so many changes that fly in the face of Catholic teaching, that it is clear and obvious that there is an ongoing, persistent (and oftentimes downright sneaky) effort on the part of many influential theologians, committees, and churchmen, to actually change the Catholic religion. But Truth cannot change! otherwise it never was the Truth. So in the face of so much confusion, scandal, and loss of faith, we go back to what was certain and continue from there.

Actually for their purpose neither should be better…what makes the Tridentine preferable is the lack of Altar girls, women in the Sanctuary, readers of either gender, hand holding, kiss of peace nonsense, excessive talking before during and after.  EWTN provides us with a nice example of “HOW” the Mass “SHOULD BE” celebrated but most Catholic “Communities” prefer to celebrate themselves along with the choir (who now seems to hold equal importance with Our Blessed Lord).  At bottom it isn’t the Mass type it is really “who” is celebrating “what”?  +JMJ

Our parish offers both forms during the week. Half of the daily masses are Tridentine, the other half Novus Ordo, and on Sunday each is offered. Since we’ve added the Tridentine Mass and incorporated more Latin in the Novus Ordo masses our parish has grown and our number of seminarians is up. Now most of our Novus Ordo masses are done Ad Orientum as well. You’re always going to have some who fight it or down’t want change, but all in all it’s been a blessing for our parish and our children to experience both forms of mass.

I grew up with the Latin Mass and there are a little of both I like.  What I liked best about the Latin Mass was the use of the Communion Rail and the receiving of the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.  However, to echo the previous comment about EWTN providing us with a nice example of “HOW” the Mass “SHOULD BE,”  I do like the priest facing us (even though he’s not facing East) during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

For me, this is too big a topic to express an opinion on. So I’ll give three (!). In my parish we are fortunate to have the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass) celebrated every Saturday morning. One thing I definitely like about it is the ad orientem posture of the priest during most of the Mass. This almost completely removes the temptation for the celebrant to want to, try to, or feel he needs to entertain. I wish we had this orientation at all Novis Ordo masses. Second, I have attended many Novis Ordo masses in both English and Latin which have been absolutely beautiful and reverent (and plenty in English which were purgatorial). I wonder if the Traditional Mass movement would have even arose if it weren’t for all the liturgical abuse which accompanied the new form of the Mass. Third, I predict we will all be pleased by the new translation which will make its advent in Advent. In this regard, Vox Clara has released a nice study text of the new translation we can avail ourselves of to become familiar with the new translation.

We may express our opinions on the subject of Mass. But better not to criticise. As we believe in the teaching magesterium and the Pope, we shall abide by the decisions of the Pope.

Watch these comparison videos. The first part of the videos cover the NO Mass and the second covers the Extraordinary Form Mass (Latin Mass).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4wh8Kb97N4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWliaivGtHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLZDYP-mbV0

Our parish has both, and 2 wonderful priests. Sometimes I like one better, and sometimes the other. It’s hard to say. I am thankful we have both, and especially our holy, reverent priests who make it clear their is one Church with both the EF and the OF.

Most Catholics who “attend” Mass don’t really know what is happening. I think what would help the most in this discussion, if the Priests, who are the only one’s who can (along with Deacons) would present a well prepared teaching on the Mass, and emphasize that it IS Jesus who is offering, it IS Jesus who is made present in the Bread and Wine and it Literally becomes HIS REAL Body and Blood.  Look at the number of people who leave right after Communion, do they really understand that moment?  It’s never a good Mass nor not so good Mass based on the Priest’s Homily, it is always a good Mass, Jesus is always doing His part.  Reverence at Mass is based in my heart not in the language in which it is offered.

I’m a woman in my 20’s and I very much prefer the TLM.  I could go on and on about why I prefer the TLM, but I just want to say that it gets me very upset when people generalize and say trads are angry people.  When my husband and I visit my family, we attend a parish that offers the TLM that is filled with joy-filled families.  After Mass everyone gathers outside and we chat and laugh and the children play and chase each other and sometimes the boy scouts and their fathers sell popcorn.  Last year, I overheard a group of girls that were going to be Confirmed that day, and one said, “I’m so excited!”, and another said, “You should be!  It’s your big day!” The people there are excited about the faith and love each other and the Church.  They are also very welcoming.  One of the first times we attended the TLM there, a lady stopped us after Mass to get to know us and invited us to coffee and donuts.  Nothing like this ever happened in the NO parish I grew up in.

I grew up in the early years with latin and the Gregorian chant. Wow! What beauty! When one waked into the church,you could feel the real seperation of the secular world and spiritual. The one thing noted by priest and nuns, was that you could walk into any church in the world and still identify with the mass, as it was prayed back home.Latin! And to those who say that it was hard to follow, that was bull.No-matter where you lived in the world, your missle would have the your native language on the opposite side so you knew what was being said. After a while you knew the whole thing.If we still had the latin mass as well as our other rituals and traditions we be the better for it. I agree. If more churches would allow at least one latin mass and the beautiful pipe organs ans chants ringing in the church,I truly believe that more people would opt for the latin mass. It bring us closer to God. The one thing that I do love about the post vatican11,era is that the laity have a big part to play during the mass and other Catholic activities.

Mass in the language of the people today is my favorite.  If I want to attend a mass where I don’t understand the language, in our area I can attend a mass in Spanish.  Being prayerful and spiritual and united at mass is in the mind of the person attending, not in the language in which the mass is spoken.  I say, keep up the English masses.

Being 63, I did participate in a “few” Latin Mass.  When the changes came raining down upon us, after Vatican two, I was 19 or 20, and just could not understand why the sacredness I had know all my life seemed to have been stripped away.  Things kept getting worse instead of better, and after our children were a little older, it seemed to us they needed, and so did we, at that point, to see that beauty once again, so we drove a great distance two or three times to attend a Latin Mass, since the availability was limited to having a priest from the Society of Pius X.  Well, it was a shock, since there was almost complete silence.  The priest offered the prayers very quietly, so we could not follow.  This did not happen at ANY Mass I had ever atteneded.  We stopped that quickly, for many reasons.

It was very hard, though, and younger people, such as yourself, can not understnad the pain caused with the abuses that abounded, and are still present, and the worst pain is when the priest was involved, doing or saying nothing to the lead the lay people.  Many seminaries were not teaching as they should, so it is understandable that the younger priests were confused, but the older priests, who were trained correctly, many times were the worst offenders.

The point in saying all of this is that because of these abuses, the faithful were drawn to the beauty of the Latin Mass, a real haven from what was happening in so many parishes.  They did not have to worry about what “new” thing was going to e voisted on them this week, what odd sermon was going to come forth, and could count on, every week, to be truly fed. 

The last point is that the SSPX is a schismatic order, turning down many attempts to bring them back into communion with the Chruch.  Many of this order wanted to continue to offer the Latin Mass, but wanted to be in communion with Rome, approaching JPII with their desires.  He welcomed them and they are now in what is called the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a very wonderful group of good, holy priests.  The SSPX spews hatred. One newsletter we received, when we were receiving newsletters, told the people it was wrong to even be friends with anyone going to the Norvus Ordo, and was a sing for the ladies to wear pants.  Now I, myself, prefer a skirt, for many reasons, but for years I wore slacks.  I will say that the painted on variety of pants the ladies wear today certainly leave nothing for a youngs mans imagination, are quite inmodest, but that is another story.

Our parish, St. Gianna, in Dardene Praire, MO, does offer Latin for the Gloria, Santus, etc, at times, which is what Vatican requested. Latin was to be kept in the Mass, the altar was never meant to be turned around, and so many other things.  This long post, I hope, helps people undestand WHY so many preferred to go to the Latin Mass, and still do today.  As Matthew said, the new Mass can be beautiful, if offered correctly, but that was for a long time something that was not being done.  WE are talking 40 years here and only in recent years have things started to turn around. 

Oh, and as a side note; I actually did not ever LIKE a Latin high Mass, as the hymns, when song, kept repeating the same sentence over and over….this still bothers me, to this day.  Must be a left or rith brain thing : )  When the Latin is used with out this repeating, it is wonderful, but not a must have for me.

Fianly, Matthew, my thoughts are that if you had atteneded a Latin Mass before you wrote the article, it would have been a plus.

Christ’s peace to you all!

Judy

I love the Tridentine Mass. I have a Missal and follow the English across the page from the Latin. It is very respectful. No clapping, no talking, no shaking hands, no Communion in the hand…..Different strokes for different folks….but I love it. I never go to the regular parish mass anymore

If the NO (Ordinary Rite) had the same reverence as the Latin or Tridentine (Extraordinary Rite)then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

This assumes a false dichotomy between the two permissible forms of the Roman Rite.  The ordinary form is an evolution of the extraordinary form.  In some ways, it was a negative evolution.  There is one Roman Rite, and one Mass in that rite.  That Mass can take two forms.  The job of the ordinary form is to constitute itself in the context of the larger rite.  The job of the extraordinary form is to give that context.  Together, the two forms will communicate with each other to bring out the differently-emphasized truths they each contain.  The extraordinary form communicates a radical focus on worshiping God.  The ordinary form communicates a radical focus on coming to know God.  Each are essential to the Christian life, and each form has something to learn from the other.

At the age of 88, having lived through all of these upheavals I believe there are pros and cons to everything.  But why all of the hullaballoo? WE are to love one another and if we understand that the mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, that should be all we need.  And as Jesus, said, “love one another”.  Wasn’t He constantly berating the Pharisees for always harping on the rules and not caring about their fellow people?
If the Blessed Sacrament is in it’s proper place, the priest does not have his back turned to it.
Chill out, everyone-these discussions are a total waste of time (and strike me as an ego boosting for the writers.
Love is the only answer.

Those like myself who grew up with the Latin Mass weren’t sitting in the pews comparing it to any other form of the Mass. The fact that it was in Latin wasn’t a problem - most everyone owned a missal where the Latin on the left side of the page was rendered into English on the right. If you could read you knew what was going on. For those stuck on English only, take a look at the waltz - ahem, the hymn - “Let There be Peace on Earth” sung at many a Mass, a congregation-centered work if there ever was one. “Let there be Peace on Earth and let it begin with meeee!” Theologically unsound. The Peace of Christ begins with his death and resurrection, not with us. For anyone who’s never been to a Latin Mass and plans to do so, be mindful of sitting there making comparisons the way a farmer going to the city for the first time might, or a city dweller hitting the heartland. Immerse yourself in the Mass, not in note-taking at a spectacle.

The Latin Mass is beautiful. Donna nobis pacem.

To Steven D. Greydanus - it is kind of you to express your support for CRJohnston’s comments. Unfortunately, he and you are incorrect. Those of you who dislike the Extraordinary Form but are unable or afraid to articulate publicly your dislike often resort to this tactic: You go on an online forum, state that you have nothing against the EF but you are turned off by people who do like the EF. Then EF devotees respond angrily to your bait, and you reply, See, I told you some of you are angry! “God, I thank you that I am not like these other Catholics, angry, divisive.” Not very productive, or charitable. Again, I ask, why is it open season on Catholics who prefer the EF, but not other Catholics, or people of other religions?

To CRJohnston - you say you are a priest, what is your diocese and parish?

The RENEWAL OF SACRED LITURGY is underway.  See the links that follow.

To UNDERSTAND what is going on with the changes and the conflicts we first must understand that Jesus commissioned His Church to be UNIVERSAL—FOR ALL PEOPLES.  If the people cannot understand what is being taught then it stands to REASON they cannot KNOW the FAITH that they are required to believe and conform to for their conversation to sanctification for eternal LIFE. 

Jesus did not speak in Latin or Greek for that matter.  He spoke in Hebrew and Aramaic.  Jesus did not write a Bible, JESUS IS THE TRUTH about whom and about which the Bible is written and the Church teaches and protects. 

With due diligence to fulfill the Great Commission, the Church, not having the modern means of communications, commissioned the Bible to be translated from the ‘original’ languages into the most common language of that time—around the turn of the fourth century.  That language was Latin.  Latin was chosen because it was the language of world commerce.  Vulgate meant COMMON.  There was nothing ‘mysterious’ about it but just the opposite.  It simply was the language that ALL PEOPLES could understand. 

The Tridentine (Latin) Mass was never forbidden as some claim.  It simply was set aside temporarily so that ALL THE PEOPLE could get used to the Novus Ordo and better understand what a great mystery was unfolding before them.  This was done because man is a creature of habit and does not easily change.  Unfortunately, there was a movement of Modernism (many heresies) that had infected the Church and misdirected the documents of Vatican Council II and the implementation of the Mass in the present COMMON language.  The enemy has always been in our midst beginning with Lucifer and his rebellious angels in heaven; they were cast out of heaven down to the earth where the battle between Good and Evil will continue until Satan is bound and cast into the pool of fire… then will come the Divine Era—the Era of Peace—the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  (See: Rev./Apoc. 20:20)

Pope Benedict XVI is renewing the Sacred Liturgy with all its reverence and fullness. 

COMMITTEE ON DIVINE WORSHIP http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/

NOW IS THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE ROMAN MISSAL, THIRD EDITION
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/theo.shtml

THE ORDER OF MASS http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/annotated-mass.pdf

Which is better, french fries or pommes frites?  One might have vinegar on them.

I like both Holy Masses, when done with reverence.  I lean toward the Latin Mass because of it’s sincere acknowledgement with word and deed that we ARE IN FACT in the presence of the Omnipotent Lord and must act accordingly.  If the Novus Ordo would do the same, I don’t think there would be such a division and I truly believe we would have REAL Catholics and not the hodgepodge of Catholics we have now… We must act as if HE is present because HE is…

PS - ED COBB, you are exactly right!!  Thank you for your comment!

It’s the same Mass but two forms and it does matter.  You can watch a street performance with wto guys playing 10 characters and being forced to use a little imagination OR you can go to the opera with a whole cast of characters, great music, orchestra, a great script, good costume, etc.  Both can be beautiful but which one more pulls you into what is taking place? 

THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS SIMPLE!  Let the Forms speak for themselves.  Put both forms in every parish and see which the people respond to more. See which one brings more vocations.  See which more gets more reverence and piety from the laity.  See which laity is more catechised. 

Obviously problems in doing this right now are there.  Fewer priests know Latin and the Extrodinary Form (because yeah it takes some time to learn).  You also have many churches today that are cirles with no high altars.  I don’t care those who defect from Rome because to me they are more concerned about having it there way then bringing it to others and restoring OUR Church!  However, it is easy to relate to their anger.  Tradition is being torn down left and right in modern day.  Let’s just review:

Sacared Music.  Modern music in the liturgy is awful and a complete disgrace.  “Dance Dance. I’m the King of the dance, it’s hard to dance with a devil on your back.”

Architecture.  This is one of the most depressing.  Not only our the old and beautiful Churches being closed down, but now we are building these monstrosities in the sunburbs that DO NOT resemble a Catholic Church.  These make up 90% of new Churches.  Plus they will now last generations as these building just can’t be torn down and rebuilt easily.

Vocations.  We have 20,000 fewer priests in the US then we did 50 years ago.  How much has the population grown since then.  Marriage is in the same boat.

Schools.  There may be one Catholic school in my diocese that I would feel comfortable spending my kids.  How about Catholic Universities?  The Newman Center says there are 20 with a Catholic atmosphere.  Out of what 300?

Parishes.  Put more money into building family centers, gyms, and baseball fields then their Church where Christ resides.  Not that those places are not important but do you think this was the idea in the middle ages where Church steeples were the tallest point in the city?  The Churches they constructed then were unbelievable and it’s a shame with all the technological advancements we have made we can’t even touch what they did 500 years ago.

Catechesis.  The data keeps coming about how many Catholics don’t know their own faith but how can we blame them.  This is not the minority but the MAJORITY.

Modesty.  Easy observation.

To pile it on, not only have many Bishops allowed this but they allow (if not lead the charge) the suppression of the tradition such as the TLM.  To comply with the Motu Proprio, “we have our one TLM”.  Right, that was Pope Benedict’s intent?  The Vatican clearly said his intent is to have the TLM in EVERY parish.  Yet ok give the people one Latin Mass, stick it at a parish downtown at 2 pm on Sundays.  Only a low Mass as well.  Only 200 show up, see that’s all the demand right? 

Not to be negative but let’s be honest, we are in a crisis of faith.  The future as of now does not look bright for our children in 30 years.  Most of the world will be Muslim by then.  Then I wonder if we will return to the times of the Early Church Fathers with persecution.  If we are not there already.

Which is better?  How about which one shows us how to approach Our Lord, treat Him, and humble ourselves.  Which puts meaning to every detail that even the first step up to the altar has a significance.  Instead of “why is this necessary” let’s ask what more we can do to worship and adore Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I challenge who question that the vernacular makes us understand the Mass more.  The words, maybe, but the meaning?  If a protestant walks into a NO where I am they leave and say “not much different then my Church”, but if they attend a TLM they say “I don’t understand what just happened, but I know it was something bigger then what I can comprehend”.

I am happy to see that the number in favor of the TLM on this post overwhelmingly more then the NO.

God Bless everyone and let’s all work together to make our Church better and bring more to it.

I’m a protestant convert. When I decided to become a Catholic I had to come to terms with what the Church believed, the real presence, all of the sacraments. This was huge. When I finally believed the Catholic church was the fullest expression of the Church Jesus created for us I attended a Mass. It was a NO, not any of the strange ones you hear about. I was struck with how protestant is was, and I left saddened that maybe the church I had been reading about and studying, was only on paper.

I then attended a Latin Mass since I thought it might be more “traditional.” I was overcome when I stepped into the sanctuary, first, it was truly a sanctuary, silent, reverent filled with people either kneeling in prayer or sitting quietly. Then I noticed at the walls of both sides of the church long lines with people waiting for confession. I thought, wow, they are really doing it here! The Priest treated the altar and the host as the person of Christ. The congregation knelt and received Him on their tongue (there was this little pan that the altar boy used in case a crumb should drop!). If that is really Jesus, all of that made sense.

Just one word about the priest who didn’t like the people of the EF. I’ve always admired pastors and priests because they have to learn to deal with everyone in a kindly loving way, especially people who are hard to like.
Changing from something once experienced as transcendent and beautiful because of the people strikes me as such a protestant spirit. It sounds like there was harm inflicted by some at an early stage of priestly development. I pray that heals.

I have not read all the posts and have intent to do so.  I grew up with the Latin Rite.  I still find it the most beautiful expression of the Mass.  I do like the NO.  When the Latin was put aside, I felt but aside.  I felt cheated of its richness.  I love the silence, the time to reflect and pray to God.  I love the dignity of the Latin Mass. 
As for the spirit of community generated by the NO, really, most people stream out of the church so fast it is sad.

I’ve attended one Mass in the Extraordinary Form and want to attend more. I’ll learn the form and the Latin (plenty of books out there to help). I joined the Catholic Church because of the Mass and the True Presence and the Extraordinary Form really does preserve a sense of the sacred. I’ve noticed how easy it seems to be for the Ordinary Form to get sloppy (both the priest and the congregation) in dress, behavior, decorum, etc. The Extraordinary Form I attended gave an overwhelming sense that : This is SACRED, you have entered the SANCTUARY OF GOD. That’s what I want.

The Extraordinary Form also has the advantage of the actions matching the words (if we say this is HOLY we should all be acting like it’s HOLY). Which is a reason why, even in the Ordinary Form, I wear my good clothes and don’t receive in the hand (that’s always felt . . . not right somehow).

As to how to preserve community: I like the suggestion made at the top comment: every parish should offer both forms (how often and in which proportion would be up to the local pastor). That would give the message: we are one church, one community, one Mass (with two forms). There may be practical considerations which is why the new rules just recommend at least one church in each diocese.

Thank GOD for CRJohnston. My husband and I whole heartedly support allowing people to participate in the Tridentine Mass. The Pope has approved it and Pastors should make it available where there is a good desire for it. But with that stated, our family have experienced the same anger, superiority, and lack of charity…shove it down your brothers throat type attitude….or it is the only “right” way to worship. No, Cardinal Arinze stated on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo that the Novis Ordo Mass is here to stay. Thank GOD! We have little children who love going to Mass but can barely make it through without some kind of disturbance…We get lost in the Latin Mass and we just sense that we are there…but not participating. Because I’m trying to encourage the kids to hang in there or I’m lost at where we are at in the Mass. Since it is important that I am there to give worship to GOD…we, as a family, have decided that we do better in the Novis Ordo. I am a convert to the faith and can not pick up Latin at the moment since I am homeschooling the kids. I am with Fr. Corapi in that….this is beautiful…however, the Mass can be worshipped reverently in any language. We have experienced the lack of love for neighbor from some who fight for the Latin Mass….since JESUS left us after the First Mass…with a new commandment….Love one another as I have loved you….we should unite on HIS last words and let those who prefer Latin…have it…and those who prefer Novis Ordo….have it…with love! Faith, Hope, Love these three…but the greatest is love….and all we will be judged on…not how many Latin or English, Spanish Korean…or what have you…Mass we attended.

I am Catholic and grew up with the Latin Mass.  My missal would have on the left page the words in Latin, and on the right side of the next page would be the words in English.  I can remember trying to listen intently to the priest to see if I could catch a word in Latin that he said so that I could find the English counterpart on the next page, thus trying to find out where I should be in praying with the priest.  I was always playing “catch up” in trying to keep up with where the priest was at in the liturgy.  I didn’t gain much out of this way of attending Mass and was very happy to see the Mass be said in our vernacular.  I heaved a sigh of relief when Mass was said in English.  As far as reverence goes in comparing the Latin to the English Mass, reverence should come from inside of each of us, knowing that we are in God’s house that praising and thanking God for all that He has done for us.  If we all just listen to the priest and pray along with Him, praising and thanking God in all, we will get a lot out of it.

When one went to the Tridentine Mass of my youth, we were said to be “listening to Mass.”  The fact that that term went the way of the dodo bird says all you need to know about the improved participation once Novus Ordo came on the scene.

I did grow up with the Tridentine Mass and as an altar boy was intimately involved with it. I still can recite the Latin responses. I do love the Latin Mass. Having said that, I must admit that Holy Mother Church knew what she was doing when going to the vernacular. My experience with the Latin Mass was that most people in the congregation did not know what was going on. Many always sat thumbing through their rosaries. The gospel was only read in English on Sundays and that was after the Latin reading at the altar. Invariably, most people did have missals but had a hard time flipping between the Ordinary of the Mass and the Proper. The problem seems to have arisen when many churches seemed to develop their own version of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo, when offered as the church wants, is also beautiful. The Roman Canon, in English, is one of the most beautiful reads there is. I’m afraid that too many catholics do not understand the Mass.It is not about us—it goes to God the Father and we share with the offering Jesus is making through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Father returns our offering by giving us His risen Son in communion. We are, at that moment,united with the Blessed Trinity .Tridentine or Novus Ordo—it is the same. There should never ever be a question of one being better than the other. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirirt, knew what it was doing.

I’m a new convert, and was catechized in a Latin Mass community headed by an FSSP Priest.  I’ll attend a Novus Ordo Mass every now and then, but I am more comfortable with the Latin.  I suppose I could get more accustomed the the NO, but there are some things I really don’t want to get used to:  In our community. We tend to not wear jeans and flip-flops to Mass.  We spend time on our knees before and after Mass, so we confine the chit-chat to outside.  I’m an ex-pentecostal and a musician, so I know about putting on a Hawaiian shirt, grabbing my bass, and going to a Sunday moring jam session interrupted my a sermon.  There is some value to it.  I guess I just want something different at Mass.

I really hope we can go back to altar rails so we can kneel when receiving. And while we’re at it, let’s make them beautiful railings and reinstate using those starched lace cloths to put your hands under. I know you can kneel now, but you have to make a spectacle of yourself and “hold up the line.” Bowing in a Communion procession usually means trying to ignore the rear end in front of you.

p.s.  Love Goodwin’s Law.  I’m stealing it.

Reflecting on the various comments, I suppose I come to this conclusion.  That there will be no unity until each side of the issue understands that both expressions of the Sacred Liturgy (NO and EF) are equally valid and equally valuable as acts of Divine worship.  I am often disheartened to hear some of the older priests of my diocese attack the EF as being a relic and something of the past which should be forgotten and expunged from the Catholic mind.  This attitude does not help the situation.  Is it not the holy Mass? 
At the same time I am similarly disheartened by those who believe that the NO is not a worthy or valuable act of worship.  Many of these comments do not simply attack the wacky aberrations (clown masses, cheesy songs, etc) but also the very nature of the NO itself (a supposed lack of sacrificial language, it is too “man” centered and not enough “God” centered, it is “conformed” to worldly or Protestant ways).
Perhaps a careful reading of the Moto Proprio would help.  It makes clear that the NO is to be the ordinary form of the Mass.  The Holy Father also states that the two forms of the Mass would be mutually enriching to each other, with a part of that enrichment being made present in the more faithful and reverent offering of the NO Mass. 
An important line from the Moto Proprio to consider is: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”  If we find ourselves coming to the conclusion, as some here are, that one or the other form is wrong in and of itself, then we simply join ourselves with the heretics of every age who, by their own opinion, understanding of scripture and tradition, personal tastes, etc, have determined that they know better than the Church which has granted us these two forms of the one Sacrifice of Christ.

I must get dressed for Mass, Novus Ordo, of course. No choice. Usually try to look decent, wear a skirt, veil. Although determined to do otherwise, I am whistling Dixie if I think I won’t be cringing and gnashing teeth at one point or another. Could be the scantily clad women in front and around me. Could be the Fantasticks-type songs (and heretical: i.e.: “Jesus here IN bread and wine”) wrought by the choir who face the congregation and must think they are for our entertainment. Could be the deacon who reads the Gospel as if he is talking to nursery school children; his homilies match the songs for inanity. Could be the complete lack of silence when called for. Gotta keep those people entertained. Could be the clapping at the end of the final fruity song every Sunday. But I must suffer for my sins and this must be God’s way of getting it done.  Seems a pity what the source is. Otherwise, though, life is mighty good.

Love the Novus Ordo Mass I serve at-very tradtional, but prefer the TLM. If the Novus Ordo can be celebrated with reverence, great, but it is very prone to abuses by priests and the faithful. Plus some practices in the Novus Ordo were first adopted by Protestants. I can’t quite reconcile myself to that fact.

Just a few quick ones because I am sure there are very eloquent arguments here already.

1.  Latin is not dead except in the speech of those who wish to kill it.  Besides being the root of all romance languages it continues to be used in law and medicine where at least the recognition of some words is handy.

2.  I believe it is not the type of Mass itself that is critical, it is a sense of the Majesty of God that is sought, thus either Mass type can be transcendent if performed with proper reverence.

That said, having been to three types of masses (Tridentine, Novus Ordo, and NO with Latin) we prefer the later.  Honestly, many Protestant churches offer fellowship, community, a rendition of the word of God and someone’s preaching on it along with folksy music.  A sprinkling of Latin, Gregorian Chant, silence and yes, a little incense, creates an environment that tells the body, mind and soul that this time is set apart and something unique and mystical is going on.  Although on our first trip we did not know any Latin over time my family not only could repeat the prayers (or sing them in chant) but could perform a rough translation.  This should not be feared but embraced, should not divide but unite.  God bless us all.

Extraordinary Form hands down…here is why

1.  Overwhelming centrality of Allmighty God.

2.  The fourfold intention/purpose, ACTS (Adoration, Contrition,  Thanksgiving, Supplication) of Holy Mass, has a prominence, and right of way.

3.  The priest doesn’t get in the way.

This is a no-brainer if I ever saw one! The good Old Latin Mass trumps this “New Order” liturgical version of Chinese Water Treatment we’ve been subjected to since Vatican II closed shop. If as Matt says, prior to the introduction of the Tridentine Mass a thousand years ago, and the original Mass was more like the “New Order,” there’s one thing our spiritual ancestors didn’t have to endure: Listening to and being forced to sing Kumbayaesque crap. They had it tough enough having worry about the Roman officials and prospects of being served to the big cats in the Circus Maximus the next week without the indignity of being told they had to endure the most inane, bland, insipid and childish form of “hymnody” that’s ever been inflicted on the faithful during our first 2,000 years.

I’m in the military and have had 13 different parishes in the last 18 years as well as many opportunities to worship while deployed.  In all of those years, I can say the very different Novus Ordo Masses was much more often than not a source of frustration given the “personalization” that occurred.  Only in finding the Classical Roman Rite did I find Mass truly being celebrated in a UNIVERSAL fashion no matter where in the world I went.

I understand that Latin can be intimidating, but it can be quite easy to pick up especially with the aid of a missal.  It’s even easier for homeschoolers as you can simply add a latin program into the curriculum and even teach your kids to pray the Rosary in Latin.  Kids are quite quick with such things.  I have also found that my children behave better at the Extradordinary Form.

As to the “anger” displayed by traditionalists.  I’m not going to excuse it.  After witnessing the unique beauty of the Classical Roman Rite, I can’t see how anyone can be angry give it being “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven.”  But indeed some on the traditional side are.  But you know, we are human and not everyone handles being ridiculed for their deep seated beliefs in a good way.  Years of being treated like outcasts and belittled for their love of the Mass celebrated for ages in the same wasn’t easy for some to stomach. 

But let’s be thankful there are no “angry Novus Ordo” types or am I the only one who sometimes takes a gander at the pages of the National Catholic Reporter?

CRJohnston writes, “I also am disgusted by the frequent abuse of the Novus Ordo and am saddened by those priests who make it their own pet project of experimentation,” but also seems somewhat put off by the “anger” he senses in some proponents of the Latin Mass.  One wonders if he considered that their “anger” and his “disgust” might simply be two ways of expressing the same reality.

Canon Law (#214) tells us that “Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church.”  If this means anything at all, then priests who ignore this right to pursue “their own pet project of experimentation” ought to expect some level of anger on the part of some of the faithful, especially if the “experimentation” become habitual. 

Jesus got angry when his Father’s house was used for unbecoming purposes.  Those who express their anger over a modern day equivalent are just following his example.

We had foreknowledge over the return to latin mass. We protect us. So we dit an big investment in a new novus ordo altar area. Now it is financial irresponsible to return to the tridentine ritus.

One thing it seems no one mentioned is that the collects are completely different between the two masses (only 16% of the ancient collects were ‘kept’ and they are scattered or buried in week day masses). There is a book on the subject, with the prayers side by side, called Work of Human Hands. Won’t try to reproduce it, but the general idea is that everything that refers to sin, human frailty, anything ‘negative’ like hellfire or the possibility of damnation was taken out, and replaced by words that are just like Vatican II, all full of ourselves. The new prayers don’t ask for God’s help! Little by little, we were taught the modern idea that God doesn’t intervene in affairs of earth, and that’s the beginning of the end of real faith in God, although plenty of people who don’t believe in God keep going to church, for very many reasons.

I’ll just put a couple below. Old text means the old mass, revised text means the new mass.

O God, the protector of those who hope in Thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing holy, increase Thy mercy towards us; that with Thee as ruler and guide,

(Old Text)
we may so pass through
the good lthings of time
that we may not lose
the good things of eternity

(Revised Text)
we may now so use
transient things
that we may cling
to those things which endure.

Here is one more, a short one:

Graciously look upon our service, O Lord we beseech Thenn: that the gift we offer may be acceptable to Thee

(Old Text)
and be to us the
support of our weakness.

(Revised Text)
and be to us an
increase of charity

Haud satis scio praeter id quod de discriminibus inter missam Trentinam et Novi ordinis periti dicunt, sed volui saltem pauca vocabula interpellare de notione hoc:

“I love the ideal of the Latin Mass and praying in a universal language in the universal Church (even though it’s also a universally dead language now).

Est argumentum cotidianum a multis praebitum et sine dubio Lingua Latina haud usurpatur cotidie. Nihilominus, neque est lingua ullo modo “mortua.” Praeterquam multi qui strenue exerceant Latinitatem suam, est pars maximi momenti traditionis ecclesiae Catholicae. Quia est, praeter dubium, una est rerum ad summam quae definit Ecclesiam Romanam, difficile est visu quomodo Catholici possint fingere opus sibi non esse traditionem Latinitatis fortiter sustinere et servare. Certe, pauci expectant argumenta theologica vel etiam praecepta Catholica doceri vel communicari Latine inter sodales, sed non est insanitas aestimare esse obligationem Catholicis tenere protegereque Latinam Linguam.

Apud CCD, multum usus sit docere iuvenes maiestatem traditionis sui, tunc postea rogare eos si velint traditionem perdi.

Recently, I saw a day in the life of Pope Benedict XVI.  Of course, the first thing in the morning he said the Mass that is required of him personally as a priest.  His position was “ad oriens”, facing the tabernacle, and the prayers that were supposed to be in Latin were in Latin and those to be said in the vernacular were in Italian.  I am not here to say one is better than the other, or that one is more reverent than the other because the Pauline Mass (Novus Ordo) was intended to keep the best of the old and introduce the new that would make the Mass “more available” to the congregation, although the congregation seems less respectful and less attentive than ever, and the music is at best horrible.  However, if this is what Holy Mother Church wants, I will not say she is wrong, and certainly we can forget about the beauty, mystery and devotion of the Mass in Latin (I won’t say Tridentine because that sounds like an advertisement for chewing gum ever returning.

I will share an actual incident that took place about two years ago which would never have happened when the Mass was universally in Latin.  It was New Year’s day.  My husband and I had been a distance away and arrived in our home town in time for the last Mass of the Day.  That was a Mass in the Spanish Language.  I love the Mass in Spanish because it sounds so much like Latin and the hymns are better than the stuff perpetrated during the Mass in English.

Standing at the door of the church was a Roman Catholic nun who said, “You don’t want to come in here.  This is the Spanish Mass.”  I had a Popeye moment.  I looked at my left hand and said, “Mortal sin.”  I looked at my right hand and said, “Mass in Spanish.”  I looked at my left and right hands three more times repeating for each hand what I had said before. I then looked at Sister, held up my right hand and said, “Ah!  The winner is Mass in the Spanish language!”  Never, never would that have happened, as I said before, if the Mass had been in Latin.

Besides we no longer call it “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”  Now it is the “Liturgy.”  I am hoping that the return to the 1962 English (with, of course, the obligatory nods to the P.C. garbage), will do wonders for devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary.  I am very hopeful, and very wary. I also miss the Communion Rail, reception on the tongue and other aspects of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that have been tossed into the dust bin.  However, that is another topic for another time.

I have been told many years ago, and I really believe that Satan hates the Holy Catholic Church in general because she is the bride of Christ, and three things in particular: the Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin Mary who stomped on his ugly head, and the Church’s language, Latin.

I am a self-confessed weirdo who is not up with the times, but if the Mass were said with reverence, if the priest faced the tabernacle and we used a paten to protect the sacred species from profanation, I would bite the bullet and say, “C’est la vie.”

Tony Verbeeck wrote…Now it is financial irresponsible to return to the tridentine ritus.
———————
Didn’t stop the destruction of many beautiful and ornate altars in the 1970’s from the fate of the jackhammer.

I grew up with the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) and as a child had no trouble following it at all. The missals have the Latin on one side and English on the other - it’s not a difficult task to follow along. With the TLM having been shoved into a broom closet around 1969 I had no choice but to attend the Novus Ordo, which I did for decades, and even had my child serve at it. However, having most thankfully found a TLM to attend again, IMO there is no comparison to be made between the two as to reverence - the TLM is all about reverence whereas the Novus Ordo is a pitiful substitute for the TLM. It’s like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Ford Fusion. Why the Church thought it was a good idea to try to re-invent the wheel, and in the process wreck the Mass, defies explanation.

I’ve attended the Novus Ordo in English about 10,000 times (no exaggeration) and I can’t tell you how much liturgical abuse I’ve suffered through. That, though, doesn’t at all take away from the beauty and truth that is there waiting for us and (perhaps) will really begin to shine through in the coming years. One thing no one has mentioned (unless I’ve missed it) is the great wealth of Biblical readings we now have because of the reform. In addition, even though it has been often warped through liturgical abuse, we do have the active participation Vatican II called for. My understanding is what Vatican II wanted was for the lay faithful to engage their minds and hearts in the Mass. In the Extraordinary Form, the only active participants are the Celebrant and servers. You don’t even say Amen when you receive communion in that form. I’m not knocking that; it’s just the way it is. Novis Ordo bashers should read the actual instructions in the GIRM to get an idea of what we are supposed to be getting (and are, more and more).

I am probably the oldest of the above commentators. I was a young mother when Vatican 11 took place. I resented it very much and openly condemned it. However, over the years I have learned that both forms of the Holy Mass are good. My children go to the new Mass as do I. I sometimes drive 55 minutes to attend the Tridentine Mass. I really love the Latin. When the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated by a good, holy priest, it is beautiful in both forms. Although I enjoy attending a Latin Mass occasionally, I also love attending Masses locally. We have been blessed here in Raleigh to have several fine priests. Attending St.Josephs Parish in Raleigh, when Mass is said by Msgr. John Williams is like stepping into heaven. I urge all you young people not to concern yourselves about the new or old, but seek a holy priest. It will bring abundant blessings on you and your families.

I too grew up with the Latin Mass. I was an altar server from grade school through high school.I served at church,chapel, convent,hospitals. As an altar server, I knew latin. I was taught Latin in high school.
I enjoyed the Latin Mass. It was and is more reverent.In the last 40 yrs.
I have attended the Novus Ordo. It too is a beautiful Mass, if done right.
Both Masses are God’s gift to us. Maybe someday they will merge into God’s greatest gift to us.

And good news for those who hate modern church architecture. I have it on good authority that because these parishes have gone for fast and cheap instead of opting for the most beautiful and durable that those churches will not last. They will all have to be torn down, which gives us the chance to rebuild them right (or our children or our children’s children). In a hundred years nobody will be able to make a pilgrimage to church built in the 1970s (even if they wanted to).

I think if those Catholics in authority (Bishops, priests, liturgy directors, diocesan officials, etc…) would simply give more leeway for traditional Catholics to be able to have Mass offered in the Extraordinary Form more regularly and conveniently, all the anger that traditional Catholics purportedly display would be gone instantaneously. The problem is that oftentimes the ancient liturgy and those who love it are treated like the crazy aunt that you stick in the broom closet and ignore, instead of being respected as fellow Catholics in full communion with Peter who simply desire to worship the Lord according to a venerable Rite that is a perfectly acceptable alternative to the new Mass.

I greatly appreciate that the Novus Ordo is a licit Mass, but I live in the Diocese of Rochester where liturgical abuse runs rampant.My “neighborhood” parish cannot be bothered to kneel EVER, not even for the consecration. Nuns aspiring to be priestesses regularly give the homilies, and the writings of Eckhardt Toll and Richard Rohr are considered appropriate material for adult classes. And let us not forget liturgical dancing by openly homosexual activists who aren’t even Catholic, not to mention the prayer labyrinth on the grounds of the Cathedral itself. So, yes, I prefer the Tridentine Mass which shows reverence for what is transpiring.

Traditional Latin Mass hands down.

And this is coming from a jaded Gen Xer.

In the final analysis, it’s up to you.  I grew up in the latin rite, was an altar boy learning my latin responses starting in the 4th grade.  It does, along with the traditional choir music, bring a more reverent environment to the Mass.  However, if you don’t know what the latin means, then it becomes a distraction.  My wife, a convert, doesn’t like the latin mass but it’s because she is not familiar with it and because she doesn’t know what is being said.  I have no problem with today’s Mass in the venacular (although I once attended a latin mass in which the latin was replaced with english but otherwise the liturgy was the same)but quite often the music and the way it is presented makes me feel I am somewhere other than in church.  So, in the final analysis, it is up to you, your attitude and willingless to participate.  For my vote, I’d go back to the Mass of my childhood - 40s and 50s in the latin.  The Church would do well to require a latin mass be said at least once a month in every parish.

I was raised in the very early days of the Novus Ordo. Our parish priest and the people like my parents and my friends parents still had this one thing about them in those days…reverence and humility. The church was a small country parish that had a lovely statue of our Lady and St Michael. An odor of insence permeated the atmosphere. Holy Communion was recieved only on the tongue from a Priest and the acolytes were alter boys. I left the church in the early 80’s then returned in the mid 90’s to a parish that still did things this way but I was aware of some of the other more progressive parishes nearby. I started studying a lot of church history and began associating Vatican 2 with modernism. Then I found myself attending a schismatic Traditional Latin rite church. I raised my kids there. One thing that these schismatic churches do is seperate you from the parish life. Sermons are typically the same drivel every week. Criticizing the pope and modern Cathlics. I found I missed the parish life I had as a child and believed my kids were also. I decided to return to Communion with the church. I still love the devotion and sacrificial nature of the Tridentine (my parents Mass). But I opted to bring this devotion and piety into the parish I began attending in the Norvus Ordo. Guess what! It spread some through the parish. I started hearing comments from older parishners about my kids devotion. Many would encourage my teenage son to consider a vocation. Even the priest made comments and started encouraging more devotion to the parish. I love both forms. The new changes coming out are right on par with how they were originally translated. The meamings of those prayers are profound and sublime. Either way could be abused. The main thing is to remember that we are before the Alter of God.

You have never been to a Latin Mass and of course Jesus never spoke Latin.  Pray tell, in what language did he converse with Pilate, and into which cultural milieu did HE choose to incarnate into other than Hellenic in an Aramaic speaking sub-culture that had been Greek Literate in both word and thought since the 4th century B.C.???

I am not Catholic, but I raised my kids RC and have been to thousands of Masses, of both kinds.  There is no comparison.  Qualitatively they are day and night.  There really is a difference that transcends the reception of sacraments compromised by prelest. 

You have no business writing about this matter if you have never been to a Latin Mass, much less a Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, or many others far more ancient than perhaps either.

The Liturgy is very, very important.

What we pray is what we believe. 

LEARN.  Just open yourself up and learn from people who REALLY know.

Don’t rely on yourself, for anything.  May God lead you, and all of us.

Peace!

s

It’s not an either/or question. I like the Novus Ordo (NO)because of the participation of the people as led by the priest and the vernacular. I like the Latin mass (TLM) because of the beauty of the language and solemnity.

What a do not like about the NO is the bland tendency of the language when compared to that of TLM. Most other things I don’t like arise from abuses and cuteness. My pastor will process down the aisle, kiss the altar, and then stand out in front and say “Gooood morning, church!” Like Robin Williams in “Good Morning, Vietnam.” Then he will ask, “What celebrations are we having this week?” Then as each person notes a birthday, anniversary, etc., he will lead the inevitable applause.Truth to tell, this does connect everyday life with the Mass, but I’d prefer it before mass begins, not during it.

When done, we sing a couple more verses of the entrance hymn and proceed as usual.
To be fair, he is the only priest assigned there, except for a weekend assistant, and is a good homilist.

With TLM, I don’t like the silence, the lack of participation, and the Latin all too often recited in a rapid murmurous mumble like a bored cop reading a prisoner his Miranda rights: “Introiboasaltaredei…” “Youhavetherighttoremainsilent…”
In asking why it was done this way, the responses indicated at times it did not matter, this was about God, not me, and how dare you even ask,  etc.

Of course, it is a pitfall of organized liturgy to fall into flat routine recitation, regardless of the language. Some folks could of course go overboard and ham it up, too. Neither excess is good.

Matt, I am concerned that from the beginning your present sophistical reasoning and your argument is based on common fallacy. First, you state that if the Novus Ordo is good enough for some authority it is good enough for you; how about all the saints and Popes that had the Tridentine Mass as good form of the mass and growth with it all their life until 1968- when it was not an rare occurrence -and which include Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Pope Benedict XVI ? Second, you say that Latin is a universal language that is also “universally dead language now”  which is a contradictory statement in itself for Latin is called dead for it does not change such as all the modern languages,  that is why Holy Church uses it.  Latin is far from extinct, it provides the true form and root for understanding many legal and medical terms. Third, when presenting the Tridentine mass as being cause of division among the faithful, you fail to acknowledge -or ignore the fact - that other than the Latin there are many valid liturgical rites in the Catholic church such as the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. Fourth, you mention “many who make the case for the Novus Ordo” but you do not document or explain what are those arguments. Indeed, studies show that the Last Supper had the sacrificial order of a Jewish Passover where each act had a deep symbolism beyond any language but which ritualistic form itself expressed a sacredness that is lacking in modern “social celebrations.” Also, you fail to mention the rich tradition of papal encyclicals such as Pius V Quo Primum stating the reasons for the decree of the liturgical Latin Missal in 1570, nor any of the papal encyclicals against certain errors of modernism. Nor your argument discusses the numerous apparitions and calls of Our Lady which refer directly to the need for penance and the lack of faith derived from ignoring the sacredness and sacrificial dimension of the Holy of Holies.
The problem here, as you seem to peek with your identification of the Novus Ordo with the source of all evil, goes back to the philosophical meaning and way in which the parts, form and details in each rite express and signify the holy things.  The way I see it: In the Tridentine rite it is clear that along with the Eucharistic thanksgiving the priest is making a sacrificial offering to God and asking for his forgiveness and divine blessings; there is an intrinsic sense of sacredness in which the soul seeks his divine maker. The parts of the mass are clearly marked and depict a specific form in its words, the priest and altar positions; also, the rite is specific in the particular use of candles, Gregorian hymns, incense, communion rail and bells which serve to call and elevate all the senses to a heightened state of adoration into the eternal realm. The triple repetition of many prayers call for the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and help to bring back the memory and attention of the faithful. In all of these acts that include the physical senses, the emotions, the will and the reason I find a complete participation of being, which purpose is the surrender in charity to God. It is a sense of recollection in which each person is apart from the world to find communion with God in union with the faithful -and from which love of God springs the love of neighbor.  On the other hand, I notice that the modern “Eucharistic celebration” in the Novus Ordo does not provide an immersion in the True God “Who Is” but remains mostly a social function where the collective togetherness replaces God as God; emphasis is in the social participation, the likeness of the homily and the group concern seems in gaining a moral entertainment instead of showing real awareness and true communion with God. Indeed,  if you are looking for true communion with God and His Church Triumphant, the universal, unchanging and eternal formula is already there.  God bless.

I remember pre-Vatican II Latin Mass.  In those days, there were “high Masses” and “low Masses” - I think among the biggest differences were how many candles were lit, and the length of the prayers. 

I never stopped attending Mass after Vatican II.  And I went as recently as this morning.  So - to weigh in, I’d say:

1- The Latin Mass is much more reverent but for me, it is also worship to a distant God.  Much of the worship is in a language I do not speak, so it was also less personal for me.  It was as if I am allowing someone that speaks “God’s language” to worship Him FOR me.  In those days, I was forced to attend Mass, as it was NOT an option, in my family.  The last Latin Mass I attended was about 2 years ago, at a parish that has that Mass once a week.  I attended out of nostalgia.  I remembered thinking I felt the same way I did as when I was a child - worship was being done FOR me.  I did not participate very much.  I did not go back.
 

2- The English Mass we have now is easier for me a)to understand and follow, and participate in EACH part of the Mass - Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist.  I never have my mind wander, because I am VERY present, and very much in worship “mode”.  I am picturing the worship going on in Heaven, and I am joining in with them b) it allows me to worship MY FATHER, and in a more personal way.  I’m not depending on the priest to worship FOR me.  God speaks English.  I need not speak Latin, and my worship need not be in Latin, for me to be reverent.

I wish our church would go back to hymns that have good doctrine in them. We can learn a LOT from good and reverent hymns that teach us what God is like - and Who He is to us.  I dislike the Hootenany Masses, and the silly New Age practices, like older ladies w/ teenage girls, dressed in flowing white gowns and shaking tamborines.  It’s just silly.  It emphasizes THEM and not God.

I also have never been to a Latin Mass.  It is very difficult for me to sit through a regular Mass—and stay focused—as it is. That being said, if Mel Gibson or George Clooney was at one, oh yeah I would go even if it didn’t count as my Sunday obligation.

I much prefer the worship of the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo because of the dignity and worship the mass has at its core. The Novus Ordo can be just as wonderful if done properly, unfortunately there is an atmosphere of a secular social event that accompanies the Novus Ordo too often. Just as in the culture at large there is a wild, wild west atmosphere that anything goes that tends to make the the Novus Ordo seem to be lacking respect for the “sacrifice” of the mass. People tend to fight over the details of anything, liberals get angry if there isn’t enough change, conservatives if there is too much change. I don’t believe it’s the mass that is the problem for the majority of people, it’s their understanding or lack of understanding of the mass that is the problem. There is no reason to change the mass or our history. One Latin mass at noon on Sunday for the week and we keep our history and beautiful tradition alive and everyone is happy. We have had Latin, Novus Ordo, High, Low, childrens, folk masses, whats wrong with keeping our history alive.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question.  It isn’t about whether the Latin Mass or the Norvus Ordo is better or worse, it is about whether they both convey the truth of the faith.  I believe the best thing that has happened is that the pope gave the green light for re-introducing the Latin Mass in a more regular basis.  It really is a beautiful liturgy.  I grew up in the 70’s and some of the terrible irreverent that were going on then with the liturgy was imbarressing at the very least.  The reverence and symbolic gestures that are present in the Latin Mass does cause me to pause and reflect.  The language of latin is is a dead language, this is true, however, what goes on at the altar is beyond language.  There is a transcendence that happens—a feeling of awe, that YES this Our Lord Jesus Christ body, blood soul and divinity.  Wow, what a gift.  Have we missed it with all this discussion of which is better or worse?  I have to tell you, that in this day and age, with all the politically correct people trying to plan liturgy, there does need to be a lesson learned.  I was at a Mass last week where the priest did the prayer of consecration of the bread in English and the prayer of the consecration of the cup in Spanish.  Part of the Mass was in English and part in Spanish.  For me this was the most un-prayerful, confusing and distracting prayer I have ever been to.  Everyone wants to be sensitive. The fact is, if they prayed the Mass in Latin then everyone would be on an even playing field, so to speak.  Think about it. I am not promoting either one, but making a point.  People, the Mass is a most profound prayer.  Whatever rite we use, Jesus becomes present on the Altar.  Let’s keep our eye on the ball.

I am a young person, and like you, Mr. Warner, I have been raised with the Novus Ordo.  In fact, I’ve attended the Traditional Latin Mass a grand total of five times in my life. My first reaction after attending the Latin Mass was, “That’s different,” and my second reaction was, “Why have I been deprived of this for my whole life.”  Everything about the Latin Mass cultivates a sense of awe and mystery and sharpens one’s awareness that one is in the presence of Almighty God.  While the Novus Ordo is, I am quite convinced, a legitimate and noble expression of the Faith, one cannot help but see it as comparatively pedestrian when compared to the Latin Mass.

Great piece and I have to say, it also concerns me with there is lack of unity and quite frankly, lack of CHARITY around this qestion.
The nuts and bolts of the issue are easy: The CHURCH has officially given us the Novus Ordo in the context of a Council in an authoritative manner for reasons that were motivated by the Holy Spirit’s desire to bring the saving Graces of the Eucharist to the current age.
At the same time, the Holy Father has graciously made it very easy for all who wish it to attend the Tridentine Mass. For this, those who prefer it should be nothing but grateful.
The sad part for me, is that I even see my own father being pulled into strange anti-pope attitudes by his association with the local Tridentine Mass group. Not ALL or even most, but there is an undercurrent, eerily “protestant” is nature, that criticizes constantly Vat. II, John XIII, Paul VI, JPII. My father taught me how important it is to be faithful to the Holy Father in matters in Faith and Morals. It breaks my heart to see him slide imperceptively away from orthodoxy, while he seaches for greater reverence at Mass.
They make the mistake of blaming the abuses in the liturgy on the Holy Spirit.
That being said, I have been to several Tridentine Masses on Sunday at various parishes. They seemed rushed and rather poor even from an aethetics perspective. I am quite proficient at Latin (4 years in University and lots of Novus Ordo in Latin.) ,so it was not that I could not follow it.
Whem my father attends N.O. now, he still acts as if he is in a Tridentine Mass, buried in his missal, never responding aubibly or interacting in any way with the liturgy as indicated with the N.O. rubrics. Again, kind of sad to watch.

Great discussion.

I am fairly conservative, and I vigorously lament the looniness at parishes. AND I live near a Latin Mass FSPP Chapel. Good, right? Well… I guess, but for me it really IS like attending an alien service in a time warp. I am all for a spreading of the Old Rite, but think a broad conversation is in order. The collapse after Vatican II did not just happen due to the loss of the Old Rite. There was a pharasitical rot from the triumphalism of the Church, or at least there was SOMETHING that made everything collapse in a matter of years. Even Latin can be a dead letter of the law…

Any conversation about how to increase faithfulness and holiness across the boards is good.

The title of this blog asks:  Which is better?  Both honor the Lord so neither is “better.”  This topic seems like a waste of NCR time and reminds me of ESPN polling who is better, Ohio State or Auburn for 2011?

at least the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (which is the correct name now) is the same around the world. there is a reverence unmatched by the various Novus Ordo Masses that one sees from parish to parish. back before Vatican II you could go to any parish in the world and the Mass was the same. now since V2 who knows what one will find on a Sunday morning, but these two videos give an indication of how far afield we have gone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeP_EdQc5so

the problem as i see it is that the more people become familiar with the EF the more they will ask for it. and we are seeing more and more young people seeking out the EF Mass

I go to the Traditional Latin Mass at my local Society of St. Pius X chapel and also at the Latin Mass offered in the diocese.

http://sspx.org/chapels.htm

http://www.latinmasstimes.com/

I never go to the Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo is the liturgy of the church of man.
The Tridentine Mass is the Liturgy of the Church of God.
The NO worships man as God.
The TLM worships the God-Man.

If you want to know how quickly any liturgical changes will be made in your diocese, find out when your diocese holds its weekly televised Masses for elderly shut-ins, people in hospitals, and otherwise unable to make it to Mass. Watch the ebb n’ flow and listen carefully to the wording. If the celebrant is fine n’ dandy with the NO and there’s lots of guitar strumming ... you can count on a lot of foot-dragging ahead and head shaking to come and for who knows how long. It might take waiting till that bishop is reassigned, retires, or may God forbid before his retirement, his eternal reward. Fewer obstacles seem harder to move than an entrenched clique of liturgical liberals still stuck in the Sixties and Seventies. Try and budge them out of your parish councils and chanceries, especially if they have powerful nuns who are just as liberal and very politically astute and persuasive.
  Nah, just wait ‘em out if you can. lol.

Just listen to examples of the banal language of the Novus Ordo: “Oh, Lord, may Your Body and Blood help us to be better people”, “Let us bring God’s love to our neighbor” and other bland, non-descript phrases.

How about: “Lord, I love the beauty of Thy house; the place where Thy glory dwelleth”. (from the TLM)

The language of the Latin Mass, not just the Latin, but the exact, sublime translation into English, which I used in my missals during the 50’s and 60’s, was so heavenly, so ethereal, so divine, that nothing compares. Today’s dumbed-down translations are like reading a phone book or a 3rd grade reader.

Even though my parish has a very devout pastor who celebrates the Novus Ordo very reverently, nevertheless, I cringe during daily Mass when street-clothed lay women distribute Holy Communion and guys in blue jeans are on the altar as “servers” if an altar boy doesn’t show up. I hate it!

This is for Fr. Johnson.  You are obviously searching and not finding what you know is right in the Novus Ordo.  I am somewhat perplexed by your comments on Anger.  The modern Novus Ordo mind makes “charity” just being nice.  Do you think we should remove the part in the Gospels when our blessed Lord whipped the money changers in the temple.  Sounds like anger to me of the most righteous kind. 
It is a shame the formation in the Novus Ordo is so poor.  I know as I was a former seminarian there.
Please do yourself a favor and talk to a SSPX priest.  He can help your confusion.
When Pope Benedict XVI signed Summorum Pontificum, he was signing the Death Warrant to the Novus Ordo.  It is just a matter of time.  I think the vast majority of the poster here agree with me.
God Bless you in your journey to Tradition.

Here is what Bugnini, the fabricator of the Novus Ordo, said was the goal in creating the Novus Ordo: “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965)

Deal with it.

Father Johnston,
As a priest for 20 years now, I have since my days in the seminary experienced an attraction to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and hope to one day learn to celebrate it myself (I have not yet celebrated the Extraordinary Form myslelf, but I am trying to learn how.  I have purchased the materials necessary.  However, the day-to-day demands of parish life make it difficult to find the time.)  However, I have also experienced the phenomenon of which you speak, which is eloquently demonstrated by a number of posts responding to you, and it is very disheartening to see.  God bless you, Father, for your dedication to the Church and to the Mass in both of her beautiful forms, and for your courage in speaking the truth!

+JMJ+
See for yourself…check out http://livemass.net.
If you have an iPhone, you can download the iMass app.  “iMass takes the apostolate that Christ the King Catholic Church and the FSSP started with livemass.net to the next level. Now not only is the Latin Mass provided live and recorded each day on the web, but with this app you may view the Mass each day directly on your iPhone.”
My family has developed a profound love for the Extraordinary Form.  I have witnessed growing congregations which are drawing younger individuals and families (often lead by the desire of the children) who are new to the Latin Mass.  They are HAPPY—NOT ANGRY—to be experiencing the beauty, truth, and mystery of the liturgy:  the posture of the holy priest leading the congregation on their journey to God, the beautiful polyphonic music, the incense…and the reverence.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Pope Benedict XVI named the form “Extraordinary”!!
AMDG

I have not attended a Mass in Latin since my late 20s, and I have a question for those who advocate it. Do you still use the very limited and repetitive selection of Scripture readings? Because if so, regardless of the childish music and behavior encouraged in tne name of “participation” or some other modern desiderata, the NO is superior because IT OPENS THE SCRIPTURES TO THE PEOPLE. Any other difference between the two rites - or between Latin and non-Latin rites - is purely superficial, and a matter of taste. As Aquinas said, “Pulcher est quod visum placet.”

“, the NO is superior because IT OPENS THE SCRIPTURES TO THE PEOPLE”

and what prevented you from reading the Scriptures before the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced. The Church didn’t like up the Scriptures and say this is the only thing. but remember within the Catholic Church the Celebration of the Mass is the focus unlike our Protestant brethren who focus on scripture

“a matter of taste” is fine as long as the bishops openly encourage the celebration of the EF in the same manner that they have encourages puppet Masses, dancing Masses, clown Masses and all other types.
putting in roadblocks to the celebration of the EF Mass is not good

I attend the Mass that nearly every saint in the history of the Roman Catholic Church would recognize.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only two canonized priests who lived after Vatican II said the traditional Latin Mass exclusively into the 1970s while the novus ordo was doing its thing elsewhere.

Thank God many of us have access to the traditional liturgy! May there be many, many more traditional Latin Masses as the liturgical counter-revolution (led by Pope Benedict XVI!) continues.

I favor the Latin Mass—according to the ordinary form, the current Missal.  That there are various vernacular translations of the current Latin Missal in use doesn’t mean that the current Missal can’t be said in Latin.
One part of the current Missal that is a definate improvement is the expanded use of Scripture in the lectionary.

< I have not read all the comments - still have a job and want to keep it that way.  But, I don’t thin it is a matter of what is better, but how it is done.  I only knew Novus Ordo , even before I became a Catholic, up until about a year ago.  I had no problems in my conversion as the mass was not all that different than what I experience growing up Presbyterian - mostly the same readings, same order of worship.  As I moved after becoming Catholic, I did encounter some chruches that really did not feel very spiritual - where is the tabernacle, powerpoints to project hymns; yes I am a traditionalist so I did find masses that we liked in NO - but mostly this revolves around the priest.  They will set the tone of reverence regardless of the form and to many have forgotten that they can influence dress, behaviour and the like - mostly by their actions in Mass and outside of Mass.  About a year ago, we tried Mass in an FSSP parish; like so many have said, it was kinda hard at first, but something made me want to go again, and again.  Now it is the only place we go; it is the right place for our family and when travelling and have to go to a NO Mass on Sunday or a Holy day, it just does not feel right anymore.  For us it is much more being spritual and the reverence of the ceremony, in either low or high Masses.  But most importantly, our priests are wonderful in leading us to God and showing us spirituallity in their words and their actions.  We do miss the priests in our “other” parish as they were also great at leading us to God; I would consider us lucky as we have access to such wonderful priests in either rite.  To say what is better, that will be up to each person and their desires and it is good that we have choices, just a shame that in any case the focus of God can sometimes be lost.  A great alternative wiould be the extraordinary form in the vulage?

To James2 on Monday, Feb 28, 2011 2:30 AM:

That quote from Bugnini is thrown about very often in English (not the original Italian) and devoid of context.

Bugnini was talking (in the L’O.R. article) about the changes being made to the Good Friday orations. Prayer #7, for non-Catholic Christians, was changed in the Latin, and rendered like so in Italian:

“Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – o Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa. – O Dio onnipotente ed eterno…”

Which is, roughly, “We pray for all our brothers who believe in Christ: O Lord our God, grant that—following the truth—they may be reunited and guarded in your one Church. All-powerful and everlasting God…”

After this, he says (in the article):

“Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.”

Which means roughly: “How can we not mourn, for example, that ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur of the seventh oration? However, the love of souls and desire to in any case to facilitate the way of union for our separated brothers, removing any stone that could cause stumbling or uneasiness of reason, has induced the Church to the point of these painful sacrifices.”

He also points out that the prayer is no longer “For the Unity of the Church” (since the Church is always one) but “For the Unity of Christians”.

Matthew, I’m so glad you posted this and brought this insane division - yes, division - in our Church to the light.

I, too, have seen the painful effects and fruitlessness of the “us” and “them” mentality sadly employed by so many Catholics. Those who want to cast aspersions or sling arrows at the other because they don’t share the same views on “which Mass is more Catholic.”

Is this the mercy Christ preached to us? Is this the communion St. Paul called us into? It’s sheer lunacy.

How many people arguing about either actually get off their sanctimonious tails and actually invite the neighbors on their street or the co-workers in their office to encounter Jesus Christ - fully present in Word and Sacrament - in either the Latin or the Novus Ordo.

Before anyone of us are to proclaim which is “better” or “truer” or “more Catholic” or “more historically accurate” we ought to consider the reality that if our thoughts, insights or even our opinion fail to lead with love and are not steeped in mercy, we’ve already missed the boat.

Thanks for having the courage to ask this question. Perhaps more within the Church will use it less as an opportunity to support their personal opinion and more as a chance to advance in their own humility.

In the United States, is the Tridentine generally superior to the Novus Ordo? Yes, without a shred of a doubt.  Yet this is more a cultural than a liturgical question;  It is difficult for Americans to judge the Novus Ordo when so few have seen one done well.  The real Novus Ordo - with all the proper prayers, the proper music and at least some Gregorian Chant, a proper reverence for the Eucharist, and a sane (and not the ridiculous and un-Catholic “the people should sing everything”) approach to “participation” is hard to come by.  Personally, as a born American, I always assumed that the Novus Ordo was inferior (due to everyday experience) until I saw one done well, all the way out in the Dominican Basilica of the Holy Trinity in Krakow, Poland.  The light bulb went on, and I’ve found this argument to be silly ever since.

I’m a 29-year-old cradle Catholic.  I appreciate both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.  I’ve been to half-a-dozen Masses in the Extraordinary Form.  I’ve been to some very poorly celebrated Masses in the Ordinary Form, and some very well celebrated Masses in the Ordinary Form… and many in between. (I’ve also been a “liturgical vigilante” from time to time, as Pat Archbold calls them. Now I’ve moved away from liturgical vigilantism to liturgical catechesis.)
 
I find both forms of Mass beautiful. I acknowledge and accept that the Church deemed that the Missal in 1962 was (and still is) in need of reform. I’m not completely sure that what we have today in the Ordinary Form is necessarily what was intended (and I meant that about the official Missal itself, not just in the liturgical experiments it is subjected to daily). I think the Ordinary Form could be improved by celebrating it with the “traditional” options (e.g. the Confiteor, the Roman Canon, more use of Latin and/or chant in the Order of Mass, ad orientem).

The Novus Ordo Mass can be beautiful indeed.  I mentioned before seeing a video of Pope Benedict XVI celebrating it ad oriens in his private chapel.  It was very devout.  There was a happy balance of Latin, which the fathers of the real Vatican II said had pride of place, and the local language.  The priest faced God, and was not schmoozing the congregation.

I think, perhaps, that the problem is here in the United States.  We are a nation dedicated to the Immaculate Conception and a continent dedicated to our Lady of Guadelupe (snake crusher).  God has blessed us generously.  Satan hates three things: God, Our Blessed Mother and Latin.  He also hates those whom God loves.  This might be the crux of the whole problem.

I must confess publicly that I will not sing hymns by Martin Luther (talk about bad priests), or things that are so ugly as to upset the stomach, or things that sound like Dave Brubeck.  However, what disturbs me most is the abysmal ignorance of the adults I teach in Religious Education class who honestly do not know that the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ.  There is a huge price to be paid for this abandonment of the flock.

I changed parishes after I heard three years in a row preached from the altar that believing in Christ’s feeding of the 5,000 is superstition.  I was afraid that I would have a “Popeye moment” (that’s all I can stands and I can’t stands no more), and take action immediately, because I had tried to speak with the pastor about this blasphemy to no avail.  So I changed parishes, and, while the congregation behaves as if it were watching a performance of “The Jesus Show,” talking and generally misbehaving, the theology is sound, and that is a step in the right direction.

I prefer the Traditional Mass. It’s not about Latin as much as it is the form for me. I think that the 1962 Missal should have been revised more subtly and over a longer period of time. The corrected translation will help, but there are still problems with elements of the rite itself, pulling the phrase “the mystery of faith” out of it’s place and making it an introduction to some acclamations which weren’t part of the rite for centuries is hokey and lackluster. Also having the embolism and doxology after the Lord’s Prayer, even though it is certainly a Catholic prayer, which had fallen out of use for centuries to be picked up by Protestants, feels like a concession to those who have chosen disunity with Rome.  Also, let’s sing the Mass, no more 4 hymn sandwich, no more singing in the person of God and if we could do away with the silly music from the 80’s on, that’d be great.

Interesting topic.
Here is my two cents: or a dollar bill! I write this from my heart and am really writing down my thoughts on this subject.
Unfortunately, I can’t really answer the question since I have not been exposed to the EF and the nearest one in our diocese is about 90 minutes away. Maybe I should take the time to travel ... but that is another post!  The closest I have come to the Tridentine was a “Nostalgia Weekend” — I was hoping it was the EF but it ended up being the NO in Latin. Bummer. I also attended a Byzantine Rite Mass and I believe one where the Words of Consecration were in Aramaic.
A question leaps to mind, though: when was the Mass first celebrated in Latin? I have read some of the stuff written on other web sites such as “The Mass of All Time” and even one site elsewhere that proclaimed “The Mass that God Worships.” Now, obviously, the latter (the site escapes me at this moment) is a nut group because that is idolatry. I do not believe that most “traditionalists” truly believe that or, in effect, the Church ended in 1965. Just like most of us who grew up in the NO don’t believe that the Church started in 1965.
I wonder why the Council Fathers felt there was a need for reform of the Latin Rite at Vatican II. I also wonder what was going on in the Church to cause John XXIII to even call a council. To finish Vatican I? Did he “see” something that was going to happen that needed to be pre-addressed?
Now, most traditionalists — and I refer to those who prefer the Tridentine Rite, a worthy goal — believe there should be organic development within liturgy and I agree that what came from Paul VI was likely not the most organic development. However, and I am no expert on liturgical history, I have read where the only significant development from the 800s to Trent was the addition of a Eucharistic canon (this I read years ago, so my memory may fail me); if true, this seems to me the opposite of organic development, stagnation. As the Church is a Living Body, which means growth (necessarily slow), so the Mass should be as well (necessarily slow).
Now, there is no question there are abuses — who can’t cringe at banal, worship-us-as-church songs that make me want to rip my head off and roll it down the street; “liturgical” documents that tell us we should be focused on each other instead of God; priests doing their own thing; “priestesses” running around in what is left of nun’s habits; clown Masses; liturgical hideousness, er, dance; etc. (I hear you, brothers and sisters!!! I am a Eucharistic Minister but I find it harder and harder to do so with the out-and-out disrespectful way far too many “receive” and even dress; they’d NEVER go to a party dressed like this. I simply start praying) — in the NO but we can hear and see them. Here is my question: were there not priests doing this before in the Latin but no one knew? Remember, certain parts of the Mass were spoken silently by the priest (even the new missalettes speak about this); who really knows what he was saying except for some poor young server that may or may not have understood. Again, I could be off-base here but I really am after the truth here. As well, how many times throughout our Church’s history has God sent certain saints to get the clergy back on track? I wonder what they were doing? In a sense, there is nothing new here; there have always been scandals. As it is often said, the Body of Christ is perfect but its members aren’t.
I believe that those who are attached to the EF have every right to that Mass and not only on special occasions but weekly and even daily. I myself would love that option and who knows? I also believe the Mass in the vernacular was allowed — never mandated, by the way, by VC II — for a legitimate reason and it was never meant for all the shenanigans.
Someone posted here that properly, the NO SHOULD be celebrated in reference to the EF. I agree. Personally, I think if this really were the case — and I believe that VCII intended this to be the case when it allowed the MAss in the vernacular — than this discussion wouldn’t be needed. Unfortunately, too many of us know WHY this discussion is even going on.
Do you know what would be a worthy research project for someone will more time: a history of the Mass of the Roman Rite. (I wrote that before I saw someone already posted something about that, so if someone would be so kind as to post that again, it would be much appreciated.) When did Latin enter the Mass (was it the vernacular at the time) on a consistent basis?? What changes were made along the way and how often? As Catholics, we need the perspective of Tradition AND tradition.

Matthew may want to get out from behind his computer, and perhaps do some research for his next article.  Thankfully, many Catholics have fought, tooth and nail, for forty years, and are still fighting, to ensure that we have the TLM available.  I’m sure he can use Google to find a TLM and find out what all the hubub has been about…

The value of Novus Ordo Mass is indisputable, it has brought the Word of God closer to the ordinary layman, so everyone can understand what the priest is really saying. Back in the day, in my village’ church, it was common that old grandmas pray rosary all though the Mass because they couldn’t follow, and it was the proper way to participate (at least in those times). Today, the new mass makes everyone able to participate fully.

However, the value of the Tridentine mass is also indisputable, because the traditional latin mass is like a steel frame that needs to keep the mass in it’s proper liturgical form, at least that is how i see it. I am not too happy with the all the new ways to celebrate God. Indeed i value tradition; it is comforting and reassuring to know that you take place in a communion that is unbroken and (relatively) unchanged for that last 2,000 years.

God willing, I can’t wait to see the Anglican Ordinariate arrive in our area for my Western Catholic brethren. In my opinion, it is by far the best of the liturgies available among English-speaking Latin-rite Catholics.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtonementAcademy#p/u/7/Klr6FOq18UY

I have been a Catholic all my life, but it wasn’t until I was 18 yrs old that I found out that such a thing as the Tridentine Mass existed.  It was so beautiful that all I could think was, how come no one ever told me about this? Now I’m 24 and I go to both forms of the Mass, but the Tridentine Mass holds a special place in my heart.

Posted by K.C.Thomas on Sunday, Feb 27, 2011 8:39 AM (EST):  “We may express our opinions on the subject of Mass. But better not to criticise. As we believe in the teaching magesterium and the Pope, we shall abide by the decisions of the Pope.”

KC, people are adults, not children.  The practices permitted in each diocese (even including the hymn selections allowed at mass) are all controlled by your diocesan bishop.  He runs the show.

Universal Language: I was always told that no matter where you went in the world, Mass would be in the same “universal language”—“Latin”.  True, but I did not understand it in my church. I was brought up with the Latin Mass, sang the Mass in choir in grade school, etc.  Never knew what I was singing. Back then we had prayer books, one side Latin, the other side English with little pictures and I followed the Mass by the pictures, sometimes ahead of the Priest, etc, etc.  So if I went to Italy, it would be one side Italian and the other side Latin.  Therefore, why say universal language if few understand Latin.  Yes, the Latin Mass is beautiful like a wonderful Italian opera, something to hear and see, but don’t understand. I was in my early 30’s when the “Altar was turned around” in W.Va. NYS was slow in doing this, so I figured they were trying it out in the smaller communities.  I love the vernacular Mass.  I love being able to be a part of the Mass by responding to the Priest that I understand.  I went back to NY for a visit and before you entered the church proper, someone stood outside with a bowl of hosts, for us to pick up and put in a Chalice “if we were going to receive”.  I went back to W.Va and told our Pastor of this horrible way of handling the hosts, everyone’s fingers on them, etc.  He said, that it should not have been done that way. I also read some rediculous things on the internet about Novus Ordo and it is hard to believe.  Again, I blame the Bishops for these outlandish ways of saying the Mass.  I also attended Mass in Virginia and never was anything reduculous done there. The Mass in the vernacular was beautiful, the music beautiful, even with guitars, there was reverence all through Mass and ALL THE PEOPLE PARTICIPATED instead of watching from afar in their pews.

wow, some of these comments make me want to put a frowny face on my clown makeup tomorrow. :)

Mathew opened pandoras box. I am thinking that it is best to have both types of Masses.  I just wondered if any of you ever heard the folk group play and sing along with the congregation “The Lord’s Prayer” and “The Twenty-third Psalm”.  Absolutely beautiful. We really had a good folk group at our church in W.Va.

Not to be disrespectful, but my daughter would get faint whenever the priest used incense and I would have to take her outside . I get a headache from it. One elderly woman I know would take a fit of coughing.  Also I really do not like chanting.  It sounds so archaic.  I often wonder how Mass was in the days after Jesus’ Resurrection.  Was it said in Aramaic and when did Latin start? Guess I shall have to do some researching.

This article seems to have a lot of good conversation going on is anyone keeping a tally it seems like 85 percent of them are actually Latin Mass going or at least sympathizing. I think Jimmy May answers his own question"Let the Forms speak for themselves.  Put both forms in every parish and see which the people respond to more. See which one brings more vocations.” The Mass with the most vocations the most conservative following is the Latin Mass and I notice those NO who are more Conservative priest and churches are usually trying to learn or trying to get a Latin Mass in there parish. The number of Latin Masses you have in your diocese is usually a sign of the health of the Church in the area. So I guess my question here is what are we jugging better by? If it is who is more Conservative which are more likely to hold fast to the teachings and traditions in the church then the Latin Mass hands down. But if you are going for a social aspect who is friendlier more social community oriented then NO. But at the same time I have seen many vibrant Latin Mass parishes so give the Latin Mass a little time. Parishes in the past were the centers of community life and they were definitely Latin Masses. That’s just my two cents.

I prefer Tridentine.  The reason is that I have found I am more in touch with God in Tridentine Masses, and on a regular basis.  At Novus Ordo Masses, I am sometimes deeply connected to the Mass, but not as frequently as in Tridentine.  The reason (for me), is the strong focus on reading the Mass in English keeps me strongly focused.  In addition, the Tridentine Mass has much language focused on the Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the penitential state of mind I should be in (for example, I say the Confetior a 2nd time immediately before receiving Communion—whereas at a normal Novus Ordo, I am singing, and not always focused on what will happen next).

Yes, the new English translation of the Mass help bring us together.  Absolutely.  In fact, I believe that the Tridentine Mass has already helped the Novus Ordo Masses in USA become more sacral, by its very existence and use. [the solemn Tridentine Mass helps to shine light on the ‘folksy’ non-reverence involved in a few (the majority are fine!) Novus Ordo Masses—helps people to clearly see/feel the difference]

God Bless,
Tony

To: CRJohnston: I agree with Father Leonard who wrote to you: “God bless you, Father, for your dedication to the Church and to the Mass in both of her beautiful forms, and for your courage in speaking the truth!”

I too, have experienced anger - and it’s not charitable anger.  Jesus displayed RIGHTEOUS anger.  The rabid, frothing at the mouth kind of defensive anger is not the same.  It is written, “Be angry and sin NOT.”
If it were righteous, people like us would not be hurt by it, enough to mention it.  Youre posts show great wisdom - you’ve given this thought.

So please, Fr. Johnston, keep a smiley face at the ready!!  No frowny faces!  I applaud not only you, but Fr. Leonard too, for engaging in this dialog.  Most priests would not even read a blog like this, let alone participate in it.

It shows that both of you CARE what pew people think.  And thank you to Matthew Warner for having the courage to broach this subject.  It is worth discussing - worth finding a good approach to what people think about the various Mass liturgies in our Church history.

But the MOST important point to consider is this: “Is God happy with our worship?”

It is written if we are worshipping, and we remember we have an issue to resolve with a fellow Christian, we are to leave our worship, and go resolve the difference.  Thus, God told us to be careful our hearts are pre-disposed towards Him.  Whether our butts face north/south/east or west is not too important, in the Big Picture of God’s economy.

The key is our hearts!  The key is how we treat each other- how we speak to them, engage them in conversation, and the respect we show to them, in all our interactions, including on blogs where we can speak our minds, and under the protection of anonymity.  Charity is key.  We can prefer Latin or English or…. but, what matters to God, per Scripture, is our attitudes towards His children, that have the Holy Spirit living inside of them.

A great big “THANK YOU” to Fathers Johnston and Leonard - you are appreciated!

I have not read all the comments, so I am not sure if I will repeat what was already stated.  I have attended almost every kind of Novus Ordo, from very conservative to Life Teen.  I attended my first TLM just a few years ago at the age of 28, and I did not understand much of what was going on.  However I began to study the history and development of the NO, and in 2009 started to attend the TLM more frequently, and have not been back to the NO since the beginning of 2010.  The TLM is life changing.  One must get to know it - purchase a missal - and spend time in it.  I also do not like how it is referred to the EF, just another form.  We need to understand that this so called EF is over 1,500 years old - had grown organically and was never abrogated - and that is wrongly dissapeared for a short time (1970 - today).  We are comparing the Mass of all time to a new Mass the was made as an addition in the 60s - it did not replace the existing Mass.  (We now have two Mass’ in the same rite) Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal when referring to the NO stated “What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

Unfortunately most of us grew up only knowing this new Mass and therefore defend it without really knowing the differences.  We all defend what we hold to so this is understandable, and no bickering and arguing will change that.  However if one really puts in the effort with an open mind to learn and get to know the TLM, we will begin to see the real differences and the fruits.  I can also tell you from my own experience in the TLM, whether it be at an FSSP apostalate, SSPX chapel, or Diocese Latin Mass community, that not only do you get the beautiful Mass, you get reverence and modesty rarelly if ever seen in the NO, sermons so filled with truth you will be shocked, and you will also see many young families with many young children.  You really will get a sense that you are in a different world, and depending on which parish you are coming from, you may even get a sense that you are part of a different religion. 

Now from time to time, you may run into to an angry parishoner.  However do not get discouraged, most are very charitable and prudent when discussing matters of faith. And I have found that charity in the TLM communities are unmatched. As to the odd so called angry traditional Catholic.  I personally have a hard time blaming them, as I spent many years in the NO, and know what is like to be robbed of our faith, taught watered down catholicism, and to even be taught heresy.  Could it be just anger?  Talk to a true liberal about the TLM and you will see anger! 

Also know that most if not all the Saints we venerate have grown in their faith and sanctity through the TLM.  Name some of your favourite Saints and realize what Mass they attended.  Just a disclosure.  I did ignore the Eastern rite Masses for this conversation as this is an argument of which is better the NO or the TLM.  Oh, and I forget to state my opinion.  The TLM is leaps and bound better.  By their fruits you will know which one is better. 

Pax Vobiscum!

I was in my late teens when the Mass switched from Latin to English.  I prefer the English because I wish to worship in the language I speak.  I have attended only two Latin Masses since then, both while I was in Europe and “wanted to know what was going on.”  My career is teaching Catholic Theology and have a working knowledge of Latin.
I agree totally with Fr. Johnston.  Not only have I found the Tridentine folks angry but I also see a tendency among the priests who favor this form of worship to write columns, letters, etc. that border on the “apocalyptic.”  According to them, the US government, society,the Church and the world in general is going to hell in a handbasket!  Just check out some of their blogs.
And James 2:  what did you mean when you referred to those who favor the Latin Mass somehow waiting to “.....take over…..?”  I Cor. 1:12 warns us about this:  One of you says “I follow Paul,” another “I follow Apollos,” another “I follow Cephas” and yet another “I follow Christ.” 

Johnny G. (M. Rel. Ed.)

I thought I smelled fish.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3436849.0.html

This is in response to “Judy” who made some claims regarding the SSPX. I am 47 and gave up the Novus Ordo, two years ago, to attend Mass solely with the SSPX. I grew up with the N.O but after much investigation, began to see all that is deficient and ecumenical about it.  I have never encountered any of the hatred to which she refers,while attending the SSPX,  and have only felt my faith increase as a result. I could never return to the Novus Ordo, it would jeopardize my faith. Also, the SSPX is NOT schismatic, as no one is excommunicated, the bishops and priests of the society may be considered “suspended’, but not excommunicated. As for the faithful, they incur no guilt of anyt sort. I have done great research on this issue.

Thank you.

Greg - I appreciate your post.  What would you say is the ROOT of a fellow Catholic’s anger?  Could anger be the emotion displayed when we are denied something we expect to have?  And if our expectations are denied us, would the worship be for *us* and not for God?

Reading Scripture and knowing God is the best way to worship Him - faith comes by “hearing” and hearing by the Word of God.  None of us can rely on someone else (be it priest, nun or bishop) to supply all our education about our faith.  It is our responsibility to know the Word for ourselves.  That is how I was able to overcome feeling frustrated by poor teaching I hear. 

I see no room for anger at all among any Christians, Catholic or non-Catholic.  Even when we are being taught heresy - we must go to Ephesians Chapter 6 the Armor of the Holy Spirit. We have the tools:

Put on in faith each morning, the Helmet of Salvation: how we think.

The Belt of Truth - to hang all our beliefs on, beliefs we know from Scripture.

The Breastplate of Righteousness (righteousness of Jesus- keeping our hearts protected and tender).

The Sandals of Peace - speaking the Truth in love, and STANDING firm, with spikes underneath the sandals, holding us up, like soldiers!

The Shield of FAITH - in those days, the shield was the size of a door, and it was padded, so that even flaming arrows would be put out in a jiffy, and soldiers walked SIDE BY SIDE, so that it was like a wall the enemy faced - and they all protected each other.

And the Sword of the Spirit - which is the Word of God.  The sword was small, and meant for hand-to-hand combat.  It is written that the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than a 2-edged sword.  Know the Word of God and release it, and the Holy Spirit goes to work.

With all the above, add Prayer for whomever is against us. Never anger.

When we KNOW we have access to all that armor and protection, we will not have to use anger as a defense.  Anger never works.  Anger only produces more anger - unless a person has surrendered to the power of the Holy Spirit and “it is no longer we that live, but He that lives IN us.”  God gives the grace to not respond to anger, with anger.  Resorting to anger shows pride, and that we have no God-honoring tools.

Cradle Catholic, thank you for your response.  I first want to mention that in reference to anger, I was responding to those who claim that some traditional Catholics are angry.  First, I think that is a big generalization.  I also think that it is more perception than reality.  I think that many do not like to hear critique of the NO, and therefore perceive those who critique to be angry.  Yes, we are weak sinners, and and you may get the odd ball who really is angry.  But they are few and far between.  I have been to many parishes and Latin Mass apostolates in the US and Canada in the last two years and can hardly think of any who have been angry.

To answer your question.  I think anger can stem from being scandalized, or being taught heresy.  I would be angry more so for those who do not know better, and are trusting their priests and bishops.  When our priests and bishops teach error, souls will be lost.  There is just anger, and our Lord displayed it in the Gospel.  Also we are to hate sin!  You write, “Could anger be the emotion displayed when we are denied something we expect to have?” I think we can expect to be taught the truth from those we are supposed to trust in the Church.  I know many good faithful Catholics who trust their priests, and as a result fall into error and reap the consequences.

And you write “And if our expectations are denied us, would the worship be for *us* and not for God?” 

We are to worship God, and we should expect the truth if we pray for it, and we should also definitely expect the cross.  And we should expect to be humbled if we are prideful. 

I agree with you that prayer is most important, I will add the it is a must that we take up our Rosaries and pray at least five decades every day.  You quote scripture which I completely agree with.  However you must not ignore the rampant infection of liberalism.  Protestants have the scriptures but they lack the truth.  We need Holy Mother Church to guide us, and we need the Sacraments.

Lastly you write: “When we KNOW we have access to all that armor and protection, we will not have to use anger as a defense.  Anger never works.  Anger only produces more anger - unless a person has surrendered to the power of the Holy Spirit and “it is no longer we that live, but He that lives IN us.”  God gives the grace to not respond to anger, with anger.  Resorting to anger shows pride, and that we have no God-honoring tools.” 

I agree with you in most circumstances.  But their is such thing as just anger.  When I young child is sodomized by a Catholic priest, some of us may just get angry.  Of course the best response is prayer, but many times just anger spurs action to correct heresy abuse, abomination etc.

God bless!

Terry, in regards to your response to Judy.  I will add that I myself have only experienced the up most charity in the SSPX chapels I have attended. Very loving and charitable priests, sisters, brothers, and lay faithful.

Matthew, you just wanted to get you hits count up, didn’t you?  :) The discussion here has increased my desire to attend a Tridentine Mass, something I’ve never done, either. Not for lack of desire - I’m very curious. My parish responsibilities rarely allow me to attend the one Tridentine Mass offered in the Des Moines metro area. The parish that does offer it does a pretty good job communicating information on their website. For those curious: http://www.stanthonydsm.org/mod/group/view.php?group_id=85

I like both because at both I am there to meet and adore my Saviour. Intrinsically, there is more reverence at the TLM. I find it easier to pray and enter into the Mystery being celebrated. At the N.O. I find it difficult to concentrate above the conversations and last minute preparations for the mass (usually the sacristan asking people to read, take up the gifts, pass the collection plate). I still manage, but it is just so much more difficult. As far as the people attending the TLM, I find them to be joyful and grateful to have the opportunity to worship in a way that they feel comfortable.
Fr. Johnston, Jesus said feed my sheep. All of them, not just the ones that prefer the N.O. You may not like SOME traddies very much, but I’m sure you love them, in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Having said that, I attend the N.O. 90% of the time as availability of the TLM is very limited.
Pax Christi.

I “like” both. But I prefer the NO. The parish I attend does the most reverent NO Mass I’ve been to.

Five or six altar boys (only boys!) for each Mass, none of them wearing sneakers or flip-flops, and all wearing the traditional black and white for altar servers (you’ll have to forgive me, I don’t know the proper name for the garment).

There is incense use throughout the Mass, and the bells are run at the epiclesis, and the consecration.

The Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are sung in Latin, and we receive communion kneeling at the rail.

I love my parish’s Mass, but I also know full well it’s not the norm among NO Masses. Our parish also celebrates the TLM on weekdays and weekends.

When I lived in Chicago, I attended the NO in Latin at St. John Cantius Church. I don’t know how common that is around the nation, but I really liked that as well.

Sarah wrote “But I prefer the NO. The parish I attend does the most reverent NO Mass I’ve been to”

but each parish does a different type of NO Mass, and that is the problem. How is one to know what type of NO Mass is being offered? If each parish offered at least one EF Mass each Sunday all would be satisfied.

The one thing I like and prefer about the EF is the consistency. I’ve attended numerous NO Masses over the years and I’m always confused by the variety of responses etc that one can use. and only those in the know what is being used

Hello Mr. Warner,

I must say that I agree with those who suggest that it is more difficult to discuss this question of the two forms of the Roman Rite if you have never experienced one of them - hopefully, with enough frequency to provide sufficient familiarity with it and its variations (i.e., low mass, missa cantata, high mass).  It would pose just as much difficulty if an SSPX devotee who had never once attended a novus ordo mass attempted to write such a column.

I think your concern about “communion” is a valid one.  What we have is an unprecedented situation in which two successive forms of the Roman Rite are allowed to coexist.  I can only suggest it is an imperfect solution to a very difficult problem: the perception by a sizable minority (only some of them genuine traditionalists) that the reformed mass promulgated in 1970 went far beyond not only what the Council called for, but has been genuinely problematic to some degree - and not just in the authorized translations or rubrical abuses. 

Traditional masses do attract bitter traddies such as those CRJohnston speaks of (alas), but they also have been a refuge for more mainstream Catholics who crave a reasonably reverent, more traditional liturgy but are stymied by intransigent liturgists or priests in their good faith efforts to help shape their local novus ordo options to that end.  I am one of the latter.  I simply grew tired of fighting losing battles or suffering problematic liturgy silently.  And I know I’m not alone.

I love the Latin Mass for its sacrality and for its emphasis of what the Mass truly and doctrinally is, the representation of the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner.  The Latin Mass helps us to see Our Lord as both priest and victim.  While doctrinally in the New Mass it is still called a sacrifice, in practice it is often times hard to tell. 
The Latin Mass also is Christocentric.  The New Mass tends to be anthropocentric.
The Latin Mass promotes a seriousness that is so lacking today.  I remember when young being taught in Catholic school that when preparing to recieve Communion to reflect that the Lord I recieve is the same Lord Who will judge me at the end of my life.  That has and continues to be an inspiration to adore God more profoundly and to prepare to receive him much better.  Today when many in theory or at least in practice deny the existance of hell or judgement, the Latin Mass helps put all of this in true perspective. Yes, Jesus does love us, but as Our Lord says in the Gospel of St. John, “you are my friends if you do what I command you.”  Just saying we love Jesus is not enough. The Latin Mass shows us the full extent of Jesus’ love for us, His painful and bloody sacrifice on the Cross.
Aesthetically the Latin Mass also promotes a grand silence.  Today in this hectic, noisy bustling world, it is nice to be able to worship God one on one without distraction for one hour a day or even one hour a week.  Attending a Latin Mass is a refuge from all of the surrounding chaos of the contemporary world. At Mass one can get one’s berings back in order.
I remain disappointed that so many dioceses in our country are still resistant to allowing the Latin Mass.  Priests who have told me they are interested (by the way not in my own diocese)in offering the Latin Mass still fear persecution for desiring to offer it. 
I say let’s really, I mean really allow the Latin Mass and then see where God’s grace leads.

Thank you for a fine article. My preference is for the Traditional Latin Mass because it creates a more sacred and serious attitude regarding the Propitiatory Sacrifice itself. Another reason for my preference is that the TLM is the same everywhere, and in that sense is truly Catholic in nature. The TLM is not difficult to learn at all. There are more than enough hand missals for the people to participate in every word of the priest as he says Mass. The TLM is more appealing to me because of the silence that allows for contemplative participation. Participation in the Mass does not necessarily mean having to “say” something. There is a deeper form of participation on the contemplative and personal levels.

    The High Mass is so very beautiful with the Gregorian Chant sung by the Schola. Entire congregations can sing Gregorian Masses from the hymnal/kyriale, which is vocal participation in its highest sense. Every parish should offer one TLM on Sundays and Holy Days because every Catholic deserves the opportunity to experience both forms of the Roman Rite and love both.

Mary Elizabeth writes: “I have not attended a Mass in Latin since my late 20s, and I have a question for those who advocate it. Do you still use the very limited and repetitive selection of Scripture readings?” I think that the Council did, in fact, identify an area for enhancement when it urged an expansion of scripture in the lectionary.  This is most obviously the case on ordinary weekday masses, which lack their own readings.  The addition of Old Testament readings is more problematic because it makes homiletic composition more challenging given that the connections between the OT readings and the NT ones are not always readily evident; but it is a defensible reform, if it were done more carefully.  Where I think the novus ordo lectionary went too far was in the decision to use a three year lectionary instead of a one year lectionary - we no longer have the familiarity of readings which are always associated with a given day. For over nineteen centuries the Church had a one year lectionary, and I believe it was highly imprudent to suddenly abandon that tradition and the wisdom it embodied.

As for the complaint that there is no difference between one “Traditional” Mass and another, unlike with the current Missal, I suspect that the people who say that don’t know Latin.  At least there used to be differences in the way that the “Traditional” Mass was celebrated between one parish and another.
  I was an altar boy before and after the 1962 Missal was introduced, and yes there are differences—I remember Father mentioning that some of the parishioners missed the old Easter Vigil, which took place in the morning.  I didn’t, because the Easter Vigil was moved back to the evening the year before I was born, earlier in 1951.

And to Richard M: if you think that the one-year cycle of readings for the Sunday Masses goes back more than nineteen centuries, that shows how little you know about the history of how Mass was celebrated over the centuries.
The Jewish synagogue used a three-year cycle, and so did the early Church.
As for your complaint that reading from the Old Testament confuses people, the Old Testament still is the Word of God.

Mary Elizabeth,

    Yes, the TLM uses the yearly cycle of readings as in the Missal of John XXIII, 1962. I like that because over time one associates a certain epistle/gospel with a certain Sunday of the year, and can look forward to it. It adds a sense of stability and emphasizes the cyclical aspect of the Liturgical Year of Grace. An excellent spiritual companion to the missal is the Year of Grace by Dr. Pius Parsch. It explains the Mass and provides meditations for every day of the year throughout the liturgical calendar.

It is my opinion that the English/Latin Missal published by the Angelus Press is quite excellent.  There are other editions available also.

It’s interesting that several people have said they prefer the novus ordo, but other than a few more readings from Scripture there do not seem to be any real reasons why.

Is it simply that you are used to the novus ordo?  (That’s not really a good reason, as we are used to a lot of sub-par things. Aim higher, man.)

Honestly, I would like to hear concrete reasons why someone actually prefers the novus ordo to the traditional Latin Mass.  Not reasons like you don’t like the people who attend the traditional Latin Mass, but specific reasons why the novus ordo is superior to the traditional Latin Mass for you personally.

Look at all these posts.  Isn’t this the job of the Magesterium —to figure out which form of worship is superior?  Why have they created both resulting in all this confusion?

I will add a few more pennies.
I have read about the anger and while I am sure there is some, I think some of it is justifiable. Many feel like their needs and wants and desires are ignored or made fun of while everyone ELSE’s — how many of us know people who think nothing of clown Masses, etc? — are fed no matter what. I personally experienced the replacement of a Mass — during the weekday for our grade-school children — with a demonstration of karate, ballet and I believe tai chi (it was something like that), supposedly to get kids to receive (in the hand, of course) Communion more reverently and to sit in the pews with better posture. All the while, the pastor (who at times compared suicide bombers to Jesus and the Apostles who were martyred; who told us of the “wonders” of Islam and the eastern religions — how they were more “Christian” almost — but never really talked anything positively about the Saints and the Church)  was positively giddy. After all this — and I was about ready to barf — he then dismissed the children and told the adults they could come up to receive Communion. Out of about 10 there, I was the only one who didn’t. I talked to two ladies afterward and one stated “she just wanted to receive” and the other saw no problem with this fiasco.
Again, not having experienced the “Old” Mass in Latin, I have only heard stories. One is that certain priests “celebrated” the Mass in 18 minutes. I pray that was someone pulling my leg because it seems to me that is not very conducive to worship.
Many like the silence of the Old Mass. Silence? We don’t need no stinkin’ silence (this part if being written tongue-in-cheek!!!!).
I have never eyed an Old missal; could you read what the priest intoned at, for example, the Consecration?
Here is my final thought/question for this post: what is the Eucharist? I ask this because I believe that it’s so much grander that one word, even Sacrifice, can’t do it justice. It is solemn (it is THE sacrifice par excellence) yet joy (Heaven is opened up for us because of it); it is a meal (The Last Supper) yet it is so much more; it’s a feast, a banquet, a foreshadowing of the Eternal Banquet. Maybe this has nothing to do with this discussion; just writing what I think. Thank you.

The Missal of Paul VI or Missal of 1969, many call the “Novus Ordo” was actually written to be offered in Latin, with the vernacular permitted.
The norm for the “Novus Ordo” is in Latin, though.

This norm has been hijacked and abused by those who do not obey the mandates of the Second Vatican Council.

The Novus Ordo in the vernacular, as forseen by the Fathers of Vatican II, is an anolmaly and should be the exception rather than the rule.

A great piece on this question by Fr Chad Ripperger FSSP:

http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/757bb466a5ca6270ded190925c7f227f-611.html

As St. Cyril, co-Patron of Europe along with his brother St. Methodius and St. Benedict of Nursia, wrote in his prologue to the Gospels as he battled against the heresy of trilingualism:

“Saint Paul taught; in offering my prayer to God, I had rather speak five words, with full comprehension, so that all the brethren could also understand, than ten thousand incomprehensible words.”

“Prayer is directed towards God, not man.”
Pope St Pius X

“Latin is a sacred language, not a foreign language.”
Dom Prosper Gueranger

“Latin is the official language the Church offers Her worships in”
Ven. Pope Jon Paul II

Greg: You wrote that we are to be angry when we are taught heretical information by priests. I agree with you.  But Catholics (at least the ones I know) are reluctant to take concerns to higher ups, when we encounter heresy.  Even when we DO, often our pastors and even our bishops couldn’t care less about it.

I went to a pastor a few years ago, who dismissed me (due to false teaching by a nun). Then I wrote to my bishop 3 times, each time, he said I was concerned over nothing.

It was clearly bad information - saying instead of “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”, Jesus really said, “Happy and aligned are they that are one with the Kingship and the Queenship of the cosmos.”  A New Age nun was saying the latter was what Jesus REALLY said, in Aramaic.

The importance of KNOWING Scripture cannot be stressed - there were over 60 people in that class, and ALL, including one that was a 3rd grade catechism teacher, bought that drivel, hook, line and sinker.  I was the only person saying: Something’s wrong!

My experience has been more like James who described an egregious situation at his parish, and while he was concerned, of others, he wrote: I talked to two ladies afterward and one stated “she just wanted to receive” and the other saw no problem with this fiasco.  And therein lies the problem!!!

In the case of clergy sexual abuse - I agree that we cannot only pray.  We MUST do something.  If it is abuse against a child: it’s a CRIME.

Frankly, I pray in more states, civil authorities will raise the bar on morals for clergymen (all of them), making it a civil violation for any clergyman to have sexual relations with any parishioner - just like psychologists, that lose their license for exploiting a patient.

The most interesting comment to date is from: New Observer who wrote on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 12:35 PM (EST): “Look at all these posts.  Isn’t this the job of the Magesterium —to figure out which form of worship is superior?  Why have they created both resulting in all this confusion?”
To that, I say: Amen.

“How aren’t you ashamed to recognize only three languages to decide for all the other nations and tribes to be blind and deaf?”

- St. Cyril, Co-Patron of Europe in his battle against the Trilingualists

Prayer is ultimately “the language” of the Catholic Church and not the dead language of the Imperium.

We note that at Pentecost, the Spirit descended upon the Apostles so that they might speak in tongues - a charism granted so that all nations might hear the Gospel in their own language and be converted.

The Word of God was also “translated” in the Incarnation so that man might receive Him.

Liturgical languages can and should be at least partially retained out of respect for the heritage of a particular Church. But the incarnational and pentecostal nature of the Church and her worship would seem to dictate that the majority of her celebrations be in the language of the people who are praying so long as worthy vernacular translations are available.

I grew up with the Tridentine Mass and was actually in the minor seminary from September 1955 until June 1961 when things started to change drastically. I loved the Latin liturgy and did not like the change when it happened. Realizing, however, that the language of the Mass is not essential, I have stayed with the Novus Ordo and have been both lector and Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion for years. I have a son a priest and am not alienated from the church in any way. I don’t go across town to seek out Latin Masses.

However, I’m now nearly 70 years old and find that my longing for the old liturgy is as strong as ever. I tend to give the responses in the old language under my breath and I pray now and then that the Old Liturgy will be made more available. I wonder how many people like myself there might be.

What amazes me is the real hostility that any expression of a desire for the Old Mass raises. The mere mention of Latin seems to mark the speaker as a subversive crank. The bishops’ response to the Pope’s Moto Proprio on the Extraordinary Rite has, itself, been less than enthusiastic at best and arrogantly uncooperative at worst. It almost seems that they are afraid that the people will reject the Novus Ordo.

I don’t think that is likely. The propaganda that the Latin Mass was unintelligible to the people has been sold to such an extent that even people who should remember the Old Mass will claim that they did not know what was being said. (No boasting intended, but I had the translation from my Missal by heart by the time I was in third grade. If they did not understand what was being said it was because they did not care to find out.)

The introduction of the vernacular was, in my opinion, a disaster mostly because it made it possible for the celebrant to ad lib at will. The discipline of the Latin pretty much assured that the celebrant was going to say the Mass as the rubrics directed. The Mass was, moreover, the same the world over and everybody knew what to expect in the liturgy.

Hebrew, Sanskrit, Arabic, Old Church Slavonic, etc., are all used as sacred Languages. They have the advantage of adding solemnity, authority and consistency to the rites in which they are used. We used to have a sacred Language, too. I wish we still did.

Probable the worst effect of the Vernacular that I notice is that, since preachers do not have to read the scripture in the official Latin, they tend to homilize on the translation, which, as any translator should admit, is to engage in a risky undertaking. The original says what it says; the translation gives only the translator’s interpretation of what the original said and interpretations of the interpretation can go far afield. Those preacher who do go back to the Greek (Heaven forbid that they should use the Latin) tend to use Protestant sources which are not going to put any Catholic emphasis on the text.

Count the number of Catholics, particularly the young who never experienced the old Mass, and you will find no proof that the Novus Ordo has done much to stir up the Faithful. I don’t begrudge the American Church its Novus Ordo. I just don’t understand the viscious reaction to any suggestion of letting us old geezers have the Mass, quae laetificavit juventutem meam.

Dan,

Beautifully said.

“The introduction of the vernacular was, in my opinion, a disaster mostly
because it made it possible for the celebrant to ad lib at will. The
discipline of the Latin pretty much assured that the celebrant was going to say the Mass as the rubrics directed. The Mass was, moreover, the same the world over and everybody knew what to expect in the liturgy.”

There is some truth to this, although it speaks more to the attitude of the priest towards the Mass which is to say that he sees it as his personal possession, rather than the patrimony of his particular Church. Had the Ordo of Paul VI simply retained many of the beautiful and traditional modalities of Tridentine and Gregorian worship, I do not think we would have seen half of the issues we see today.

As I said, I think a certain amount of the traditional liturgical language should be retained in the liturgy. I have seen this done in a Novus Ordo Mass where Latin and English (and the Greek Kyrie) were used with more English.

I should also say that in this Church on a Sunday Mass there was incense, and bells and beautiful liturgical vestments in an architecturally traditional Church filled with beautiful Western iconography. The server corps was excellent and well trained and they had a deacon as well. The choir did a beautiful job with traditional hymns and Gregorian Chant. The only unfortunate draw back was that it was not ad orientem…

Had THIS been normative for the reform (along with a worthy translation, which is thankfully coming) the other issues of the Tridentine Mass would not have been so pronounced. Or even if a worthy translation of the 1962 Missal had been used along with the reform of the lectionary, I would think that such a blended option would have been far and away much better than the abuses that have been seen…

I’m commenting before I read any other comments, so I won’t be biased, prejudiced, irritated, or delighted!

I was probably 9 or 10 before the Novus Ordo was fully implemented in rural Kansas.  So what I remember of the Latin Mass is from a child’s perspective.  However, I would note that I had a mother who made sure I was making the sign of the cross and genuflecting about as soon as I could walk, and I was expected to kneel, stand, and sit quietly.  I remember that we owned a family Sunday Missal—the prayers in Latin on one side and the prayers in English on the facing page.  I knew which bells meant I was supposed to “beat my breast” and pray “mea culpa.”  From the time I learned to read, I loved following along in the Missal, because the explanations about what the priest was doing and why he was doing it were printed right there among the English translations.

I prefer the Novus Ordo, however, simply so I really understand the words being prayed.  Even at a young age, I could never understand why so many people were arguing about changing the Mass to English, and I was horrified at those who left the church because it was no longer in Latin.

My husband, as a convert, cannot imagine trying to follow the Mass in a language he does not understand.  When we were in Mexico a number of years ago, I could easily follow the Mass, but he was lost.

Personally, I think we get out of Mass, in any language, what we open our hearts to receiving.  When we get hung up on thinking that the Latin is more devout, let us not forget all the people who were thinking about other things (I wonder if I turned off the iron; I sure wish Johnny would propose to Sally; etc.) or praying the Rosary or reading the bulletin during Mass because they couldn’t concentrate on words they didn’t know.  The nature of humans doesn’t change over the course of human history or because Mass is said in one language or another.

I do think that the modifications being implemented at the start of Advent this year provide a wonderful opportunity for the priests to teach people about the Mass.  Maybe the lack of reverence that’s being displayed today is the result of decades of it being assumed that just because the Mass is now in the vernacular, that people automatically understand what is going on.  But people will know only if they’ve been taught, and I’ve not seen much being taught about the Mass and reinforced by parents in the past 30+ years.  So each successive generation knows less and less.

Therefore, the priests should take the time to explain what is going on and why as they prepare us for the changes.  I also think it would be good if parishes used missalettes that contained more instructional language.  I realize there are financial considerations, but I think the value of eternity of a human soul is far more important than the cost of missalettes.

That’s my 2 cents. . . for now.

Oh no! We’ve been found out!
Yes, I am the one who posted this to the Fish Eaters site and I’m not ashamed. I did so because I only recently started attending the TLM and I wanted to make sure more than my limited scope of understanding was represented in the comments.
Having said that, I really have to jump back in because a couple themes that are of special interest to me keep coming up.
1. Participation: It has been said more than a couple of times that Mass in the vernacular encourages “greater participation of the laity.” That is simply not true. What it does encourage is a very superficial back and forth between priest and people that does nothing to draw you further into the mystery of the sacrifice taking place.
As stated above, I recently started attending the TLM. In fact, before November, I had never even been to the TLM. However, our Pastor celebrated a Requiem Mass for All Souls Day with full choir and really encouraged attendance. My wife and I decided to check it out and my first reaction was, “How did we get from that to where we are now? They’re night and day.” The most profound experience, by far, for me was the fact that I could finally FULLY participate in the Mass. Not by standing up every few minutes and saying something back to the priest, but truly participating in my heart, offering myself up with the Lord in sacrifice. Since I didn’t have to respond every other breath, I was finally free to be at peace in quiet awe of the profound mysteries taking place. Instead of being forced into an artificial “will you be my neighbor?” family meal, I was drawn into deep contemplation of the great sacrifice that was being re-presented right in front of my eyes. Therefore, I can say, unequivocally the argument that Mass in the vernacular facilitates more participation from the laity could not be farther from the truth.
2. More Readings: Much like the movements up and down and responding back and forth, I believe the expansion of the lectionary is another superficial change that has done nothing to more fully engage people in the scriptures. From my limited perspective, the way they changed the prayers and every other part of the Mass, there seems to be less scripture now. Not to mention the fact that in expanding the readings, they took out almost every reference to punishment for sin. Add this to the fact that priests don’t even expound upon the readings fully, only the Gospel for the most part, and we can see that the expansion of the lectionary really hasn’t accomplished anything.
3. “It’s All About Me!!” The final thing I love about the TLM is that the priest, the people, the choir - EVERYONE - gets out of the way. At the Novus Ordo, there is an overwhelming sense that you’re at a big ‘ol talent show. The reader delivers his or her most masterful “rendition” of the Old Testament and the Epistles, the cantor follows with the most dramatic psalm response they can muster, replete with over the top “touchdown” arms to let us know it’s our time to sing. Finally, the priest gets up and does his best Garrison Keeler impression, delivering a feel-good, folksy homily that is devoid of almost any doctrinal content. God forbid they mention the words “sin” or “hell” and actually convict you of the life you’re living. Lastly, there is the consecration facing the people, where you can almost feel the lights dim as Father softly draws you in, “Take this…all of you…” (cue violins) None of this takes place at the TLM and, as a result, you can actually focus on the only person you’re there to see, the God-Man Jesus Christ, and the Father He revealed to us.
I know this was a lengthy response, but these few issues kept coming up, so I had to throw in a few more of my cents. On top of that, this is all still very new and EXTREMELY exciting to me! In conclusion, find the nearest Traditional Latin Mass and get there—QUICK!! (Give it 5 or 6 tries before you make a final decision, though. It takes a little homework before you really know what’s going on, but it’s WELL worth the effort!!) http://www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

Dietrich von Hildebrand has written a wonderful piece on this topic entitled “The Case for the Latin Mass”: http://latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/dietrich.htm

I encourage everyone to read more by Dietrich von Hildebrand, including:
Transformation in Christ
Marriage - The Mystery of Faithful Love
et al.

To Don Schenk: “if you think that the one-year cycle of readings for the Sunday Masses goes back more than nineteen centuries, that shows how little you know about the history of how Mass was celebrated over the centuries.” In fact, we know very little of this aspect of the liturgical practice of the early Church, since no lectionaries survive that far back, and what evidence we have is that lectio continua was likely the norm; in any case, Jewish practice can hardly be taken as decisive.  The fact that the OT is “the word of God” is not in dispute here; the question is how it can be best used in the Church’s worship life.  And to that end, I would argue that a massive expansion of Scripture should not be a substitute for the faithful’s regular prayer of the Divine Office, which is the best place to maximize contact with scripture in worship.

Matthew,

It is my hope that you attend a Traditional Latin Mass in the near future.  However, I do not agree with your posting question as to see which mass people like going to.  When it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Latin Rite, it does not matter what people like.  The Mass is transcendent of space and time.  The Mass never grows old and can never go out of style.  The Mass is an expression of God’s Love for us and provides the unbloody sacrifice for us and allows us the expiation of our sins as well as the freedom of the poor souls in purgatory.  I attend the Traditional Latin Mass not for the sake of liking it but mostly because I want to save my soul and the souls of others. 

Isn’t it any wonder why most Catholics are confused about their faith and are going about doing their own thing?  Isn’t it a wonder why most Catholics criticize the Traditional Latin Mass and of those who attend it?  Isn’t it a wonder why Catholics criticize other Catholics?  It is absolutely because most Catholics do not know their faith very well.  This is why, under the Traditional Rite, I learn about my faith, if taught correctly and faithfully that I am able to get the true richness and treasure of the One True Faith and I am protected from the heresies that spread in the world by those who want to see the True Faith change to their own liking.  My suggestion to all those who want to know the truth is to study their Catholic Faith in depth!  Don’t just rely on what lost Catholics say or do, what THEY LIKE or DON’T LIKE,what they know or don’t know.  We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide us to the truth.  Always ask Holy Mother Church for the answers because ultimately, she is guided by the Holy Ghost.  I would also suggest to beware of Priests and Bishops who provide the false teaching and ambiguous explanations of the Catholic Faith.  For some, it is through no fault of their own that they provide these false teachings because they were not given the proper teaching of the Catholic Faith.  Others do because they work against the truth and try to change the Faith to fit their OWN LIKING.

The key to understanding what is true and what is not is through the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi - The Law of Praying is the Law of Believing.  If one compares the proper prayers of both the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae, you will see that Catholic Doctrine has been changed.  Refer to the Rev. Carlo Braga - Assistant to Rev. Annibale Bugnini, who is the author of the Novus Ordo and what he says in relation to the change in the proper prayers.  These prayers were once the defining lights of our faith and what we believed.  If you were to compare the Collect, Secret, and Post Communion prayers of the Traditional Mass with the Opening Prayer, Prayer over the gifts, and the After Communion prayers, you will see the shocking difference between them.

I have devoted myself to the transmission of the True Catholic Faith by creating a youtube channel.  www.youtube.com/user/gotito7 It is through this channel that I hope to help people understand that the crisis in the Church can only be fought with our prayers, supplications, visits to the blessed sacrament, and the promotion of the True Teaching of the Catholic Faith.

Pax Christi!

If you want to have your eyes opened bout how the celebration of the mass changed over the centuries, read Msgr. Ronald Knox’s “The Mass in Slow Motion,” written back in the 1940s.
And when Blessed Pope Jpohn Paul II was endorsing the celebration of the Mass in Latin, he was refering to the ordinary form of the Missal.  I still don’t see the reason for creating a schism in the Church by insisting on the extraordinary form.  (And if you insist “It’s the people who are following the pope who are creating a schism!” you’re proving my point.)

May all of life’s problems be so insignificant.  Let’s see, .....  as if this is a really, really important issue?  Doesn’t the church have enough problems without adding more?  Or NCR bloggers just stirring up more problems?  This is a tempest in a tea pot.  Just attend the mass of your choice and move on with your life.  Both mass rites honor God.

That’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.

This is really deteriorating into a who-is-better-boys-or-girls type question.  I believe that, if the Novus Ordo Mass were celebrated as the true Vatican II had envisioned it, we would not be having these problems.  Sadly, the tent opened and the camel not only got his nose in, he charged in and now there is an effort to get him out.  Poor John XXIII, poor Paul VI, poor Vatican II.  What a travesty *wGe* are committing.

Donald:
Thanks for the reference. I will read it. To me, we need to understand the history of the Church in its fullness, especially when it comes to the Mass. In reference to Gina’s point, let’s kick the doggone camel out! He stinks!

The bottom line is the Traditional Latin Mass is a superior form of worship and the Novus Ordo is flawed in many ways. Like or not, the Novus Ordo will die off and the Traditional Latin Mass will be restored.. it’s just a matter of time.

This response is directed to New Observer.

The attention given to the Catholic Church and the crisis that exists within it is of the utmost importance and is significant than anything else in the world because it is about the salvation of souls. 

How can one save their soul and the souls of others if they do not understand or know what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ teaches?  By suggesting that we should choose the mass of our liking and moving on with our lives is definitely a protestant statement!  Protestants believe that if we just have trust in God that this is all we need for salvation.  This is only partially true.  We need to be in communion with the Saints and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and understand how they all fit in the scheme of bringing us closer to Christ.  Once we are brought closer to Christ, we are able to live the fullness of our Faith and practice it on a daily basis in our lives.  Once we practice it, then we are able to transmit these teachings and practices to our Children and are able to do the same.  This is why it is critical.  This is why it is very important!  This is why this issue takes precedent over everything else in the world and our lives because it deals with the supernatural.  We must avoid giving in to the Devil, the World, and the Flesh and focus on getting to Heaven!

Ad Iesum per Mariam!

“To Jesus through Mary!”

Salus Fides,—BOTH mass rites have been established by the church.  Your rationale is that one mass rite is more Catholic than the other.  Does this mean if we do not worship at the mass which you feel is superior the rest of us then have less fullness and are less Catholic?  A few years ago this matter was addressed by my diocese.  You know what?  Our Bishop disagrees with you.  I do not, however, think you are less Catholic based upon the mass rite you prefer.

To my fellow Catholic, New Observer:

I would like to make some clarifications of your latest response to me. 

First of all, I would like to mention that the Traditional Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was in use for close to 2000 years and was codified by Pope Pius V in 1570.  This was the Mass used by many Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Saints.  Eventually, many Saints were martyred because they professed their faith through the Mass.  This cannot be denied and should be affirmed with the utmost sincerity.

Secondly, the Novus Ordo Missae was authored by Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and approved by the majority of Vatican II council fathers after heavy debate by the minority.  If you read the response given by Rev. Carlo Braga - assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, he would give a reason as to why the Novus Ordo Missae was established.  There is a change in Catholic Doctrine and a break with Tradition once the proper prayers of the Mass were changed.  I can provide you the proper website with his response - there is nothing secret about this:  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/novus.htm please look at the response under modernism.

Third, understand what is practiced in the Catholic Church - Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi - The Law of Praying is the Law of Believing.  It is through the Law of Belief that provides the key to understanding why the Novus Ordo Missae dimishes the teachings of our Catholic Faith. 

Next, I do not wish to convey my opinion or feelings on this matter.  Superiority of the Mass is not at issue here and it certainly does not depend on my so called “feelings” or preference to the Traditional Rite. I am an awful sinner and I need all the help I need to be saved.  However, I will say that the Novus Ordo Missae based on the proper prayers of the Mass does not convey the fullness of “OUR” Catholic Faith - this means yours and mine.  What I mean by the fullness directs towards the merits of the Saints and their lives, the Merits of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and her role in “OUR” Catholic Church, as well as the True Presence of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.  All I ask for you to consider are the comparison of the proper prayers between the Traditional Rite and the Novus Ordo Missae.  For example, you could compare these prayers of the Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary - October 7.  The prayers you need to look at are the Collect, Secret, and Post Communion Prayers—In the Novus Ordo Missae:  they are the Opening Prayers, the Preparation of the Gifts, and the After Communion prayer.

Finally, in case you are unable to find the response by Rev. Carlo Braga, here it is:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!” How brazen the heretics are!

If nothing else, this alone should convince the reader that, as this is the foundation upon which the New Mass was built and created, the pillar upon which it stands, it certainly could not have come from the “pillar and ground of Truth”, but must of come from the “the father of lies”.

Bottom Line, it comes down to the salvation of my soul, your soul, and the souls of other fellow Catholics and those who have been separated and have fallen to other false religions.  Think about the grandeur of your destiny - Eternal Happiness with the One True God in Heaven along with the Angels, the Saints and Our Blessed Mother.  If you pray the Holy Rosary every day, you will know how she brings us closer to Her Son.

God Bless You New Observer!  May God be with you!

P.S.  If you want to continue understanding the roots of the Novus Ordo Missae and the crisis in the Catholic Church, read a book titled: AA-1025 sold by Tan Books - The leading seller of Catholic Books for the Catholic reader.

CRJohnston’s comments were spot on.  Another priest told me of his experience with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass - “I did not want to do one of those Pornacrombie Kids Lifeteen extravaganzas,” he said.  “Instead, I wanted to learn the traditional mass.  Word got out in the parish of my intentions.  The next thing you know, here comes the Tradams Family waddling up the aisle.  As soon as they reached me the husband began ranting about modernism (which he couldn’t define), Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, Novus Ordo this, Novus Ordo that, two Sister Lucias, an imposter Paul VI with big ears, Jewish bankers, the Trilateral Commission, the fourth secret of Fatima and Henry Kissinger!  I was shocked.  Throughout the entire rant, his wife, who had these giant, emotionless brown eyes, silently stood there, vacantly staring off into the horizon as if she were awaiting the next message from the Lefevbrite mother ship.  Then, just before they left, they had the audacity to thank me for returning to the Catholic Church!  I dropped the project.”

it is really sad that that priest dropped it because of just two individuals. think of how many people have now been deprived of the beauty of the EF Mass, because this priest didn’t have the strength to stand up to that couple

Jiminy Glick is either embellishing the story or the priest he refers to is.  And there is probably a lot more to the story than he stated.  This is just another response in favor of the NO based solely on the character of a few people who attend the TLM.  If we were to base the argument on the characters of the followers of both forms then we would have another story.  I don’t think there was anyone who argued for the TLM based on the character of those who favor the NO.  I would advise to read Salus Fides comment just above.  Another good book to read is Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies.  Also see the two links below that explain how similar the Novus Ordo is to the Cranmer communion service of the protestant reformation.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2008/01/lex-orandi-lex-credendi.html

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2008/01/lex-orandi-lex-credendi-part-2.html

I have only gone to a Latin Mass once, and it was a different experience.  I’d love to go again, given that I’m heartily curious about it, now.  I’ve also begun reading Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy.  I have no real problem with the Novus Ordo, though I do like the idea of the ad orientam posture, which puts more focus on Christ than on the priest.  I think I’ve seen this mentioned elsewhere, and this might be a good idea:  the Holy Father has suggested that during the Novus Ordo, the priest should place a crucifix on the altar so as to leave no doubt as to where the focus of the Mass is.

“Salus fides,” which is it?  Was the “Traditional” Mass unchanged for 2,000 years, or was it instituted in 1570 and changed as recently as 1962?

It doesn’t matter. Whatever happens in the sanctuary is inconsequential compared to how we be Christ to one another. I heard a great quote this very morning: “Church is the place we go to protect ourselves from the experience of Christ.” Arguing about “church stuff” makes us feel like we’re being religious, but it’s easy and not at all related to the challenges presented to us in the Gospel. This sort of debate is a form of avoidance.

+JMJ+

Pax Christi Don,

Thanks for your question!  The Traditional Latin Mass has been unchanged for 2000 years with some minor revisions throughout that time.  When I mean “minor” I mean that some minor elements of the Mass changed over time but still kept the structure of the Mass intact.

The Codification of the Mass in 1570 by Pope Pius V meant that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was now the “official” norm of worship in the Roman Catholic Church - i.e. laws that govern the Ordinary of the Mass, the process of the Mass, the norms of how every mass should be said and what the priest must do, gestures ect…

In 1962, the Missale Romanum was revised and issued by Blessed John XXIII - again with minor revisions to the mass and the Roman Missal.  However, the structure of the Mass remained intact as it were for 2000 years.

Raymond A:  Great comment.  I agree.  All this “in fighting” within the church pews concerning tradition, best and better.  The focus upon which mass rite should be #1 or #2 —as if Christ will give a rip at the end of your life which of the two mass rites you actually preferred.  Being “in church” does not mean we are “in Christ.”  Reading St. Paul’s letters and Acts of the Apostles set the right mentality for putting this entire topic into proper perspective.  This is part of what Luther was trying to expose:  too much Catholic legalism.

+JMJ+

Pax Christi Don,

Thanks for your question!  The Traditional Latin Mass has been unchanged for 2000 years with some minor revisions throughout that time.  When I mean “minor” I mean that some minor elements of the Mass changed over time but still kept the structure of the Mass intact.

The Codification of the Mass in 1570 by Pope Pius V meant that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was now the “official” norm of worship in the Roman Catholic Church - i.e. laws that govern the Ordinary of the Mass, the process of the Mass, the norms of how every mass should be said and what the priest must do, gestures ect…

In 1962, the Missale Romanum was revised and issued by Blessed John XXIII - again with minor revisions to the mass and the Roman Missal.  However, the structure of the Mass remained intact as it were for 2000 years.

+JMJ+

This response is for Raymond A.

Raymond,

When such arguments are being made especially on these blogs, it does not make me feel anything but the urged to defend the faith!  As is the duty of every faithful Roman Catholic, we must uphold and defend the true teachings of the Catholic Faith from every heretical attack!  What do you mean that whatever happens in the sanctuary is inconsequential to how we are Christlike to one another???  So what you are saying is that it does not matter how we worship or pray it all depends on how we act with one another?  So if priests jump up and down before the real presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and tells everyone to jump and wave our hands that this does not matter???  Again, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi!  The Law of Prayer is the Law of Believing.

“Church is the place we go to protect ourselves from the experience of Christ.”

This is a complete and total example of the protestant view of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  This is also a heretical statement!  We all attend Holy Mass to become a witness to Christ’s unbloody sacrifice at Calvary and we ask for expiation for our sins and offer up our intentions as well as ask for intercession for our spiritual and temporal needs while in communion with the Saints and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.  How is it that attending Mass protects us from the experience of Christ?  In fact, attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass helps us experience Christ more and more in our everyday lives by receiving the sacraments that He Himself gave to us especially the Sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion.  We live our lives through the Sacraments.  It seems to me that people have lost that sense of understanding about their faith.

DELIVER me, Lord Jesus Christ, from all my iniquities and from every evil, make me hold ever fast to Thy commandments and never allow me to be separated from Thee. Amen.

Raymond A:  Great comment.  I agree.  You are correct that all this chatter regarding which mass rite is #1 and which is #2 —it is (as you say) inconsequential if we think that at the end of life Christ will actually give a rip.  It’s that He be honored should be the primacy.  Reading Acts of the Apostles and the letters of St. Paul set the appropriate mentality for us.  You can be “in church” but not “in Christ.”  It seems this is part of what Luther tried to expose:  focusing too much on Catholic legalism.

To the author:  If you haven’t done it already, would you pose the question of “What Bible version or translation is best?”  (or most appropriate for Catholics; or most suggested)  I know many traditionalists favor the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) Bible, and that the New American Bible is the official current version.  But, if someone wants to buy just one bible, which should it be?  What about for a First Communion gift, or Confirmation gift?  Thank you.

+JMJ+

New Observer,

Again, you are unclear about what we as Roman Catholics practice our faith.  I do agree that it is not about what “WE” prefer which Mass we attend.  It is all about what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ wants of us.  It is His Will that I attend the Traditional Latin Mass.  I attend the Mass that the Holy Saints attended, the Mass that past Popes celebrated, the Mass that Saintly priests celebrated like Padre Pio, I also attend the Mass that my past ancestors worshiped throughout the centuries and I am in communion with all of them.  The Traditional Latin Mass does not depend on which is better or best of all, however, in relation to the bible, when Abraham offered a sacrifice to God, he offered an “unspotted Lamb without blemish.”  This means that we offer God our very best, our most robust of sacrifices.  Anything mediocre of a sacrifice we offer would be unworthy of God’s acceptance. For example, I am sure that you do not offer your employer mediocre work, or your Mother and Father a half sincere Love, I am sure you offer them the very best that you give them.  It is the same with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  We offer him our very best of sacrifices.

“The focus upon which mass rite should be #1 or #2 —as if Christ will give a rip at the end of your life which of the two mass rites you actually preferred.  Being “in church” does not mean we are “in Christ.”  Reading St. Paul’s letters and Acts of the Apostles set the right mentality for putting this entire topic into proper perspective.  This is part of what Luther was trying to expose:  too much Catholic legalism.”

New Observer, please humble yourself for offering this response.  Neither you or I know what God will say to us in our particular judgement.  Neither you or I will know if we will go to Heaven or not or even Purgatory.  As far as your reference to Martin Luther, I rest my case.  Martin Luther introduced the contrary of Catholic Teaching and Worship.

Salus, you are defending the church, the institution, not the faith. My comment was defending the faith.

+JMJ+

With all due respect Raymond, I believe you have a wrong interpretation of the word “faith” if that idea of “faith” is what you were defending.

Defending the Catholic Faith means everything that is Catholic, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, The Catholic Church, the Catholic Teaching, The Roman Catholic way of life, The Catholic beliefs, all that is taught by the Catholic Church and the Will of God.

Your response on what happens in the Sanctuary as being inconsequential to being Christlike to everyone leaves a huge question open for others to respond to.  How can anyone learn how to be Christlike to anyone if they have no sense of belief - which is implemented in the form of worship of the Triune God.

The first thing that a Saint always concerned themselves with first and foremost was their soul, then the souls of others, attending Holy Mass on a daily basis, receiving the sacraments, performing their duties according to the Will of God and the Teachings of Holy Mother Church.  I lack serious acts of faith according to the Church’s teaching, however, I try to make as many resolutions before God to do my best to do all that he asks.  This is why Holy Mother Church knows that we are not perfect.  However, the Love of God makes himself available to us in many ways to work towards our salvation through Holy Mother Church.  I criticize myself for not doing more than what I should to live my Catholic Faith.  However, such things cannot be done overnight unless through the grace of God.  But as St. Therese of Liseux says, Christ likes the little things that we do for the Love of Him so that we can be closer to Him!

O HOLY MARY, my Mistress, into thy blessed trust and special keeping, into the bosom of thy tender mercy, this day, every day of my life and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body. To thee I entrust all my hopes and consolations, all my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that through thy most holy intercession and thy merits, all my actions may be ordered and disposed according to thy will and that of thy divine Son. Amen.

In both forms of the Mass – Banish the hymns.  The Mass is supposed to be chanted prayer.

In both forms of the mass there is usually a layer of hymns which completely overwhelms the prayers of the Mass. 

No one pays attention to the prayers.  In the Novus Ordo the songs conjure up feelings of welcoming.  In the Tridentine the hymns produce feelings of “sanctity”.  Very few people pay attention to the prayers of the propers of the Mass in either form. 

In the Novus Ordo these songs resemble Broadway show tunes.  In the Tridentine these hymns are “traditional” and in some cases “classical” like Mozart – sort of a sacred La Scala Opera performance. 

There are to be NO hymns/songs in the Mass.  The mass is supposed to be chanted prayer.  A new translation will not matter because people don’t pay attention to the prayers.  They go to Church for the songs and communion.  Sunday morning will still be a little Broadway musical in most parishes.

Salus Fides and Raymond’s discussion.  It comes from St. Teresa of Avila. The question between formal worship and ordinary acts of charity interests me as well.

“I will tell you about a woman with whom I had a good deal to do recently.  She was very greatly attached to regular communion, and never spoke ill of anyone, and was very devoted in her prayer, given continually to solitude for she lived alone in her house.  She was so meek that nothing that was said to her made her angry, which was a great state of perfection, and she never spoke an ill word.  She had never married, and was too old to be married now, and had passed through severe opposition for all her peacefulness.  When I saw this, I thought it resulted from a very excellent state of soul and from great prayer. I held her in high esteem to begin with, for I saw in her nothing displeasing to God, and I knew that she took care to avoid such things. 

When I knew her better, I began to realize that everything about her was at peace, so long as her self-interest was not affected; but when it came to that, her conscience was not all delicate.  I realized that although she would put up with all the things of the sort I have mentioned, she was very careful of her good name.  It would not be her fault if she lost one jot of her good repute or of popular esteem, so absorbed was she in her wretched self-regard… I was amazed than anyone like this could be alone for even hour, so attached was she to her own satisfaction.  Almost everyone thought her a saint,… but she frightened me more than all the sinners I have ever seen.” Conceptions ii.27-29”

From: E.W. Trueman Dicken, The Crucible of Love: A Study of the Mysticism of St. Teresa of Jesus and St. John of the Cross, Sheed and Ward, 1963, p.53-54.

Salus, your thinking is an example of an institutionalized and fully “processed” Catholic.  In the first century, Peter having returned from Antioch had to battle against newly baptized Christian Jews in Jerusalem who were too rooted in Judiasm to fully accept Gentiles into the church after Peter baptized Cornelius.  He had to teach them to place Christianity ahead of their Judiasm.  Seems you, Salus, are caught in the same trap.

+JMJ+

New Observer,

In this respect are you speaking of Ecumenism?  I am not sure what you mean by being a fully “processed” Catholic or Institutionalized.  Are you trying to insult me by calling me this or are you insinuating that I am “brain washed?” I would agree with St. Paul that Christianity had to be placed ahead before Judaism because this is what Christ wanted.  It was Christ’s teaching that was never accepted by Orthodox Jews and those who never believed in Christ being the Messiah.

MOST holy Virgin and Mother, whose soul was pierced by a sword of sorrow in the Passion of thy divine Son, and who in His glorious Resurrection wast filled with never-ending joy at His triumph; obtain for us who call upon thee, so to be partakers in the adversities of Holy Church and the sorrows of the Sovereign Pontiff, as to be found worthy to rejoice with them in the consolations for which we pray, in the charity and peace of the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

In my diocese, we have a Tridentine Mass parish (FSSP)which I greatly prefer to the vernacular Masses. I do like the Latin, but the main reason is because the vernacular Mass is rarely solemn and rarely treated as a great prayer. The vernacular Mass is also the Mass that everybody, priest and layman, thinks they’re entitled to tinker with and add to and subtract from whenever they wish. To paraphrase Forest Gump: “The English Mass is like a box of chocolates—you never know what you’re going to get.” I do wind up going to English Mass with my wife, but it’s only for love of her and her desire to be active in the parish in which we live. I’d otherwise be at the Tridentine Mass exclusively where I can have a solemn and reverent Mass without any surprises. Although, I’ve occasionally seen the Novus Ordo Mass done in a very solemn and reverent way and left feeling like I had really been to Mass, it’s definitely the exception to the rule.

“The bottom line is the Traditional Latin Mass is a superior form of worship and the Novus Ordo is flawed in many ways. Like or not, the Novus Ordo will die off and the Traditional Latin Mass will be restored.. it’s just a matter of time.”

In response to Mr. . Dave Marble’s comment, above. I could not agree more wholeheartedly. As my former pastor (SSPX) put it to me once; in 2020 the Novus Ordo will be about fifty years old and that those who created will be passing on. It is then that those who are younger will rise through the hierarchy of the Church and it is there that the hope of the return of Tradition will take root, as it is even occuring in Novus Ordo seminaries that these younger seminarians are clamoring for more Latin, more tradition. In diocese’ where orthodoxy is the order of the day, vocations flourish. There is a priestly shortage because Tradition has been suppressed. When I look at SSPX priests, the majority of priests are all younger, whereas in Novus Ordo seminaries, a large percentage of seminarians are men almost at midlife. It just reaffirms this belief of mine.

Terry, you wrote: “There is a priestly shortage because Tradition has been suppressed.”

I agree with you. Universal church Tradition has been suppressed on other issues too, and to our detriment.  For instance, a married clergy, which is the norm in our Deposit of Faith, is also being suppressed.

By insisting on mandatory celibacy, tradition only since the year 1139, it has led to thousands of heterosexual priests leaving the priesthood, and in droves to get married, and otherwise good men, not even thinking of being a priest.  The refusal to honor universal Church Tradition and our early church history, has resulted in the numbers of homosexual men entering the priesthood to swell.

The church’s own statistic for our clergy with homosexual inclinations is 22-45% (and as many as 50%)  This, while the statistic for average populations is between 2-5%.

There are too many seminaries where good candidates go to discern vocations, and encounter the Lavender Mafia (other men hitting on them, and not gently).  They RUN from the seminary, because they’re heterosexual.  I know a wonderful young man that encountered that.  He was shocked.  That seminary was filled with homosexual men, and this young man is now married and the father of two boys.

I also know a wonderful man that wanted to be a priest twenty years ago.  He was conservative Roman Catholic, but he had no calling to celibacy.  So he was forced to leave the RCC.  He chose to be Anglican.  He has a wonderful wife and family now, and he’s a pastor in a conservative Anglican parish, where his parishioners love him.

He’d probably vote for the Traditional Latin Mass, IF he were still Roman Catholic.  He’s very traditional, and he even introduced the rosary as a way for his parishioners to pray together, and meditate on the Life of Christ last Lent.  The RCC’s loss is the conservative Anglican’s gain.

From reading Scripture, I know that God cares most of all if our HEARTS are predisposed to loving Him, whether we worship in Latin or in our native language.  I know for SURE God wants more “workers” to equip us in matters that have ETERNAL VALUE, so more souls will be saved.  THAT is the way to glorify God.  It is 100% about giving glory to God.

The best way to give glory to God is to do what He expects of us: God expects all of us to OBEY His Word - the Bible, and in context.

For these reasons, I too pray there is a return to Tradition, and the movement will take root.  First of all, reading and teaching the Bible, and knowing our Deposit of Faith: all in context.  And being educated in how the early church worshipped, and how they structured their individual churches, together as part of the Body of Christ.

When we go back to the basics of universal Church Tradition and early church history (as well as reading Scripture, in context) we will find that mandatory celibacy needs to be ended.  St. Patrick was the grandson of a Roman Catholic priest and the son of a Roman Catholic deacon.

It’s sobering to think about St. Peter and the other apostles, if they lived today.  If any of them wanted to enter a Latin rite seminary now, they would be refused because they were married.  see 1 Corinthians 9:5

So yes!  Getting back to universal Church Tradition is excellent!!!!! I agree with you, wholeheartedly!!!

With more men entering the seminary, some will want to learn Latin, and others would prefer the other APPROVED liturgy of the Novus Ordo, which can easily be required to be reverent and worshipful.

Cradle Catholic:

“So he was forced to leave the RCC.  He chose to be Anglican.  He has a wonderful wife and family now, and he’s a pastor in a conservative Anglican parish, where his parishioners love him. He’d probably vote for the Traditional Latin Mass, IF he were still Roman Catholic.  He’s very traditional…”

He couldn’t have been that Traditional or that conservative if he left the Church because he couldn’t be ordained a priest after choosing to get married instead. In fact, he probably either didn’t understand the priesthood at all or simply selfishly wanted to have it both ways.

I went to seminary as well and chose marriage instead. At no point was I “forced” to leave the Church. There was no excommunication ceremony as I left the seminary.

The only thing that forced him out was his own desire to have things his way. Which is pretty much the same way Martin Luther and all the great heretics got “forced” out.

William Ferguson= you are absolutely correct.  I couldn’t think of another word, so I chose “forced”.  But he was not officially forced out.

While you chose to be married, and not become a priest, he wanted to be a priest + he wanted to be married, how would YOU describe this?

His parishioners love him.  He’s happy, as a married pastor.  He’s Bible literate, so he knew Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy & Titus specifically call for married men to be in ordained ministry, not single.

You wrote he had a desire to have things his own way.  But how does that square with the various OTHER rites, that have their own requirements for ordination yet, they’re in union with Rome? 

For instance, I have a friend from the Middle East who is Catholic.  The priests in her neck of the woods, are all married.  Only bishops must be single.  She shared with me that when she was about 16, a 30 something single priest tried to kiss her.  He didn’t persist, when she thwarted his advance.  But the man is STILL in ministry today, he’s still single, and he’s now a bishop.  Bishops must be single.  While married men are ordained, after ordination, I don’t think this 30+ year old man would have been able to marry.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  Please correct me, if so.

But it seems to me as if the requirements are all over the place.  That’s why I believe Terry is 100% correct.  We must get back to UNIVERSAL Church Tradition.  We must look at the Deposit of Faith - and we must have practices that obey His Word (in context) and that will bring health back to our church.  That will give glory to God, and only that will have ETERNAL VALUE for us.

Matters of Eternal Value are of utmost importance.  It makes little difference if our worship is in Latin or in English, if God is not honored and obeyed, in the Big Picture.

The Traditional Latin Mass is much better than the New Mass promulgated under Pope Paul VI.  I was born in 1987 and grew up with the New Mass in English.  The New Mass was “fairly conservative” when I mean fairly… people were still dressed properly in the late 80s and early 90s save for the altar girls, female lay readers, and the guitars, all of which were prohibited before Vatican II.  In fact, Pope John XXIII forbade women serving in the altar and there were STRICT rubrics on how women could assist at priest at the Tridentine Mass without altar boys.  I came from a Filipino immigrant family and I live in a multicultural community in Los Angeles County.  What I didn’t like about the New Mass was the fact it was in MANY languages. I mean, we’re Roman Catholic.  You know that saying, “Do as the Romans do”.  Our Mass has to be in Latin because the Latin language is our heritage in the Roman Rite.  There are Novus Ordo Catholics who argue and propose the Roman Mass ought to be vernacularized, however their reasoning is erroneous and subsequently difficulty to acquiesce as I shall state below.

For example, if we’re American and if we’re living in the United States, we ought to know, learn, and speak English.  No matter what background our family is from, the English language is what unites our American people.  If we say for example, that public education ought to be in various languages of non-English speakers only, then we would undermine the very knowledge of the English language and not to mention our American culture.  We see today that we non-English speaking residents in the US could apply for a driver’s license in their own language!  That is ridiculous!  So likewise, the Latin language cannot be removed from the Roman Liturgy because it is a part of our Roman Rite heritage.  If Catholics want an English Mass, they ought to realize that the English Mass predates Vatican II.  That ideas was proposed by Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  He hated the Latin Mass, believed that celibacy should be abolished, priests ought to marry, confession wasn’t necessary, and obedience to the government was much higher than obeying the Pope.  Thomas Cranmer was an apostate Catholic prelate and was publicly executed by a Catholic monarch.  So the point being, if we believe in the reforms of Vatican II in regards to the Sacred Liturgy, why not go all the way and join the Church of England?  But heavens no, there as the saying goes, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”.  If the Muslims from China or Indonesia revere the Arabic language as a sacrosanct language of their Prophet, why can’t we as Roman Catholic cherish the language of our Church and our spiritual forefathers?
To adopt a New Mass with the collaboration of six Protestant ministers, is truly a striking departure from Our Catholic Faith as said by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the former head of the CDF and the predecessor of Cardinal William Levada and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

To Ronald Villegas - We are to worship God “in Spirit and in Truth”.  If we are not worshipping Him in that manner, we’re USING God for our own purpose.  Whether the liturgy is in Latin or in English, both accepted liturgies, per the Vatican, we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
That is what has ETERNAL VALUE.

In order to worship Him in Truth, we need to know Him.  We can know Him by reading the Bible, and allowing His Word to become a part of us.  We can meditate on the Word.  It’s written, “My Word will not return to me void.”  and “All things will pass away, but My Word will never pass away.”
So all things - including human-based liturgies: poof!! 

But He said He wants us to worship Him: in Spirit & in Truth.  So simple.
Now that will have eternal value.  That, is God-honoring.

Please excuse my grammar mistakes in my note because I was typing fast and did not proof read what I wrote for this blog.

The Traditional Latin Mass is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Church.  I do acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff has the authority to create new rites in the Church as taught by Pope Pius XII in his famous encyclical, “Mediator Dei”.  Pius XII changed parts of the Mass in the 1950s.  He revised the Divine Liturgy for Holy Week and thereby replaced the centuries-old, Holy Week Liturgy codified under his predecessor, St. Pius V.  In addition, he mitigated the Eucharistic fast to three hours in order to conform it to the needs of society.  Pope John XXIII added some of his changes to the Mass by simplifying the ranks of the feasts, adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass (Eucharistic Prayer), and abolishing some parts for the Ordinary of the Mass in some religious festivities (e.g. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are dropped on Ash Wednesday).

The New Mass created by Pope Paul VI was sadly an abuse of papal power because he imported Protestant traditions and doctrines and had them incorporated in the Roman Liturgy.  If the Sacred Liturgy is a worship service where we as Catholic profess our True Faith, then how can we profess this same, unchanging Faith in a New Mass that embodies elements of Protestantism and False Ecumenism?  Rome needs to fix the Roman Liturgy with the aid of conservative-minded Catholic liturgists without the collaboration of our separated brethren or if possible, go back to the original form prior to the pontificate of Paul VI.

I attended my first Tridentine mass when I was five years old.  There was a man, with his back towards me, speaking a language that I could not understand.  The church was packed with children holding their own conversations and generally just doing their own thing.  I couldn’t see any reason why I should have been there.

I attended my second Tridentine mass fifty years later.  There was a man. with his back towards me, speaking a language that I could now understand, but it still seemed to me that it didn’t really matter if I was there or not.  I wasn’t able to participate in any way, it seemed that the mass was only for the priest and the acolyte.  Even when it was time to say the Pater noster, at which I automatically opened my mouth, I quickly closed it again when I realized that we weren’t supposed to be saying anything.

I’m an oblate of a Benedictine monastery where the mass is said in Latin and the music is Gregorian Chant.  But I don’t feel alienate because the priest is facing us (or at least, the nuns in the choir), and I’m able to take part in the mass with the prayers and responses, as well as the singing.

Oh, one more thing.  If it weren’t for the NO mass I don’t think the Church would be growing by leaps and bounds in the southern hemisphere, especially in Africa, as most of us from those cultures consider a turned back as an insult.

GeriP, your last line about the NO, “especially in Africa” is not accurate.

“In addition, the Roman Canon and the liturgical gestures in the old rite are closer to our African religiosity and sensibility.” - Bishop of Natitingou, Benin, H.E. Most Rev. Pascal N’Koué

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/12/african-bishop-on-summorum-pontifcum.html

To Ronald Villegas, you wrote: “The New Mass created by Pope Paul VI was sadly an abuse of papal power because he imported Protestant traditions and doctrines and had them incorporated in the Roman Liturgy.”

Ronald: 1) What are the Protestant Traditions that were incorporated into our liturgy and 2) What are the doctrines?  I don’t know of any at all.

Also - how many OTHER abuses of papal power do you suppose have been in our Roman Catholic Church history?  Might the tweaking of the New Testament Gospels and St. Paul’s letters be other instances of where an agenda has been put forward, and God’s specific instructions for His church has been disregarded, by “papal power”?

I ask because there are specific Bible verses applying to qualifications for the ordained ministry that are completely ignored.  No one even talks about them -it’s as if they don’t exist.  We have a Cafeteria Magesterium and Apologists about that. No wonder we have Cafeteria Catholics - taking the lead from our leaders.
 

So Ronald, your point is wonderful.  Where was the Holy Spirit in Vatican II?  I thought the most staunch and conservative Roman Catholics were in agreement, and it’s a papal decree, that the institutional church CAN NOT error in matters of faith (and morals).  Would that not make Vatican II error=free?

Supposedly, the pope is infallible.  Were the Vatican II decisions infallible?  I would call the teachings of Vatican II a matter of faith, as our liturgy TEACHES Massgoers.  It should be infallible, right?

We all know where our Magesterium stands on matters of their OWN morals, even if they expect OUR morals to be pristine.  JPII refused to allow an investigation into his friend, Fr. Marciel Macial - yet MM has proven to have lived a double life, and even fathered children, as well as abused many others.  Where was the Holy Spirit in directing JPII to keep all those moral allegations a secret?  I know JPII was just a man- and he was flawed, and he’s a sinner, like the rest of us.  But - my word!  He was pope.  He had a LOT of clout.  He made a really BAD decision, and he was backed up by the others in his administration.  Is that not a red flag?

Geri sums it up perfectly.

I enjoy both forms of mass for different reasons. The high mass in Latin on Sundays is the high point of my week, and on weekdays I appreciate the the scripture readings and the homily of the new mass which are both absent in the weekday Latin masses (the scripture readings in the Latin weekday masses are simply those of the previous Sunday).

It is a pity that Catholics should consider one form better than the other, while Summorum Pontificum seems to consider them equal but different. Depending on personal inclination, one form may touch some people more than the other. Everyone has heard people talk about how they felt alienated by the Latin mass, unable to understand it and relegated to the role of spectator. These complaints could be legitimate, and the new mass is a good choice for them. Former Protestants appreciate the fact that Scripture is more present in the new mass. On the other hand, the Latin mass answers the needs of many Catholics who seek God’s presence through silence, reverence, and contemplation. It is also a kind of bulwark against liturgical “innovation” which irritates many Catholics.

I attend very often the Traditional Latin Mass so my response will be biased.  I think in terms of objective analysis the TLM is the superior form of worship in its doctrinal expression, ascetical expression and its spiritual expression.  That being said, I would be fine with going to a Novus Ordo done in Latin, Ad Orientum, no extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, communion on the tongue..etc because I feel this would still be offering to Our Lord something beautiful and good and it would protect the faith of the people and not cause scandal. Also, this is the way Vatican II intended the Mass to be done.  However I have a very serious dissillusionment over the fact that the Novus Ordo is almost never done according to Tradition. While Traditionalists can certainly be repugnant people in their lack of charity causing disunity, there is something I think Novus Ordo proponents should think about. I think NO proponents are much more concerned with personal preference than unity of cult.  Cardinal Ratzinger said the crisis in the Church is a liturgical crisis, there is no doubt fragmentation exists over the Liturgy.  It is a source of division for many Catholics and a very serious problem. I think if you want unity, you do what the Pope is saying to do.  You offer a more wide and generous application of the TLM and you reform the Novus Ordo to be in line with Tradition.  The problem is most Novus Ordo proponents (not all) look at the Mass with a personal preference for what works for them and the individual parish instead of thinking about the unity of cult for the Church at large, I also think that many who attend the Novus Ordo will overlook Tradition in favor of something more practical (e.g. communion in the hand was born of disobedience and a break with Tradition but many people advocate for it because it seems to work for them).  Not breaking with Tradition is very important in the Liturgy for a multitude of reasons.  I don’t have to explain this, Cardinal Ratzinger explained it perfectly in his book Spirit of the Liturgy.  Too many times I attempt to attend a Novus Ordo parish to offer to help restore reverence to the Novus Ordo and so many times do the people fail to understand the importance of Tradition in the liturgy (Tradition is what allows us to worship God the way he wants to be worshipped.  NO proponents will often just talk about the Mass as a matter of personal preference.  I think if you did the Novus Ordo according to Tradition like Vatican II really said it should be done and how the Pope wants it done then you will have a unity of cult, there won’t be as many divisions over liturgy.  The key is not giving into personal preference but doing the Mass according to Tradition.  This will restore unity of cult.  The problem with the Novus Ordo is that it is done some many different ways in one parish there is no unity of cult even in NO parishes.  You have Preist preference, music preference, language preference, guitar Mass..etc. all taking into account personal preferences of the people in the pews in that particular church while not taking into account what the church teaches about liturgy as well as discounting those who are outside of the parish by having a divergent liturgy from the one that particular parish is offering.  The TLM at least provides a unity of cult the NO does not right now. Until you restore the unity of cult whether Novus ordo or TLM according to Tradition (see Spirit of the Liturgy) you will not see unity in the Roman Rite.  Just my take on this.

GeriP - I agree with ALL you wrote.  My experience is the same, both as a child, and the last time I was at a Tidentine Mass a few years ago.  I also agree that in 3rd world countries, the TM would not go over well.

The Vatican had a large gathering of priests from around the world a few years ago to discuss (and put an end to) the hypothesis of Limbo.  The reason?  Women in 3rd world countries that lost many children in infancy, simply refused to believe the souls of their precious little ones would not be in Heaven, with God.

These women outright rejected the concept of Limbo.  Yet for hundreds of years, European and American women just bought into whatever Rome said.  So Limbo for their sweet babies sounded fine, if a priest said so.

All of us have women in 3rd world countries to thank for an end to Limbo -even though they may be illiterate, having old-fashioned common sense with which to work, but more than our teaching Magesterium had, men that had to be URGED to discuss and dismiss Limbo, once and for all.

Why does the Magesterium have to be PUSHED to do what’s right?  If all these men are truly being led by the Holy Spirit, would they not do what was right, as a consequence of being led by Him?

Would we not all be able to see the “fruit” of the Holy Spirit in all their decisions?  Wouldn’t our collective Roman Catholic Church be the better for it?  And most importantly, it would result in a God-honoring church structure.  No matter what liturgy we use on Sunday, it must be that we worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

It’s time for all of us to listen to GOD & to insist that our Magesterium OBEY HIM.  Jesus is the Head of the Church.  When He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, it wasn’t so Peter’s successors can take the Bride of Christ on a wild ride, as if Jesus handed Peter’s successors the keys to a Maserati and said, “You’re in the driver’s seat now!  Have fun!”

+JMJ+

I have read many of the following responses thus far and I must admit that we must focus on the main reasons why the true worship of the Triune God must take place within the Catholic Faith.  The main reason would be for the salvation of our souls and the souls of others.  The other reasons would be to have this true worship past down to future generations - our sons and daughters and the salvation of their souls.  This is really why we live on this earth, to earn our place in Heaven among the Angels and Saints.  God is not going to give it to us freely and liberally as us human mortals would like to think.  We will all be accountable for our transgressions at our particular judgement. 

Many of those who would like to dispute the Truth of the Catholic Teaching and its true form of worship, I would suggest in humbling yourselves as much as possible, learn every aspect of your Catholic Faith to the fullest, and act according to that teaching alone.  The True Worship of the Triune God is not man made.  The Traditional Mass is and always will be the Mass of the Ages and the Mass that will always set free the Holy Souls in Purgatory until the end of time.

For those who still speculate that there is no crisis in Our Beloved Church, I would like for you to ponder on this video clip at a Novena in a Catholic Church in Ireland.  Judge for yourself if there is no crisis in the Church through the form of worship, the new Lex Orandi;Lex Credendi that the Novus Ordo Missae has developed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4UdB4y0h0o#at=12

O LORD God Almighty, King of kings, Lord of rulers, in whose hand all victory rests and all war is destroyed, grant me that Thy hand may strengthen my heart so I may fight well and act courageously so my enemies may fall before my sight. May they fall as did Goliath fall before Thy servant David, as did the people of the Pharaoh in the Red Sea before Moses, as did the Philistines before the people of Israel, as did Amalech before Moses, and as did the Canaanites before Joshua, so may my enemies fall beneath my feet. May all who come against me be dispersed and God destroy their weapons and shatter their swords. They will melt in my sight as wax in the face of fire so all the peoples of the earth will know that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ has been invoked over me. May Thy Name, O Lord, be made great over my adversaries, O Lord, God of Israel.  Amen.

In nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritu Sancti. Amen.

I know it’s human nature to argue, but reading all of these comments as they pour in day after day, I can’t help but think that once again we focus on the wrong thing.  The celebration of the Mass is good in any language.  People can be reverant or irreverent in English, Latin, Spanish, Mandarin, etc., etc., etc.

How much better we’d all be if we’d put as much time and energy into worshiping God as is being invested in this “I’m right, you’re wrong” squabbling.

Salus Fides:  You wrote:  “The main reason would be for the salvation of our souls and the souls of others.  The other reasons would be to have this true worship past down to future generations - our sons and daughters and the salvation of their souls.  This is really why we live on this earth, to earn our place in Heaven among the Angels and Saints.”

How will the Traditional Mass save a soul?  How can anyone of us “earn” our place in Heaven?

Salus, the amount of false and uneducated information you would have people accept is recognizable even by Catholic school age children.  To wit:

(1)    “I must admit that we must focus on the main reasons why the true worship of the Triune God must take place within the Catholic Faith.” ——-Salus, when the Apostles questioned Jesus about others preaching in His name, Jesus responded:  “He who is not against us is for us.”  Who are you to say other Christian worship is not true?”  Jesus also said:  “Whenever two or more gather in My name, I am there.”

(2)    “This is really why we live on this earth, to earn our place in Heaven.”  What ?????  Salus, you must have been sick that day in Catechism when Sister Mary told your class that Jesus died at Calvary for your sins.  You cannot “earn” your way into Heaven.  Instead of writing an endless string of prayers in all your posts, why don’t you open Paul’s letter to the church at Rome and read that instead.  If you don’t know where to find Romans, it appears immediately following Acts of the Apostles.  I suggest you read Acts as well. 

(3)    “The Mass that will always set free the Holy Souls in Purgatory until the end of time.”  WHAT ?????  Salus,  someone probably told you this in childhood.  How do we know they are “Holy” and furthermore, how do we know who is in Purgatory?  There is no reference to this at the Last Supper and the idea of Purgatory was not established by the church until centuries later.

Salus, you are creating illusions for people totally without Biblical foundation and even without church endorsement.

I received this excellent article from www.paixliturgique.org.  Unfortunately for most it is in French.  I am including it for those who can speak, or at least read, French.  I will try to get an English translation.

LE CARDINAL BURKE, UN NOUVEAU CARDINAL PROMOTEUR DE LA FORME EXTRAORDINAIRE

Le 26 décembre 2010, dimanche dans l’octave de Noël, le cardinal Burke était l’invité de la paroisse sainte Marie de Nazareth, en banlieue de Rome, que desservent les Franciscains de l’Immaculée. Nous vous proposons cette semaine le très beau sermon prononcé à cette occasion par le Préfet de la Signature apostolique, suivie de nos réflexions.

(Source : http://smnazareth.com/component/content/article/47/100-omelia-burke-boccea)

I – Le document, traduit par nos soins

Le mystère de l’amour divin pour nous, qui s’exprime de façon parfaite et merveilleuse lors de la Nativité de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, mérite, pour sa grandeur et sa profondeur, une célébration s’étalant sur huit jours. Durant l’octave célébrant la Nativité de Jésus, nous recevons la grâce de connaître plus parfaitement ce mystère et de le vivre plus ardemment au quotidien. Le mystère de Dieu fait homme pour nous racheter de nos péchés et nous donner Sa vie, les sept dons du Saint-Esprit. Dans la Lettre aux Galates, saint Paul a décrit ce mystère avec les paroles que nous venons d’écouter :
- Mais lorsque est venue la plénitude des temps, Dieu a envoyé son Fils, formé d’une femme, né sous la Loi, pour affranchir ceux qui sont sous la Loi, afin de nous conférer l’adoption. Et parce que vous êtes fils, Dieu a envoyé dans vos cœurs l’Esprit de Son Fils, lequel crie : Abba ! Père ! Ainsi tu n’es plus esclave, tu es fils ; et si tu es fils, tu es aussi héritier grâce à Dieu. (Ga 4, 4-7)

La réalité du mystère de l’Incarnation rédemptrice est que nous sommes fils de Dieu par Son unique Fils, Jésus-Christ, seconde personne de la Très Sainte Trinité, qui s’est fait chair, qui s’est fait l’un d’entre nous, qui est né de la Vierge Marie à Bethléem.

L’évangile d’aujourd’hui met en relief aussi bien la réalité de l’Incarnation que sa finalité, la Rédemption. Quand Marie, la Mère de Jésus, et saint Joseph, son Père adoptif et Gardien, présentèrent le nouveau-né au temple de Jérusalem, le saint homme Siméon et la sainte femme Anne, ont aussitôt évoqué le destin du Divin Enfant, voué à mener sur le Calvaire la bataille décisive contre le Malin et ses puissances, se concluant par la victoire de la vie, la Résurrection, l’Ascension, la Pentecôte et l’effusion de l’Esprit Saint sur l’Église et l’âme de chacun de ses membres. Siméon, en prenant l’Enfant Jésus dans ses bras, a prié le Seigneur en des termes parfaitement clairs : - Maintenant, ô Maître, vous congédiez votre serviteur en paix, selon votre parole ; car mes yeux ont vu le salut. (Lc 2, 29-30)

Et la prophétesse Anne, voyant l’Enfant Jésus dans les bras de Siméon, “se mit à louer Dieu et à parler de l’enfant à tous ceux qui attendaient la délivrance de Jérusalem”. (Lc 2, 38) L’évangile nous dit qu’après la Présentation, Jésus, dans lequel l’Esprit Saint était présent dans toute Sa puissance, “croissait et se fortifiait, étant rempli de sagesse” (Lc 2, 40). Ces paroles s’appliquent à notre vie de fils du Fils unique de Dieu. Grâce à l’Incarnation rédemptrice, l’Esprit Saint est reversé dans nos âmes, nous purifiant et nous fortifiant pour nous occuper des choses de Dieu, pour vivre une vie sainte en ce monde et arriver au terme de notre pèlerinage terrestre : la vie éternelle du Royaume des Cieux.

Dans le cadre de cette célébration de la Sainte Messe selon la forme extraordinaire du rite romain, je voudrais souligner l’aspect plus élevé et parfait de notre vie dans le Christ, c’est-à-dire notre participation au culte divin, en particulier lors de la célébration du sacrifice eucharistique. L’union du ciel et de la terre, accomplie par la Nativité de Notre Seigneur, par Sa Mort sur la Croix et Sa Résurrection, se réalise toujours pour nous dans la Sainte Messe. Par le sacrifice eucharistique, Jésus nous rend toujours présent le sacrifice du Calvaire, nous faisant le don de Son Corps et de Son Sang, avec Son Âme et Sa Divinité, nourriture spirituelle pour nous soutenir dans notre pèlerinage terrestre et pour nous porter immanquablement à notre durable demeure céleste (Catéchisme de l’Église catholique, 1374). La réalité de l’Incarnation rédemptrice qui nous frappe en cette période de Noël devrait nous frapper à chaque fois, et à chaque fois plus profondément, que nous assistons à la Sainte Messe. Le rite de la Messe, tel qu’il s’est développé dans l’Église sous la conduite du Saint-Esprit, nous porte dans ses moindres détails à contempler le grand mystère de l’Amour de Dieu pour nous, amour incommensurable et incessant.

Après le concile Vatican II, mais non en raison du concile, la façon dont a été réformé le rite de la Messe a, par certains aspects, obscurci l’action divine au cours de la Sainte Messe, action d’union du ciel et de la terre. Au point d’induire certaines personnes à croire, de façon erronée, que la Sainte Liturgie est une activité nous appartenant, que nous l’aurions en quelque sorte inventée et qu’elle serait sujette à expérimentations. La vérité de la Liturgie sacrée est tout autre. En fait, la Sainte Liturgie est l’action de Jésus-Christ, vivant dans Son Corps mystique par l’effusion du Saint-Esprit, qui Se donne à Nous et que nous devons recevoir, apprécier et conserver selon les indications de nos Pasteurs et en particulier du Saint-Père, Vicaire du Christ sur la terre et, à ce titre, Pasteur de l’Église universelle. Nous sommes appelés ainsi aujourd’hui à accueillir l’enseignement et la discipline que notre Saint-Père Benoît XVI nous a transmis par sa Lettre apostolique Summorum Pontificum par laquelle il a voulu restaurer la forme du rite de la Messe afin d’exprimer plus pleinement et efficacement la vérité de la Sainte Liturgie.

En établissant le « Missel romain promulgué par S. Pie V et réédité par le B. Jean XXIII » comme « forme extraordinaire de la Liturgie de l’Église », le Saint-Père a voulu que cette forme du rite soit honorée « en raison de son usage vénérable et antique » remontant au pontificat de saint Grégoire le Grand et toujours respecté et sauvegardé durant la vie multiséculaire de l’Église. (Benoît XVI, Lettre apostolique Summorum Pontificum, art. 1)

Les deux formes, c’est-à-dire la forme ordinaire et la forme extraordinaire de l’unique rite romain, ne représentent pas une division dans l’Église mais reflètent l’unité organique du culte divin au long des siècles chrétiens et permettent leur enrichissement mutuel pour exprimer plus fidèlement la réalité du culte divin, l’action de Dieu qui vient à notre rencontre en nous faisant don de Son Amour pour nous, le don du Fils de Dieu fait homme, en particulier dans la Très Sainte Eucharistie. De fait, le Saint-Père a-t-il écrit les paroles suivantes dans sa lettre aux évêques accompagnant la promulgation du Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum :
- Il n’y a aucune contradiction entre l’une et l’autre édition du Missale Romanum. L’histoire de la liturgie est faite de croissance et de progrès, jamais de rupture. Ce qui était sacré pour les générations précédentes reste grand et sacré pour nous, et ne peut à l’improviste se retrouver totalement interdit, voire considéré comme néfaste. Il est bon pour nous tous, de conserver les richesses qui ont grandi dans la foi et dans la prière de l’Église, et de leur donner leur juste place.

Fidèles au magistère du Saint-Père, nous célébrons avec raison aujourd’hui le rite romain selon la forme extraordinaire pour nous permettre d’entrer plus complètement dans la connaissance du mystère de la Foi, le mystère de l’Amour de Dieu pour nous, et répondre à ce mystère par un amour pur et désintéressé envers Dieu et notre prochain.

Visitant aujourd’hui votre paroisse, je voudrais en particulier remercier le Très Révérend Monseigneur Gino Reali, évêque de ce diocèse de Porto-Santa Rufina, qui m’a invité à célébrer cette Sainte Messe et nous honore de sa présence, ainsi que les Frères Franciscains de l’Immaculée qui ont la charge de cette paroisse, pour le soin qu’ils mettent à célébrer le plus fidèlement possible le rite romain, ce qui est une grande richesse pour les paroissiens. Je les remercie en particulier pour la foi catholique authentique et dévote qu’ils expriment dans toutes leurs célébrations de la Sainte Liturgie et qu’ils nourrissent par la célébration régulière de de la forme extraordinaire du rite romain.

Me trouvant au milieu de vous en ce saint temps de la Nativité de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, je prie tout spécialement pour votre paroisse sainte Marie de Nazareth, cette grande famille de familles catholiques. Je prie pour que tous les foyers de la paroisse trouvent en elle les ressources pour devenir de vrais sanctuaires du Bon Dieu, des foyers dans lesquels l’Amour du Christ, reçu de façon parfaite et entière en participant à la Sainte Messe, vous anime tous et gagne vos voisins et tous vos frères du quartier. Dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, il y a une grande soif de Jésus-Christ et de la liberté que Lui seul offre. Dans les foyers catholiques et dans la paroisse, nos frères doivent pouvoir trouver les sources d’eau vive, les sources de grâces divines, les sources du magistère de l’Église et des sacrements, en
particulier la Pénitence et la Sainte Eucharistie, qui permettront d’étancher la soif spirituelle de ce monde tristement sécularisé.

Prions pour vous, paroissiens, afin que par votre participation à la Sainte Liturgie, célébrée en fidélité au magistère du Saint-Père, vous croissiez dans l’Amour du Christ et portiez cet Amour dans toutes vos activités quotidiennes. Que sainte Marie de Nazareth, Mère de Dieu, intercède pour vous pour que vous suiviez son exemple en donnant vos cœurs à Jésus, trouvant dans Son Très Saint Cœur la source de la purification de chacun de vos péchés et de la fortification de votre âme pour une vie catholique fidèle et généreuse.

À présent, élevons nos cœurs, unis au Cœur Immaculé de Marie, au glorieux Cœur transpercé de Jésus, ouvert par la lance du centurion et toujours prêt à nous accueillir afin que, nous trouvant en présence du Seigneur eucharistique, nous soyons purifiés et fortifiés pour devenir, avec sainte Marie de Nazareth, une source vive d’encouragement et de soutien pour conduire nos frères dans les pas du Christ. Unis au Cœur eucharistique du Christ, nous devenons avec le Christ, comme le fut sainte Marie, Mère de Dieu, une oblation d’amour pur et gratuit pour nos frères. C’est dans le Cœur eucharistique du Christ que nous trouvons l’inspiration et la force pour être, avec sainte Marie, des témoins forts et fiables du Christ et de Son Église, c’est ainsi que vos maisons et votre paroisse deviendront des centres de la nouvelle évangélisation, de la transformation de notre société selon le Cœur de Jésus.

Cœur de Jésus, formé par le Saint-Esprit dans le sein de la Vierge Marie, ayez pitié de nous.
Cœur Immaculé de Marie, priez pour nous.
Saint Joseph, priez pour nous.
Saint François d’Assise, priez pour nous.
Saint Maximilien Kolbe, priez pour nous.
Saint Padre Pio, priez pour nous.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Préfet du Tribunal suprême de la Signature apostolique

+JMJ+

This response is for Cradle Catholic:

In your response, I will appeal to some of the greatest doctors and Pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church - St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, and Pope Leo XIII. 

This prayer was composed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)  and can be found in every 1962 Roman Missal created either by Angelus Press or by Baronius Press - which was created exclusively by the Roman Catholic Church. 

This prayer is the prayer recited before the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

ALMIGHTY and ever-lasting God, I approach the sacrament of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. I come sick to the doctor of life, unclean to the fountain of mercy, blind to the radiance of eternal light, and poor and needy to the Lord of heaven and earth. Therefore, I implore Thee in Thy great generosity, to heal my sickness, to wash away my defilement, enlighten my blindness, to enrich my poverty, and to clothe my nakedness, so that I may receive the bread of angels, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords with reverence and humility, with contrition and devotion, with purity and faith, and with such purpose and determination that will be expedient to the salvation of my soul. Grant me, I beseech Thee, that I may not only receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but also the reality and power of the Sacrament. O most kind God, grant that I may receive the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and so received that I may be worthy to be incorporated into His mystical body, and numbered among His members. O most loving Father, grant me Thy beloved Son, which I now receive under the veil of a sacrament, that I may one day behold Him face to face in glory, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, forever. Amen.

This prayer was composed by St. Ambrose - Another Doctor of the Catholic Church (340-397)  This is another prayer that can be recited before the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

LORD Jesus Christ, I approach Thy banquet table in fear and trembling, for I am a sinner, and dare not rely on my own worth, but only on Thy goodness and mercy. I am defiled by my many sins in body and soul, and by my unguarded thoughts and words. Gracious God of majesty and awe, I seek Thy protection, I look for Thy healing. Poor troubled sinner that I am, I appeal to Thee, the fountain of all mercy. I cannot bear Thy judgment, but I trust in Thy salvation. Lord, I show my wounds to Thee and uncover my shame before Thee. I know my sins are many and great, and they fill me with fear, but I hope in Thy mercies, for they cannot be numbered.

LORD Jesus Christ, Eternal King, God and man, crucified for mankind, look upon me with mercy and hear my prayer, for I trust in Thee. Have mercy on me, full of sorrow and sin, for the depth of Thy compassion never ends.

PRAISE to Thee saving sacrifice, offered on the wood of the cross for me and for all mankind. Praise to the noble and precious Blood, flowing from the wounds of my crucified Lord Jesus Christ and washing away the sins of the whole world.

REMEMBER, Lord, Thy creature, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy blood; I repent my sins, and I long to put right what I have done. Merciful Father, take away all my offenses and sins; purify me in body and soul, and make me worthy to taste the Holy of Holies. May Thy Body and Blood, which I intend to receive, although I am unworthy, be for me the remission of my sins, the washing away of my guilt, the end of my evil thoughts, and the rebirth of my better instincts. May it incite me to do the works pleasing to Thee, and a firm defense of body and soul against the wiles of my enemies. Amen.

This comes from Pope Leo XIII Encyclical - Quod Anniverarius (Solemnity of Easter 1888)- Which by the way, all encyclicals by the previous pontiffs are still in effect even today!

7. Therefore, since it is certain by the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the souls detained in purgatory are benefited by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the august Sacrifice of the Altar, We think we can give them no more useful and desirable pledge of Our love than by everywhere increasing the offering of the pure oblation of the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Divine Mediator, for the extinction of their pain. We therefore decree, with all the necessary dispensations and indulgences, the last Sunday of next September as a day of ample expiation on which will be celebrated by Ourselves, and equally by each of Our brethren the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops, and also by other prelates exercising jurisdiction in a diocese, each in his own church, whether patriarchal, metropolitan, or cathedral, a special Mass for the Dead with the greatest solemnity possible, and according to the rite ordered in the Missal for the Commemoration of all Souls.

This can be found on the Vatican Website:  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01041888_quod-anniversarius_en.html

Pax Christi!

+JMJ+

This response is for New Observer.

Now, I recognize that you wish to insult me and the Catholic Faith with your sarcasm.  However, I shall not attempt to do the same since it pleases God that I forgive you for all that you spew upon me.  It is alright with me.  Remember what you wrote in your previous response -“Whenever two or more gather in My name, I am there.”  So far, I have established that I am a Roman Catholic and I wish to follow and obey the teachings of Holy Mother Church given to us by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (bows my head).  However, I shall provide an answer for your response and then I shall not answer you any longer because I have provided for you all that I could to clarify my responses for you.  All that you have done is mocked me, my responses, and the Catholic Faith.

1.  I want to begin with the words of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Quod Aniversarius -1888.  I believe he says this very well.

“Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

We return thanks as is meet, to the sovereign goodness of God, Whose will and providential wish governs the whole of men’s lives, that the fiftieth anniversary of Our priesthood has shown upon the Church. Moreover, the wonderful unanimity of hearts displayed in the tokens of respect, the liberal gifts, the public manifestations of readiness, is such as He alone could have inspired, on Whom entirely depends the spirits, the wills, and the hearts of men, and who rules and directs events for the glory of the Christian religion.

2. It is indeed a wonderful and memorable event, whereby the enemies of the Church, in spite of themselves, whether they desire it or not, see with their own eyes that the Church maintains her divine life, and the virtue with which she is endowed from heaven; this indeed makes them feel that the impious strive in vain when they rage and plan foolish attacks against the Lord and against His Christ.

3. In order that the memory of this heavenly benefit may be continued, and that its utility may be spread as far and wide as possible, We have laid open the treasures of heavenly graces to all the flock committed to Our care. We have not been wanting in imploring the succours of divine mercy in favour of those who are outside the ark of salvation whereby We hope to obtain that all nations and all peoples, united in the faith by the bond of charity may soon form one flock under one shepherd. This is what We have asked of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Our supplications on the occasion of the late solemn canonisations.”

Therefore - It is the teaching and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that - There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  This is taken from her Holy Catechism:

CCC #843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.“332

CCC #844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

CCC #846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

CCC #847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

CCC #848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.“338

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01041888_quod-anniversarius_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

2.The following is also taken from Holy Mother Church’s Catechism regarding the Mortal soul leading up to salvation through the reception of the sacraments:

III. THE SACRAMENTS OF FAITH

CCC #1122 Christ sent his apostles so that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.“41 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.“42 The mission to baptize, and so the sacramental mission, is implied in the mission to evangelize, because the sacrament is prepared for by the word of God and by the faith which is assent to this word:

The People of God is formed into one in the first place by the Word of the living God. . . . The preaching of the Word is required for the sacramental ministry itself, since the sacraments are sacraments of faith, drawing their origin and nourishment from the Word.43

CCC #1123 “The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.‘“44

CCC #1124 The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46

CCC #1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

CCC #1126 Likewise, since the sacraments express and develop the communion of faith in the Church, the lex orandi is one of the essential criteria of the dialogue that seeks to restore the unity of Christians.47

IV. THE SACRAMENTS OF SALVATION

CCC #1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.48 They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

CCC #1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.“50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

CCC #1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

V. THE SACRAMENTS OF ETERNAL LIFE

CCC #1130 The Church celebrates the mystery of her Lord “until he comes,” when God will be “everything to everyone.“53 Since the apostolic age the liturgy has been drawn toward its goal by the Spirit’s groaning in the Church: Marana tha!54 The liturgy thus shares in Jesus’ desire: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you . . . until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.“55 In the sacraments of Christ the Church already receives the guarantee of her inheritance and even now shares in everlasting life, while “awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.“56 The “Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come . . . Come, Lord Jesus!‘“57

St. Thomas sums up the various aspects of sacramental signs: “Therefore a sacrament is a sign that commemorates what precedes it - Christ’s Passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ’s Passion - grace; and prefigures what that Passion pledges to us - future glory.“58

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm#1127

3.  Regarding the poor souls in Purgatory who are achieving Holiness to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  This also comes from the Catechism of Holy Mother Church:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

CCC #1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

CCC #1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

CCC #1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.“609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

I end my response to you New Observer with the following prayer:

O GOD, everlasting creator of all things, remember that the souls of unbelievers were made by Thee and formed in Thine own image and likeness. Remember that Jesus, Thy Son, endured a most bitter death for their salvation. Permit not, I beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thy Son should be despised any longer by unbelievers, but do Thou graciously accept the prayers of holy men and of the Church, the Spouse of Thy most holy Son, and be mindful of Thy mercy. Forget their idolatry and unbelief and grant that they too may some day know Him Thou hast sent, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Life and Resurrection, by whom we have been saved and delivered, to whom be glory for endless ages. Amen.

Written by St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552). 
From the Raccolta #612.

“Better” isn’t a word I would apply to any of the liturgies, because, after all, ANY Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  I’m usually struck by the beauty, majesty, and reverence of the Tridentine Mass, and am equally gratified by the comfort of the NO Mass in English.  Although I’m registered in a parish, I sometimes do some “church gypsying—” traveling to churches in my diocese just for something different once in awhile, and do get to the Tridentine Mass once a month (our parish uses the parish pay system on its website, so I’m still supporting my own parish regardless of where I actually attend Mass each Sunday.)  Nope, it doesn’t necessarily make any liturgical or spiritual sense to anyone else but me, but I’m comfortable with that.  I don’t think God begrudges me a little religious tourism now and then!  There are too many beautiful churches in my diocese, and a lot of well-educated and loyal priests, to confine myself to just one.  And yes, I wish my own parish offered the Tridentine Mass.

Salus - You’ve only quoted the catechism and some saints and popes.  How about in your own words?  How can a liturgy save souls, ours or anyone elses?

What does it take to be saved?  In your own words.  Are you saved?  Do you believe Jesus died for YOU?  If you were the only person on the face of the earth, do you believe Jesus died for YOUR sins?  “There is but one way to the Father” through Christ Jesus.

+JMJ+

This response is for Cradle Catholic.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where opinions matter and people feel they have a say in things particularly when it either benefits or does not benefit them and pay attention to polls and pollsters on particular issues.  Fortunately, when it comes to the teachings of Holy Mother Church and the TRUTH given to her by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, peoples’ opinions and polls do not matter.

This goes out to all faithful Catholics who wish to truly seek their salvation.  I am not the authority on matters of the faith.  The Roman Catholic Church is the pure and complete authority on matters of the faith and her teaching.  I am merely a person who wishes to do God’s Holy Will, believe in the True Faith, Save my soul and the souls of others, defend the Church, her teachings, and all that she stands for in this world as the Church Militant.  If you think that I am going to have an opinion or explain in my own words what Holy Mother Church teaches, you are sadly mistaken.  If I were to give my own opinion or have a say on what Holy Mother Church teaches, I would be so bold as to display the fact that I am not a humble believer in the faith.  I believe that what I gave you is clear and concise teachings on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and does not need any further additions or commentaries by me.  I believe that Holy Mother Church would give you a better explanation of her lex orandi, lex credendi. 

By virtue of true Catholic Teaching, I believe I can answer for you particular questions you asked me:

I believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ paid the price for the right to my life and salvation.  It is up to me now weather I wish to do His Will on earth and obey His Laws.  I owe him my body and soul.

What does it take to be saved?  I believe that if you read the CCC section on the sacramental life, you will know what it takes to be saved.

There is but one way to the Father - Through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ(bows my head).  However, There is but one way to God the Son - Through Mary, His Blessed Virgin Mother in Heaven.  There is but one way to our Blessed Virgin Mother - Through the recitation of her most Holy Rosary on a DAILY BASIS as instructed by her at her apparitions in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 as well as her apparitions in Lourdes, France ect…  There is but one way to reach the TRUTH and SALVATION - Through Holy Mother Church guided by the Holy Spirit in communion with the Angels and Saints in Heaven!

Ad Iesum per Mariam!

“To Jesus through Mary!”

Salus writes to Cradle Catholic:  “If you think that I am going to have an opinion or explain in my own words what Holy Mother Church teaches, you are sadly mistaken.  If I were to give my own opinion or have a say on what Holy Mother Church teaches, I would be so bold as to display the fact that I am not a humble believer in the faith.”  ——-    Then, Salus, if you cannot express the faith in your own words to someone as a witness for Jesus Christ, what good are you to Our Lord?  How do you think Paul, Peter and the Apostles gave witness for Christ?  In their OWN WORDS.  Your comment is silly and makes you sound like a computer program rather than a human being. 

Salus further writes to Cradle Catholic:  “There is but one way to the Father - Through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ(bows my head).  However, There is but one way to God the Son - Through Mary, His Blessed Virgin Mother in Heaven.  There is but one way to our Blessed Virgin Mother - Through the recitation of her most Holy Rosary on a DAILY BASIS as instructed by her at her apparitions in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 as well as her apparitions in Lourdes, France ect…  There is but one way to reach the TRUTH and SALVATION - Through Holy Mother Church”

Salus, you are confusing people with all your layers of complexity.  How many doors are we to enter?  Jesus said “I am the door,”  and “I am the way” and “No man comes to the Father but by Me.”  You are creating requirements for people to reach the Father which include going through Mary, by aparitions and saying the rosary.  Instead of quoting church catechism it would be more productive to quote God’s Word.

+JMJ+

Haec responsio it New Observer ego suggero vos non habet ulla responsa ad Catholicam fidem cum sis haeretici. Probasti mihi quod volo, ut illuderet mihi Catholicam fidem et Catholicae doctrinam fidei. Ergo doleo qui nuntiarent sola bona creata confudisset penatibus Catholici locum.

Ad Iesum per Mariam!

I think an important fact needs to be mentioned here, and forgive me if I have re-stated something that another may have mentioned,as there are ALOT of posts on this subject. To those who felt/feel relief that the Novus Ordo is in the vernacular, and that by sheer virtue of this fact, they are able to more full participate in the Mass, this needs to be remembered. The Mass is a mystical experience that can never be fully understood by the laity (did the Apostles fully understand at the Last Supper?) “It” (the Mass, that is)is not about “us”. The priest speaks in silent tone because he is speaking on behalf of us. Just as the High Priest of biblical times enetered the Holy of Holies, alone, on behalf of the people, so to does the priest offer the sacrifice on out behalf. So it is really not about our participation, so as we can “get something out of it”, but rather to give glory to God. Latin has been the “language of the Church” ansd should remain as such. That was why, irregardless of what country you were from, you (in days of old) would have been able to attend a Mass anywhere in the world and been able to follow right along in step. I have a friend who struggles with Latin, feeling a need to be fluent. There is no need for anyone to be fluent in Latin. Any good Mass Missal will include, as most al of you are aware, an English translation of the texts. The Novus Ordo has “Protestantized” the Mass in that by turning the priest around, placing the focus on the congregation,(the “sign of peace handshake) rather than the sacrifice. The idea of sacrifice has been so watered down as to be more of a ‘historical” narrative, a “re-enactment’ per se,a “memorial meal” as it is viwed by the Protestants. As to the person who posted Bugnini’s comments as to what the intentions were,(and I paraphrase here),  that of “stripping away all that is of a stumbling block’ for Protestants. Now I only speak from my own opinion on this, but I myse;f am of the belief that there was/is an agenda at work here seeking to undermine the Church, the “Bride of Christ’ on Earth . One need only look at what has occured in the past 40 plus years to begin to question.
        Thank you.

I don’t think anyone can truly understand the Mass, be they clergy or laity. After all, it is, ultimately, an act of faith and mystery. Our faith tells us the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. But I also believe that we get out of Mass what we put in. Therein may be a big problem. Let’s face it; if you go in with an attitude of I’m here because I have to and sit on your hands (or fill in the blank), you won’t get anything out of it, whether in Latin or English, because you will be closed to what Christ is offering or what the Mass really means. Worship is an active act; you must be willing to give everything to God, in sense, to offer up your sacrifice along with that of our Lord. I believe God wants us to “participate” in the sense that we join our worship and adoration with that of the whole Church, the angels and the courts of Heaven. I believe that is what the others of VC II were fully intending in the renewal of the Mass. I think there were people not paying attention in Mass then and now, whether Latin or English. That will not change. Correct me if I am wrong but weren’t people praying Rosaries during Mass — my mother still does — when they should have been focused entirely on the ongoing Mystery of the Incarnation? The Rosary is a great preparation for Mass but should it be prayed during Mass? I have a question about that and I would like anyone that has an answer — a papal teaching, a saint(s) teaching, something — to point me in the right direction. I know Popes have spoken about using it as a prep for Mass but not as a replacement. Again, I humbly ask for correction if I am wrong here. What I am getting at here is the need for real solid and Catholic teaching about the Mass, what should be our attitude during it (before and after) and other catechesis. We can all agree that catechesis has been horrid in many parts of the country since VC II. I agree with Terry’s last lines about there being a real agenda to undermine the Church and the Mass. A final thought; what should send our “bells and whistles” going berzerko is the phrase “spirit of Vatican II.” That should send us screaming into that good night because it means it wasn’t IN Vatican II but was something the person WANTED in Vatican II.

Salus - it is certain that all of us will face God.  You wrote: “If you think that I am going to have an opinion or explain in my own words what Holy Mother Church teaches, you are sadly mistaken”.

When we die, the Father will not ask us what “Holy Mother Church” teaches.  He will ask us who Jesus was to us.  What will you say?

“I agree with Terry’s last lines about there being a real agenda to undermine the Church and the Mass. A final thought; what should send our “bells and whistles” going berzerko is the phrase “spirit of Vatican II.” That should send us screaming into that good night because it means it wasn’t IN Vatican II but was something the person WANTED in Vatican II.”

  Thank you, James, as I could not agree with you more. There is no real “Spirit of Vatican II”, rather just all of the liberties that individuals took because they were of the belief that Vatican II allowed for such abuses. The Novus Ordo may well have been originally planned to have been more “strict” in it’s usage, but as we all know, far from that is what has been and is still the case. I was told by a Novus Ordo priest that when the change occurred, you could attend a half dozen Masses and get something different with each and every single one. That is the “Spirit of Vatican II”. After having left the Novus Ordo for the Tridentine, I realize there is no way that I could ever return. I was also advised by an SSPX priest to “get out of the Novus Ordo”, and he did not neccessarily reccomend the SSPX, but rather just said to attend my diocese “Indult Mass’ and that the longer I was away from the N.O.. I would see all that is wrong with it. He was correct about that.

Terry:
I don’t know if you read my post before about just one of the shenanigans I endured in my parish involved karate, tai chi and ballet — replacing a children’s Mass — all in the “name” of attending Mass and receiving the Eucharist in a more “dignified” manner, with the pastor beaming with pride; and all of the adults outside of me watching this spectacle (10) received “Communion” — the pastor just simply sent the kiddies away and handed it out like a deck of cards — and not one I talked to found this offensive but “beautiful” — one even remarked she was just there to receive “Communion.” He also had the celebrant sitting in the front row so the other “ministers” could do “their thing” in the sanctuary and put a dolphin (a symbol of Buddhism, I believe; which is apropos since he supported eastern religions and Islam more than Catholicism; Catholics were rotten; he even compared Christ’s death to that of a suicide bomber’s favorably - but this is another post). He is retired and the current pastor is better. I have learned to try and worship at Mass the way the Church intends but it can be hard.

james, —-thanks for your post.  We have a 72 year old New Age nun for a Pastoral Assistant in my parish.  She is also in charge of RCIA and told the catechumens they did not need to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis.  (What else do they not have to believe in Scripture?).  She bangs this eastern Buddhist “gong” during mass for people to “chant” during the music.  The Pastor thinks this is wonderful while half the parish thinks she should have been fired years ago.  Nothing happens, however, without permission of your Bishop.  He runs the show and controls all your parish money.  From your description, it is no wonder many Protestants ask whether Catholics are really Christian?

New Observer:
Thanks.
To your question: no, there isn’t. I just wonder when this garbage we are experiencing today — which has happened a few other times, I surmise; think of how close we were to being Arians? — really began? What “got in” there, so to speak? The “Smoke of satan”, as Paul VI talked about? Obviously, the devil has been active all this time. Remember something about our priests as well; they are coming from our society. Is it any wonder we are enduring this all too much?

“New Observer,” as a matter of fact Rome has spoken on the matter of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and while you have to believe that they’re true you don’t have to believe that the literary style that they were written in is that of the scientific textbook; for instance, did you notice that the first and second chapters of Genesis offer different creation stories?
Personally, I’m Catholic because I value the role that the pope maintains in deciding what is “de fide” and what isn’t, not because I value my own views above those of Rome.

Don:
What?? You aren’t your own little pope??? Outrageous!!!
JUST A LITTLE HUMOR ... very little??!!! ... in this discussion. Yes, I have always noticed the two different creation stories. That is the problem (I know this is off the subject but bear with me) with fundamentalists that think we have to take EVERYTHING literally in the Bible; EXCEPT, of course, His plain teaching on the Eucharist, Peter being the Rock (apparently, Jesus needed to call Simon “Petrina” or some such feminine name to satisfy them), etc., etc., et al, etc. Besides, even if Kephas/Cephas means little pebble, it’s still a rock. Let me throw it at your eyeball and see if it don’t hurt like a rock!!!

Don, whether or not you,(Don) personally take the creation story literally, the point is what kind of impression does this New Age nun create for brand new RCIA candidates to even bother bringing this up?  She has immediately planted in their minds a doubt concerning the inerrancy of God’s Word.  So what else about God’s Word is not necessarily true?  I think you see my point and how dangerous going down that path becomes.

So, “James” and “New Obserber,” who exactly is it that is planting the seeds of doubt by attacking the teachings of the Church (read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say) as “new age” stuff?

Don:
It starts from without. There have always been those that were against the Church: Gnostics, for example, or pagans. There have been heresies and such from within: Arius, Nestorius, etc. That seems to be what is wrong today even more; the fifth column within the Church: nuns and priests who promote the New Age (we are our own gods; we decide what is right and wrong), etc. I think there are those that whatever VCII had taught would have tried to spin it in their own way. How many times have we heard VCII did away with Marian devotion. It did not; it is what someone was taught to believe because some “teacher” wanted it to be true.

Don, . . . If you see nothing wrong with telling RCIA candidates in the very FIRST session what they “don’t” have to believe, or by including Buddhist practices with Sunday mass, then I cannot help you.  You thus must have your own doubts concerning the inerrancy of Scripture.

I wasn’t told about there being different genres in the Scriptures after Vatican II; I was told in the ‘sixties, because that was what Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflante Spiritu before I was born.  The “literal” meaning of Scriptre is what the writers intended the readers to read, not what later-day Fundamentalists might have read.  (For instance, if I say that I got up at sunrise, that doesn’t mean that I’m a liar because the Sun doesn’t rise, nor do you have to believe that the Sun does rise to believe that I’m honest.)
What I do have doubts about is the Catholicity of people who attack the Catholicity of Pius XII.

Don,  as a Catholic, we are told you only must believe what the Pope says when he speaks in “infallible terms” —ex cathedra.  Pope Pius was not speaking ex cathedra when he voiced his opinion.  Personal opinion by a pope is not church doctrine.  Benedict has expressed approval for Harry Potter novels and movies as proper entertainment for children.  I disagree.  John Paul II had expressed his view that evolution can co-exist with creationism.  Many disagree with him as well on his opinion.  I hope you know that Catholics are not robots and must all be of the same mind. 

As for “your” term, latter-day Fundamentalists, there are many liberal Catholics who use that term intentionally as derrogatory to link people who believe the Bible with Islamic fundamental extremists.  I know that is not what you meant.

Okay, New Observer, I agree that you’re more Catholic than Pius XII.  (By the way, I think it was actually Humani Generis that I was taught from.)  But I’m no less Catholic than the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Don, That’s funny.  You are first person I have ever encountered whom at the hour of their death would seemingly prefer to hold fast to the catechism instead of God’s Word.

May you find your way as pleasant.

I Love The Beauty of The Novus Ordo Mass. The Latin Mass consists of people looking down their noses at others and judging them.

I have not been to a Novus Ordo Mass in 10 years. My four children have never been to one in their life. Mass of the saints for us, please!

What you fail to realize, “New Observer,” is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches what Goid’s Word—Jesus—taught in the Bible.
I’ll stick with the Church that Christ founded, instead of making up my own religion.

Don S - Jesus founded The Church.  There is only ONE Church, ONE Body of Christ, ONE Bride of Christ - 3 names, ONE Church.  Jesus’ Body has many parts: it’s not just Roman Catholic. 

Jesus does not care what denomination we are.  He cares if we 1) accept Him as our Lord and our Savior = meaning we turn ourselves over to Him, knowing we were bought by Him, with a price (His shed Blood on the Cross), 2) we REPENT from our old ways, and TURN TO HIM, following
Him.  That is what makes us “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, and we become Children of God, and brothers and sisters to one another = Christians.

Much of what is in the catechism is good.  But much is also what magesteriums from the past came up with, and lacks the FULLNESS of the Christian faith, because it has been diluted.

This is what causes so many other Christians, Bible-believing Christ followers, to ask us Catholics, “Are Catholics Christian?”

New Observer is correct.  Holding fast to God’s Word is key.  Holding fast ONLY to catechism, with an ‘ask no questions’ attitude, will prove unwise.

It is not making up one’s own religion to ask questions and to expect the magesterium to answer the questions about who they say is their AUTHORITY.
As in Paul’s time, sound authority was the Deposit of Faith - the teachings and writings left by the Apostles.  Not variations on those writings that we have today, left by writers 200 years after the Deposit of Faith was compiled.

Much of what’s in the catechism today is the result of the magesterium of today and those of yesteryear, coming up with OTHER doctrines.  New and improved (and incorrect) versions that people came up with.

They were presumably well-meaning people.  But as New Observer pointed out in earlier posts- many had too much time on their hands; they were not willing to just READ the Bible & ACCEPT what it said.  So many catechism teachings are left or right of center, regarding our basic Christian tenets.  Stick with Scripture.  New Observer’s advice is sound.

Cradle Catholic:
There is a reason that there are three parts to Revelation: The Church, Scripture and Tradition (capital T); and it cannot be sola scriptura. If that were so, the Apostles themselves could not have been Bible-believers — therefore, non-believers to some —  because there was no Bible until the late 300s. Yes, they did have the Old Testament but even there was dispute as to what was authentic and what was not. There were a lot of books around — how many “Lost Gospels” are there, for instance — but most of the apostles and their contemporaries were dead before Paul’s first book and there was certainly no accepted canon. The Bible came out of the Church — which was started by Christ directly — and Her lived experience and it was the Church, through councils and synods, that established the Canon. Christ does care that we — as fully as we can — accept ALL He taught (we will fall short, to be certain), including such things as the clear leadership of Peter, the Eucharist (Amen, Amen, I say to you), etc. What examples can you give of the Catechism coming up with OTHER doctrines? Plus, we can trace the history of the popes (some indeed very bad but Jesus had Judas, too) through history — Jesus entered into history.

Again “Cradle Catholic,” I’ll take a pass on making up my own religion and stick with the one which Christ founded upon Peter.  Deny passages such as Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:17-18, Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, Luke 22:32, John 14:16,26, John 16:11, John 21:17, and 1 Timothy 3:15 all that you want to, but that still remains that we are the ones who take the Bible as written, not as “reformed” by our leaders.

Oh—and what’s that about “three names”?  We call ourselves simply (as the Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce noted) “THE Church”. The Expression “Roman Catholic Church” came from members of the Church of England, who wanted to prove that the Queen was the true head of the Church.

James- you asked me to include a few examples of what I mean about some “other” teachings.  Off the top, and from memory, I’d say:

1- the Magesterium’s teachings about indulgences for ourselves
2- how we can pray people out of Purgatory
3- the whole idea of Purgatory, where we are still stained by sin, albeit venial sin, and that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross did not make us “righteous” in the Father’s eyes, even though the whole book of Romans and ALL of Paul’s writings would dispute it.
4- the whole saga of all the reasons there would be NO Eucharist, without a priest, basically holding pew people hostage to mere men, and calling them ‘other Christs’.
5- the idea that the pope is infallible - even on matters of faith and morals, and that he is the Vicar of Christ to the rest of us.
6- the ever=growning teachings about Mary - Queen of Heaven, sinless from birth, perpetual virgin (even after the virgin birth of her FIRST-BORN son)
7- the ever=growing list of saints and how we pray TO them, and ask for THEIR help, giving them all the attributes that belong to God.  If both of us are praying to St. Jude at the same time, he hears us BOTH?

As for synods and councils - how come they don’t do it the way they did it at the Council of Jerusalem?

Dear Cradle Catholic,

So, what are you now?  Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and decided, therefore, that you can live by a truncated Bible expurgated by some Renaissance humans with huge egos and enormous personal agendas?

Everything you scoff at is in the Bible and Sacred Tradition.  Shame on you for calling Jesus a liar, prestidigitator and buffoon.  I pray he forgives your ignorance.  You insult Him, His mother, His church, His bride.  You would have done well with the post Luther “reformers.”

Believing what Jesus the Christ taught often means eating our own egos aka humble pie.  I hope that you will eventually decide to eat the meal and tell Jesus how much you regret insulting him.

Gina, is that some type of derogatory and snide insult in your post to Cradle Catholic?  How about you —is Jesus not your savior also?  Or maybe you think you are collectively saved by church membership alone?  My sister-in-law is Baptist, should I tell her that she is insulting Christ?  You come off as pretty darn arrogant.

Gina - I am a born-again, infant-baptized Roman Catholic, that believes in the Bible, from the table of contents to the maps, knowing it is the Word of God, and trustworthy, and while everything in it was not written TO me, it was written for my benefit, and it’s what God wants me to know.

I read the Bible in its literal sense FIRST.  I read it IN CONTEXT, & in
FULL, studying it daily, praying for its truths to become a part of me.  I believe the Bible is the gold standard of measure, and OTHER sources are useful, but I do not believe them when they differ from the Bible.

The result of having been exposed to all the above is I was able to share Jesus with a Muslim girl last Summer (who at the time I met her was washing her feet for prayer in a public bathroom, a ritual she did 5 times a day).  Last Wednesday, I was able to share Jesus with a Hindu man, someone who’d been taught by his grandmother that Jesus was the same as the Buddha-like statue he worships, one with an elephant head.  After all, he told me, “There is only one God.”

Gina, if you were to speak with a Muslim and a Hindu person about Jesus, & about matters in life that have ETERNAL VALUE, what would you tell them?

+JMJ+

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee, highest King,
Redeemer of all,
do we lift up our eyes
in weeping:
Hear, O Christ, the prayers
of your servants.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Right hand of the Father,
corner-stone,
way of salvation,
gate of heaven,
wash away our
stains of sin.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

We beseech Thee, God,
in Thy great majesty:
Hear our groans
with Thy holy ears:
calmly forgive
our crimes.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee we confess
our sins admitted
with a contrite heart
We reveal the things hidden:
By Thy kindness, O Redeemer,
overlook them.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

The Innocent, seized,
not refusing to be led;
condemned by false witnesses
because of impious men
O Christ, keep safe those
whom Thou hast redeemed.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Based on this Lenten Prayer, which was composed in the 10th Century, we as Faithful Catholics try hard not to be misled by impious men nor by ourselves.  To believe in the Catholic Faith, it is directed by the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi.  I have emphasized this over and over but of course, I have run into those who still believe in the false teachings of the faith and have thus fallen into the wrong path, perhaps through no fault of their own - (with the way some liberal priests have been teaching these days.)

Cradle Catholic:

Pure and simple:  There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  A teaching that has been done away with since Vatican II.  It is also unlawful for a Catholic to pray with those outside the faith.  It is a Mortal Sin to attend liturgies of false religions outside the Catholic Church.  The more I say this, the more I am argued with and insulted.  However, just as the blind man who wished to be saved and cried, “Jesus son of David, Have Mercy on Me.”  The crowd began to shun him and insult him.  However, as Jesus says, “Thou are healed, thy faith has saved thee.”

Gina:

Try to defend the True Faith as much as possible, for there are those who are ready to ridicule those who stand up for the Traditional Teachings of the Church!  Just to let my liberal Catholic and protestant friends know, gradually, the Novus Ordo Missae is now being converted into a transitional mass.  If you want to know what I mean by Transitional Mass, ask the Pope - He is the one who is forming it into a Transitional Mass.  Ask my parish priest, he knows.  Ask EWTN, they know.  Ask the many Bishops who are applying this transitional Mass.  As soon as Liberal Bishops retire, more traditional Bishops will re-emerge to provide a transitional mass.  Why?  Because the Church needs vocations.  Where are there more vocations?  Those parishes and Dioceses that provide the Traditional Latin Mass.  Where are these vocations headed?  To more Traditional Religious Orders where they offer the Traditional Latin Mass and the Traditional Teachings of Holy Mother Church! 

This is why, I no longer have to argue with liberal cafeteria Catholics or protestants.  The Barque of St. Peter is being steered correctly between the pillars of the most Blessed Virgin Mary and the Most Sacred and Holy Eucharist. (Prophesy of St. John Bosco)

+PAX+

+JMJ+

Just to give all the faithful and liberal Catholics alike as well as my protestant friends - Here are the words of a sermon given by St. Leonard of Port Maurice with regard to being saved:

I shall close this reflection with the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice:

“Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.” – Sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice – “The Little Number of Those Who are Saved.”

The questions that have appeared here are heart-rending.  Which is better Mass in Latin or Novus Ordo?  Which is better on the tongue or in the hand?  How very sad.  Pope Paul VI said it rightly, “The smoke of Satan is in the sanctuary.”  Brimstone is not a pleasant smell.  Holy Mother of God, please ask your Divine Son to come to the rescue of His beloved Bride who is sore beset.

To Cradle Catholic:

It is interesting that you ask me what I would say to Hindus and Muslims.  I have taught in Japan where the largest number of my students were Hindus and Muslims. Presently, I tutor two young boys, one in a Muslim household, the other in a Hindu household. It would all depend upon what they asked me.  Generally speaking, Hindus are more open to discussions of religion that Muslims.  Additionally, great caution must be taken with Muslims since for them apostasy brings a death sentence. A sentence that is both ancient and hideous.  I know that Our Lord would not want you to cause people to be murdered. I endeavor to be honest and careful at the same time.  Also my husband will be entering Holy Mother Church this Easter.  My heart is full of joy.  As an aside, he plans to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior on the tongue.

As to defending the Faith, I fear I am on automatic pilot.  You attack; I defend.  If that makes me arrogant in some minds, so be it.

Actually, Cradle Catholic, you sound just like a person who invaded my emails some time back.  He also is an apostate Catholic who said the same things you have said to me almost word for word.  You don’t reside in upstate New York by any chance.

At any rate may God bless you.  May God’s Holy Mother and our Blessed Mother care for you and bring you back to an understanding of the Faith which which her Divine Son has blessed us.

Salus:  You wrote, “It is also unlawful for a Catholic to pray with those outside the faith.  It is a Mortal Sin to attend liturgies of false religions outside the Catholic Church.”

Please correct me, if I am wrong.  Didn’t John Paul II pray with people not only outside the Christian faith, but also with people of OTHER RELIGIONS? I could swear this is why some folks protest his canonization.

And to Gina:
I write from California, not upstate New York.  There must be another person that’s life-long Roman Catholic like me, that just read the Bible and believed it, accepting it as the Word of God, and considering it the Gold Standard of Measure, when anything differs with what is written.

Please accept my apologies if you see my writing as attacking the church.
I just question what differs from the Bible.  It’s not my opinion - it is so clear, the verses are right there.  For some reason, non-Catholic Christians see it, right away, but Catholics almost always have trouble.  This morning, I was talking with a woman I met downtown - an Orthodox Presbyterian, and she told me, “You don’t sound Catholic.” 

When I told her the average Catholic is taught to look to the Magesterium and tradition (not universal church tradition, but rather, just some traditions that have been around for 800 years) and the Bible is just another source for them, she said of the Bible, “But what else do we have but the Bible that is reliable?”  That’s my question precisely, and it’s why I trust the Bible.  It does not change - and it does not make mistakes. 

This morning, a visiting priest that’s giving a parish mission at a church I attended said the first reading today - from Genesis - is a “MYTH.”  I disagree with him.  I believe the Bible.  While it was not all written TO me, it was written for my benefit.

Cradle Catholic:
As a cradle Catholic, you should know what the teaching about indulgences are. Were there abuses in the past? Heck yes.  The Council of Trent and current teaching addressed that. Indulgences are based on the super-abundant graces of Christ on the Cross, plus the Saints and others joining their sufferings and merits to Him. That is what we are to do. It also has to be with the proper intention: humility, prayer, etc. Is that not how we are supposed to pray?
Purgatory: Again, as a cradle Catholic, you ought to know better. If we are to be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is, well, guess what: we’re doomed. Some saints came as close as you can get but they were not perfect, either. The rest of us who aren’t even close are in trouble if that is the “criteria. Here is a question for you: where did the Patriarchs and prophets go when they died before the coming of Christ? Heaven was closed to us before then; did they go to hell? No. Do you not think they were suffering in “the abode of the dead” because they did not have the Beatific Vision? They were constantly remembered by the living. Do you know nothing about reparations for sin, etc., how even Paul talks about making up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering; I thought Christ’s sufferings were all-sufficient? By your account, that is utter nonsense unless you understand what a disciple is really about and what Paul is really speaking about. Christ’s suffering makes us righteous but it isn’t like snow falling on a dung heap, covering our sins, but grace perfects us, changes us from within. Or do you believe that once you “have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” there is NOTHING you can do to lose it?
Eucharist: I guess the Apostles were more than mere men, eh? Do you even understand what the Eucharist is all about? The Second Person of the Trinity in the form of a fragile piece of “Bread;” as St. Teresa’s Prayer states: Christ has no body now but yours. He depends on us, mere men and women. That’s a big, big responsibility but that is how it is.
Infallibility: Are you sure you understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability?  How do you interpret what Jesus says to Peter, about the gates of hell being unable to stand against the Church, about binding and loosing (you have to know the difference and there has to be some guarantee that we can KNOW the difference or else everyone is their own little pope. Good luck with that!). Do you understand the keys of the Kingdom? Peter is the chamberlain, who, in essence, IS the king when the king is not there physically.
Mary: Were Adam and Eve “conceived” sinless? Yes. Jesus is the New Adam — Paul writes this, let alone the Church Fathers — so since God operates within history, by implication, Mary is the New Eve. Perpetual virgin: do you ever think about Mary’s response to Gabriel: “since I do not know man?” Betrothal was the same as being married in those days and they knew how babies came about. That is a stupid question unless one figures out that they were going to have a different kind of marriage. Two, the Fifth Commandment tells us honor thy father and mother. Jesus knows how to honor His Father and Mother. Jesus was called the New Solomon by the Fathers: Solomon made his mother Queen. Jesus gave us His Mother through John at the foot of the Cross, which would be crazy if she had had younger children after Jesus. They’d have been there — as a good Jew — to comfort their mother.
Saints: Do you ask people to pray for you? Even the biggest fundamentalist does so — heck, even Paul asks for prayers (is he an idolater?) that he not fail to finish the race and the early Christians used to pray at the tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs) yet somehow we are supposed to forget those who have gone before. Even Jesus talks about God being God of the living, not of the dead; the departed are fully alive in Christ (our hope). You are sorely lacking in understanding what Heaven is like.
How did they do it at the Council of Jerusalem? They debated and listened and then the Apostles ruled. Doesn’t sound any different than what most councils, synods, etc., did.
By the way: what came first: Church or Bible?

James - You wrote about indulgences: “It also has to be with the proper intention: humility, prayer, etc.  Is that not how we are supposed to pray?”

Cradle’s reply-
There is no such thing as Super Abundant Graces - God’s grace is God’s grace.  Just like there is no such thing as Mortal Sin and Venial Sin.  Sin is sin, and it’s all against a holy God.  Once a child of God is “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, he/she is kept by Him, and we can commune with God, asking to be “FILLED” with the Holy Spirit, more and more.  But we are already sealed, and our eternal life is protected by Christ.  When I was a child, I would literally add up the number of indulgences I got from doing this and that- I was wrong.  There is no such thing as an indulgence.

Here is a question for you: where did the Patriarchs and prophets go when they died before the coming of Christ?

Cradle’s reply-
You are speaking about OLD Testament saints.  We live in the New Testament.  For some, they didn’t even have the law yet - I won’t get into where they were when they died, because it would be irrelevant to our discussion.  But if you read Hebrews Chapter 11, it is called the Faith Chapter, and it indicates that all these people were declared “righteous” which is a term that denotes STATUS in God, and POSITION in His Family - with Jesus as our Righteous Brother, we are in His family.  It is not due to anything we did.  But rather, it is 100% what Jesus did FOR us, and a FREE GIFT to us, to accept or to reject.

Or do you believe that once you “have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” there is NOTHING you can do to lose it?

Correct.  Once we have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, there is nothing we can do to lose our salvation.  No one can snatch us out of His Loving Hands.  Even when we are unfaithful, He remains faithful, because He cannot deny Himself.  There is our eternal security.  He may cause a consequence: such as King David, if you want to discuss an Old Testament saint.  He had a severe consequence, in that the sword never departed from his household, and he lost his baby son from Bathsheba.  But God called David the man after His Own Heart.  Read Psalm 51.

Do you understand the keys of the Kingdom? Peter is the chamberlain, who, in essence, IS the king when the king is not there physically.

Cradle’s reply-
Our King is ALWAYS present, in Body and in Soul.  Jesus is the Head of the Church.  When Jesus gave Peter the keys, it was not as if it were to a Maserati, and anyone Peter handed the keys to after he died, would take the church on a wild ride, and expect God to obey him.  The pope and the Magesterium of the day must serve God - not the reverse.

Perpetual virgin: do you ever think about Mary’s response to Gabriel: “since I do not know man?”

Cradle’s reply-
There was a one-year engagement period before a marriage was consummated in those days, and the groom would be preparing a place for the couple to live and to raise their family.  That is what Jesus is doing now, for us; He said, “I go to prepare a place for you…” - and in my Father’s house, there are many rooms…  Jesus is the Bridegroom, we the Church, are His Bride (all of us - one Groom, one bride.)  In those days, the bride never knew WHEN the groom would come, and she was always prepared.

Just like with us—the wise virgins that were watching and ready with extra oil versus the foolish virgins that did not keep enough oil handy.
We all must be vigilent, because Jesus will come again, and we know not when.  There is nothing more in Bible prophecy that needs to be fulfilled before He comes, and He will take His Church out - “one will be in the fields, and taken, the other left..”  That is when Satan will be allowed to have more reign.  Right now, the Church (Holy Spirit) is restraining the evil in the world.

Jesus was called the New Solomon by the Fathers: Solomon made his mother Queen.

Cradle’s reply- I find it a huge insult to compare the Blessed Virgin Mother, Mary, to Bathsheba.  And to call Jesus the New Solomon is blasphemy.  Jesus is the New Adam.  Jesus is the Root of Jesse, and the Son of David.  But - to equate Him with Solomon and Mary with Bathsheba is just wrong.  I believe the reason they used it was that Nathan the prophet wanted Solomon to be king, and when David was so old, Nathan went to Bathsheba to get her help in convincing David.  Carrying this out, it’s as if God the Father (David) is senile, and Jesus (Solomon) is a child, and Mary (Bathsheba) has to intervene.  It’s just silly- even God must roll His “eyes” and shake His “head” at that one. 

Jesus gave us His Mother through John at the foot of the Cross, which would be crazy if she had had younger children after Jesus.

Cradle’s reply-
Jesus put Mary into John the apostle’s care because at that time, Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not believers.  Do you remember they came with Mary to see Him, and when the apostles told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are here…” He said, “Who is my mother?  Who are my brothers?  Those that do the will of My Father in Heaven.”  That was NOT to demean Mary in any way, but to elevate we believers to the position of Jesus’ family.  Mary had to be with believers.  James the Just (I believe he was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the one that was spokesperson in Acts of the Apostles, for the Council of Jerusalem, and the author of the Book of James) was Jesus’ half-brother.  The important point is that Mary WAS a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.  Joseph was not Jesus’ father, but rather the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and from Him, Jesus was born.

Saints: Do you ask people to pray for you? Even the biggest fundamentalist does so — heck, even Paul asks for prayers (is he an idolater?)

Cradle’s reply-
I ask friends and family to pray for me - James, will you please pray for me?  I ask anyone that is alive on earth, and with whom I can communicate, to pray for me.  Paul asked for prayers from the saints that were on earth in his day.  No where in the Bible does anyone pray to saints that were no longer on earth.  The ONLY place I can think of where the dead was contaced, was by King Saul, and he went to some kind of fortune teller who conjured up the spirit of Nathan.  God was not happy.  While those that are no longer alive on earth ARE LIVING in Heaven, those of us still alive on earth are not to try to contact them.  And to expect that any of them (including Mary) would be able to hear and answer ALL of us at the same time, is giving the no longer earth bound people the same attributes of God: being omni-present, omniscient and omni-powerful.  There is NONE like God.  In Revelation, John the Apostle cried because there was NO ONE WORTHY to open the scroll.  ONLY JESUS was worthy.  Mary was NOT worthy to do that.

How did they do it at the Council of Jerusalem? They debated and listened and then the Apostles ruled. Doesn’t sound any different than what most councils, synods, etc., did.  By the way: what came first: Church or Bible?

The reason for this blog is that so many folks did not like the results of Vatican II.  In my childhood church, our grouchy and old-fashioned pastor dragged his feet on Vatican II changes for years.  I thought we’d never get it - in my day, we had the altar rail, and the priest faced away from us - it was in Latin, Communion on the tongue only, etc.  The way the Council of Jerusalem was handled was 100% correct.  Everyone of the leaders met and came to an agreement-there was unity.  If our synods and councils were handled like that, it would be wonderful.  But too many leaders are all over the place. 

The key is our hearts - it doesn’t matter as much how we worship.  This topic reminds me of the Samaritan woman at the well, who asked Jesus about proper worship - Jews versus Gentile worship. Jesus told her that the day would come when she would worship in “Spirit and in Truth”.  That is key.  That has ETERNAL VALUE.  We’d best all know that now, because one day, EVERY KNEE will bend to Jesus, and now’s the time to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

In the desert, Jesus used Scripture to fend off the devil - He said repeatedly, “It is written…” - We too, can use Scripture, the Holy Spirit-breathed Word of God, to keep ourselves on track and close to Him.
The teachings we have today are THE SAME as they had in the early church.
That is what makes Christianity so special, and prompts belief and trust in Jesus as our Lord and our Savior, our holy God.

The church came first - the Bible, as we know it today, compiled with approved canons, came second.  But the TEACHINGS are the same.  Most importantly, the TRUTHS of the Gospel came above ALL ELSE- even before there was a church.  Pentecost is the birthday of the Church, long after Jesus began His ministry, and His life was documented for us, via the letters to the Churches, and then bound into a canon.

“I Love The Beauty of The Novus Ordo Mass. The Latin Mass consists of people looking down their noses at others and judging them.
  In response to Nola’s comment, which I have pasted above, it has nothing to do with “looking down one’s nose” I was in the Novus Ordo for most of my life and gradually, with time and study, came to see how vastly inferior it is to the Tridentine. For me, there is no beauty to it, rather, just a religion and theology based upon “man”, as someone else here, stated. Present day Rome places too much emphasis upon man, as did JPII. IF you look at alot of what he said in his 20 plus years in the papacy, very many statements were made that were modernistic, and reflective of the new theology. The Novus Ordo, when cut and dried, is a drastic departure/rupture with how Catholics worshipped for centuries before Vatican Council II. IT is almost as if the Church wants to give the impression that it only began in the 1960’s. Truly sad.

Cradle:
1) No mortal versus venial sins? Wow!!! Better not tell John the Apostle that!!! Also, apparently Christ’s grace isn’t eternal; it’s limited.
2) So you are telling me that you can NEVER break your relationship with God? You can never turn your back on God? EVER? On its face, that is wrong and quite dangerous. You can go out and murder someone but as long as you have a personal relationship with Christ, hey, that’s cool! You can do ANYTHING you want!!! Didn’t Paul constantly have to remind and call back those of his community. Why, if they were all sealed with the Holy Spirit and it didn’t really matter because Christ would “overlook” their sins?  Do you understand what you are saying? And don’t give me this “well, they never were really Christian” — so now YOU are the judge! Do you understand what the Cross really meant?
3) If you are counting things up, you already got your reward.
4) Maybe they didn’t all have the law but they did have the Covenant. Of course, since all it takes is “faith” and once we are “sealed”, we don’t even need the 10 Commandments.
5) Since there is nothing you can do to lose your salvation now,  go out and rob a bank. Or get a girl knocked up and pay for an abortion. Hey, you can’t lose your salvation!
6) By the way, David repented, did he not? He did not continue on that path or should he had just told God, hey, I am David and I have a relationship with you? You can’t touch me.
You’re right, He cannot deny Himself. However, allowing us to use our free will is not denying Himself. Why else would Paul talk about working out his salvation in fear and trembling? If anyone had a relationship with Christ, it was him, but he never rested on that.
7) You are right: Christ is faithful but that doesn’t mean we can’t be. I cannot believe ANYONE could believe this.
8)  Peter was to feed, tend and strengthen his brothers. It does not mean he would be perfect. To think that we don’t need leadership today is ludicrous with SO many attacks against faith and morals. How many different “popes” are out there because this person or that thinks they have the key to “unlocking” Scripture? Who is to decide? I don’t think Jesus wanted a free-for-all, which we have today. Plus, Paul — and by implication, the rest of the Twelve because he made sure he was on the same page with the Twelve — passed on his authority to the churches he founded. Should Peter have not done the same?
9) Mary STILL knew how a baby was to come about. The question still is stupid unless something else is being planned. Gabriel never put a timetable as to when this would happen, just that it would.
10) Ever heard of typology in Scripture? Christ is the New Adam but he’s not Adam: Christ is the New Solomon but he’s not Solomon because Solomon — a man greatly blessed by Yahweh (had a relationship with? — fell and followed false gods. He’s the Son of David but David was human as well. He’s a New Moses — led His people out of slavery — but Moses never entered the Promised Land. Remember, even Abraham fathered a child out of wedlock and yet he is called our father in faith. There were plenty of sinners in Jesus geneology.
11) Again, where were Jesus’s brothers and sisters? Even if they weren’t believers, they still would’ve been at the foot of the Cross, if only to comfort their mother. That whole Commandment thing of honoring your father and mother and it seems to me they were good Jews. Plus,  John (the Beloved Disciple — us) did take her into his home speaks volumes. Is that not what we are to do; if she was His mother and we are His brothers, is she not ours, too? Who better to honor His Mother than Christ?
12) No one ever told anyone to try and CONTACT the Saints — if they did, they were wrong — who have gone before. No one is telling you to do that now. We ask for their intercession just like you ask for mine. They are no longer bound by time or space in their present state; they are like the angels before the presence of God. Do you think that they no longer have any interest in those of us suffering on earth? They are still human and they still care for us. The early Church honored those that had gone before, especially martyrs.
13) You talk about these teachings but these teachings came first from Christ through the apostles. There wasn’t anything written for at least a generation after Pentecost. Yes, the Apostles used the Old Testament but this was “The New Way.” The only standard was the Apostolic teaching. That is how they finally put the total canon of Scripture together, some 360 years after Pentecost.

James - A person cannot lose something they never had.  Much of what you describe in your last post sounds as if the behavior is defiant, done in a way to test God.  The attitude sounds like, “Hey, God: I’m saved, so I can do whatever I want, and you can just stick it in your ear.”

That does not reflect a saved person, whose life should show GOOD FRUIT, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, Who would have us on a short leash, reining us back in, when we want to stray, due to being tempted by the world, our own fleshly desires and the deceptions of the demonic.

If there is no remorse for having hurt our holy and faithful God, either when we ourselves realize what we have done to hurt Him, or when others bring it to our attention (such as Nathan did with David) that person was never saved to begin with.  If the person was never saved, the person cannot lose what they never had.

But if there was true conversion (born-again, sealed by the Holy Spirit), even though a person does sin - as did David, Moses, Peter -prior to Pentecost, when he denied knowing Jesus - they cannot lose salvation.

Everyone sins - before and after conversion.  Thus we also must GIVE grace to others that step on our toes, when it happens, acting like Christ to them, and forgiving as He does.  With that said, we are not to be enablers of bad behavior, or doormats about abuse or stop consequences from happening to people, as a result of their “sin”, which may border on the criminal, if it is against civil laws.

That’s the reason to be in the Word of God (which is what it is to pray in the Spirit = giving His Words back to Him), thus praying in His Will.

Cradle Catholic - you continue to do the same thing on multiple posts here at NCRegister.com. I’ve given you multiple resources to learn more about Catholicism and you obviously don’t read them and then come and insist on beating down your own straw men of the made-up Catholicism of your imagination. As I’ve said before, your thoughts and comments are more than welcome here. But I beg of you to please stop representing yourself as a Catholic in your name (as you clearly do not know or believe in what the Catholic Church teaches). It is confusing for people and has the potential to lead them astray.  Additionally, I beg of you to please read up on some of these basic Catholic teachings that you continue to misrepresent across multiple posts here (and probably elsewhere).

Regarding your latest comment, John 15:1-6 clearly teaches against the kind of “Once Saved, Always Saved” tradition-of-men you are explaining here. Here also is a good article explaining further for anyone else who wants to learn a bit more on the subject: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

Also - I think you would really enjoy this website here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download  Lots of good info and from a perspective that I think would speak to a lot of your concerns about the Church. Lots of free downloads and you can sign up for the newsletter if you want, also.

Peace.

Matthew- Yesterday morning, at Mass, the church I attend kicked off a parish-wide mission with a guest priest facilitating.  The man is in his 70’s, the former principal of a Catholic boy’s school.  Of the first reading at Mass yesterday, from Genesis & detailing the account of the fall of man and original sin, he said very loudly, “It is a MYTH.” 

At least 500 people are attending his 3-day Parishwide Mission, seniors in the daytime, and many parents and children coming in the early evening tonight through Wednesday.

He gave the same homily at ALL the Masses - at the 5PM on Saturday night, the 7:30AM on Sunday (mostly to seniors/adults), the 9AM Children’s Mass, the 11AM Choir Mass and the 5PM Sunday teen Mass.

So is this priest “Catholic”?  Is he true to official church teaching by calling the first reading a myth?  If he is correct, what else in Bible is only a myth, according to the Vatican?

Cradle:
How do you know a person was never saved? That is the sin of presumption. There is one site I know of — exchristians — that speaks about this phenomenon. How dare you claim — on what basis? — they were never sealed? Many of them DID have good fruit — I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking sincerely — but for some reason, they have had enough. You act as if once you have accepted Christ into your heart ONCE, you can never tell Him to leave. So much for free will or do you not believe in that, either? You have to accept Him every day or else nothing makes sense. You admit people sin AFTER conversion. Do you notice something when Paul writes about nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ — except one thing; ourselves? Why would Paul write that he is working out his salvation — he was sealed in the Holy Spirit, remember? — in fear and trembling. He asks people to pray for him so that he can finish the race; does that sound like someone that truly believes he cannot ever turn his back on Christ, that he believes once-saved always-saved? Christ Himself speaks to that: many people will call Him Lord and do great things (good fruit!) and He does not know them!!
And you wonder why there is such a prevalence of the “we are ALL saved” “faith” because we, fundamentally, really don’t matter?
By the way, that priest you speak of is not speaking for the Vatican; he is speaking for himself and himself only and he is a fool. That is a flat-out insult and you need to repent. Does Jimmy Swaggart and his former “troubles” speak for his denomination?

As a priest, I celebrate both the Mass of Paul VI (Novus Ordo) and the Mass of Bl. John XXIII (aka Tridentine/Extraodinary Form). I’m a convert, and the NO led me to the Catholic faith; I celebrate it every Sunday. From the perspective of a priest, I prefer to celebrate the EF. In the NO, I feel such a drain of energy and weight of responsibility to make the Mass “work”, as if I am a talk-show host (more about that). In the EF I feel one with the people in praying. With more frequent celebration of the EF being encouraged, the idea was that there would be cross-fertilization. I have tried to bring what I learn from the EF into the NO, namely: (a) the “success” of the Mass does not depend on me; I am there to pray, and I hope others are praying with me; (b) I try to not draw attention to myself or be an entertainer in celebrating the NO—I am there as a vehicle, not as a personality. I think those things improve any Mass, NO or EF. And I try to bring the things I learn from the NO into the EF, namely: (a) the Bible readings read in English; (b) an ample, thoughtful (I hope) homily on the Scriptures of the day; (c) a naturalness to the celebration (my EF instructor told me, ‘I will teach you how the EF was actually celebrated in parishes, not an historical recreation’). I think those things improve any Mass, EF or NO.

And, by the way, I encounter “interesting” people in both Masses. As the pastor of the local Latin Mass parish said with a smile, “I try to stay connected with the more mainstream members of my parish.”

Cradel Catholic, if the priest that you were complaing about is in his 70s, when did he probably go to the seminary?  Does that mean that before Vatican II religious education was lacking?

Here is the problem.  You have older parents and grandparents raised with one teaching.  The Vatican will say one thing as well and then you have those priests and new age nuns teaching “yes, however ...” with their own twist.  Both children and adults will hear what their parents told them and then a priest at mass, or a nun in school (or at catechism) or even RCIA will present conflicting information.  Who is holding these people accountable?  The diocesan bishop is ultimately accountable to know what is going on in his diocese.  Does a parish pastor have the obligation to know what a “visiting priest” will be telling his parish?  I think he does, but many assume since he is a priest then that is all the pastor needs to know. 

It is interesting that hard core Catholics on so many blogs dig in their heels on matters of church tradition and doctrine while at the same time seem quite willing to cut any priest or nun a great deal of slack when they themselves do not toe the mark.

Don Schenk-

1) Will you please tell me precisely what in my post was a “complaint”?
I ask, because I tried to merely document FACTS.  I’ve read over what I wrote.  For the life of me, I can’t pinpoint any “complaint”.

2) My post asks Matthew a question.  Over the weekend, over 900 fellow Catholics heard that sermon.  At least 500 Catholics of all ages are attending the parish mission now.  I want to know if all of them come away believing that the first reading is a “Myth”, are they Catholic?

I think this is a fair question.  My Catholicity has been questioned, even though I have been Roman Catholic from infancy & I never left the Church.  I am not a convert.  I am not a revert.  I was raised in the Roman Catholic church, and have 12 years of Catholic education.  The only thing I did differently from most fellow Catholics is to read the Bible.

3) I think before and after Vatican II, religious education is lacking.  Until our church leaders read Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy & Titus, and implement the wisdom those letters teach, our church will continue to have problems.  I say this in answer to your direct question about this:
Posted by Don Schenk on Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 12:29 PM - My comment is not an attack or an insult to the Roman Catholic Church, or to my fellow Catholics, or to our church leaders.  It is what I think, as you asked.

Cradle - In the past, you’ve asked me to tell you if you’re Catholic. Now you’re asking me to tell you if some priest I never met or heard speak is Catholic. And subsequently if all of the people who heard him speak are Catholic. My answer now is the same as it was when you asked me in the past - it’s not for me to decide. What I can tell you is that what you apparently believe and preach is often not Catholic.

I can’t say the same about the priest you are asking about because I don’t know the context of his statement, nor exactly what he said or how he meant it. But, this is just another one of your distractions you illogically insert into your arguments about the Catholic Church.

What some priest said or some group of random parishioners believe has absolutely no bearing on what the Catholic Church officially teaches on these subjects. You know this. Yet you continue to obfuscate the issues by not addressing legitimate questions about your erroneous logic and instead attack some priest that has absolutely nothing to do with what Church teaching truly is. And you continue to treat your own fallible, private interpretations of scripture as superior to that of the Church Jesus founded.

Are there bad priests out there who teach (whether intentionally or not) errors?  Of course.  And what does that have to do with what Catholic teaching actually is?  Nothing…other than that it is scandalous and unfortunate.

But your comments here are just another perfect example of how you don’t really want to know what Catholic teaching is…but are happy to beat up your straw men all day in some kind of effort to feign interest in learning while spreading heterodox Christianity through your protestant implications and claiming to be a Catholic at the same time.

If you really wanted to know what the teaching of the Church is on Genesis, it’s very easy to find. The Catechism speaks about it. Any good Catholic bible study would treat it. And simple websites, for example, Catholic.com, have many articles on it.

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283)

Here’s quote from a good article on Catholic.com:
The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

—-

The basic position of the Church regarding Genesis is that it tells a real story that actually happened. In other words, it is true. HOWEVER, it is clear that elements of it (and other parts of the bible) are meant figuratively or topically or theologically, but NOT necessarily as literal, chronological, historical narrative.

A true literal interpretation of the Bible means interpreting it as the literal interpretation of what the author intended to convey…NOT necessarily what the literal meaning of the words are (without regard to context or allowance for the various literary genres contained in the canon of the Bible).

But, to be clear, the Church has no dogma on whether or not God did indeed create the world in literally 6 Earth days or literally whipped up Adam and Eve from the dust in a literal instant within time. he may have. It may be meant, however, to instead convey primarily a theological truth - not a literal, historical account of it. So the faithful are free to believe that or to believe in some form of biological evolution that DOES NOT contradict what the Church DOES teach about it (which, again, is alluded to in the CCC quotes from above and in other parts of the Catechism - as well as plenty of other great commentaries/books on the subject from Saints, Popes, Bishops, Catholic scientists, etc.).

As I suggested before, I encourage you to learn a bit more about what the Church actually teaches (not very hard) and to also understand a bit more about how the magisterium works, the deposit of faith, etc.

God bless you on your journey.

Matthew- I changed my blog name to “Born Again Cradle Catholic” to represent myself accurately to other Catholics.  There are many more folks like me, Cradle Catholics that read the Bible, believing all if it to be the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God, and that are changed by it.  So I am not alone.  When they browse these blogs, they’ll know from where I come, immeditately.  It’s easy to speak with people like them, as we’re literally on the same Page!  All born-again.  All Cradle Catholics.  All Bible-believing.

As you know, NC Register articles are listed on links about the faith, worldwide.  So it’s not exclusively conservative Catholics that may be impressionable, deferring to what comes from the Magesterium, with no questions asked, reading NCR articles now.  Even I’d subscribed to the hard copy of NC Register for a long time, keeping up on matters of the faith & I have friends that continue to subscribe even today.

But most Catholics do not introduce themselves as “Born Again”.  In fact, the term seems to be foreign to most, and even looked down upon by many other Catholics that consider it almost a mockery.  So “Born Again Cradle Catholic” is the ideal name for me!

Matthew- you’ve suggested I learn more about what the church teaches.  That’s what I was attempting to do in my last post, asking you since you do this full time, and you seem to know what is and what is and what is not “Catholic”.  So thank you for taking the time to answer me about what the Church officially teaches about Genesis.

I took Jeff Cavin’s “The Great Adventure: A Journey Through the Bible” class - the full course- about two years ago.  I didn’t remember him calling the story of Creation a myth.  He may have.  I just didn’t remember.  That’s why I asked you.  I wanted to know if the belief that Genesis was a myth was orthodox Roman Catholic teaching.  You answered my question.  Thank you.

This is a general comment rather than a comment on the writings of anyone in particular.

Back in 2002 Eamonn Keane, an Australian, wrote a book entitled “A Generation Betrayed.”  It spoke of the huge lack of proper teaching of the Catholic Faith to an entire generation of Catholics who are drifting off into heresy and apostasy because they have been starved of the nourishment that their faith needs.

As a result of this spiritual starvation, we have a dreadful phenomenon of uncatechized and ignorant and rebellious Catholics who could best be called “CINOS” (Catholics In Name Only).  Like the “reformers” before them they pick and choose what they wish to believe, and trash the rest.  In order to be justified in their arrogance, they picked what they believed substantiated their point of view and called the rest “apocrypha.”  They claimed their faith was “sola scriptura” (only scripture), but they worked without the entire scripture.  They claimed “sola fides” (faith only), but it is not the faith which God established and Jesus taught.  It is a faith made to order for their wholly human convenience and comfort, because much of the Faith is very, very uncomfortable, indeed. 

Claiming to love Jesus, they treat Him as a fool at best and a liar at worst.  It was very difficult to hack up the New Testament, so they just blithely ignore, or misinterpret what does not agree with them.  Search as you will, you will never find good commentary on the Eucharist or the Papacy.  Such concepts just do not fit the mold.  The Bible is totally tortured, not respected.  Keep in mind that the Bible says, “there is no God.”  That is not the entire passage, but those words definitely *are* there.

I have a story about the Bible that I like to share with my Protestant friends about how the Bible did *not* come to be.  At the end of 6/24 hour periods of creation, God sat down to rest on the seventh, but He was so agitated that He just could not relax.  So He wrote a book on the seventh.  If he could create the world in a literal 6 days, writing the entire Bible on the seventh was “a piece of cake.”  On the following Monday, He opened the pearly gates and flung out the finished opus hitting Martin Luther and other “reformers” in the back of the head.  He then asked the “reformers” to check His homework to be sure there were no errors.

My question, which remains unanswered, is, if God Himself inspired the writing of the Bible, which I certainly believe He did, who gave any mere human authority to cut out parts he did no like?  What hubris is that?  Bibliolatry is no better than any other form of idolatry. 

Holy Mother Church has never said, “Don’t read the Bible.”  She has said, “Don’t get into self interpretation.”  This has led to many problems and a number of Christian sects that keeps multiplying with the enthusiasm of rabbits.

The Bible itself does not say that it is not sola scriptura.  Saint Paul speaks of scripture and tradition.  How can anyone not like Judith?  Purgatory is in second Machabees, one of those books and partial books that the “reformers” dumped.

It is sad that the Baptist influence has grown so strong that it is pervading and harming Christ’s own bride. It is because the Baptists were afraid that they would meet the same fate in the new American nation that had been their lot in England, that Thomas Jefferson wrote his now much misinterpreted statement about “separation of Church and State” to reassure them.

It is also sad that there are priest’s who have such poor judgment.  What a poster on this site heard was really wimpy compared to what I heard in my parish for two years.  It made me so distraught and angry I changed parishes before I lost control.  I knew that, if I heard it said one more time, I would cause a huge scandal in Church.  I just changed parishes.  I did not attempt to further insult Christ and His Bride.

I know that there are many “Cathostants” out there.  I teach adult Religious Education.  I meet them many times.  I pray for their souls and try to answer their questions calmly.  I know there is no need to have a battle of the Bible quotes with them, or to refer them to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  That is all pretty pointless.  There really are none so blind as those who *will* not see.  The best thing is to pray.  As for me, I believe that the *entire* Bible is the inspired and revealed Word of God.  I believe that the Old Testament foreshadows the events of the New Testament and is part of salvation history.  I believe that Christ gave authority to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to teach with authority (Magisterium) what He has established.  I believe in the Sacred Tradition of *His* Church. If that makes me an arrogant fool, so be it.  That gives me even more reason to stand at the back of the Church with my head bowed and say, “Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.”

“Cradel Catholic”)
1.)  a complaint is still a complaint, even if it’s factual.
2.)  If your “Catholicity” doesn’t agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it should be questioned.  The Catechism is a sure guide to what the Bible teaches, which (as 2 Peter 3:15-16 points out) can be distorted.
3.)  The best way to correct any deffincianies in your eduction is read the Catechism.  that’s why blessed John Paul II issued it.

By the way, Jeff Cavins does call the creation stories in Genesis a “myth,” but in the sense that Catholic novelist J.R.R. Tolkien did—a metastory that gives menaing to our lives.  He also calls it a “history,” but not in the sense of modern history (as the Catechism teaches).

To Gina Nakagawa (Catholic Religious Ed Teacher)— As a Catholic, we all have prayed at one time or another with non-Catholic “Christians” (including family, in-laws or relatives) and probably have even attended marriages, memorial or funeral services inside a Christian church presided over by a Protestant minister.  In this context, the last two Pastors of my parish have done so as well.

Why are Catholics—-(who are more conversant with the faith)—-  such as yourself, not taking the time to correct the errors and nonsense of such statements made by this individual below? 

Posted by Salus Fides on Saturday, Mar 12, 2011 8:28 PM (EST):+JMJ+

“Pure and simple:  There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  A teaching that has been done away with since Vatican II.  It is also unlawful for a Catholic to pray with those outside the faith.  It is a Mortal Sin to attend liturgies of false religions outside the Catholic Church.”

This person even starts with a false premise in ascribing Catholicism to be a religon.  Religion is man made.  Christianity is not a “religion” but a relationship with Jesus Christ.  Comments like the above or beliefs held by this Salus individual (and unfortunately many others) are not helpful to both Catholics and Protestants alike.  It would be useful if our priests addressed such commonly held false beliefs and Catholics who know better should do the same.

New Observer,

Better get with the signs of the times in the Catholic Church.  If you have something that you want to address with me, do it with me directly. I am sure Gina is trying to be a good Catholic and does not need anyone who does not understand the teaching of “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” to tell her or direct her to follow such erroneous teachings of what “cafeteria Catholics or Liberal Catholics” have aligned themselves with the protestant trend.  I have news for you New Observer.  Obviously, you did not heed my last response that I had for you and all other new age thinkers and liberal Catholics.  If you believe in the Communion of Saints, I encourage you to take into account the following sermon given by St. Leonard of Port Maurice talking about St. Vincent Ferrer:

Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.” – Sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice – “The Little Number of Those Who are Saved.”

So, if you should continue to believe the way you wish about the Catholic faith, know that in the Novus Ordo Missae, because the proper prayers of the Mass are not as efficacious as that of the Traditional Mass (because of its emphasis on elements of the Catholic Faith, the Novus Ordo Missae form of worhsip, while valid, is not as efficacious and conducive to the salvation of souls and giving “proper and due Glory to God the Father.”

One last thing New Observer, I am not intimidated by your criticism of the form of worship that I attend, I know that within the span of time in the near future, the Novus Ordo Missae will be eliminated and the erroneous teachings of ecumenism will be corrected.  If you don’t believe me, the proof is in the pudding.  Check out this fine link and presentation right here and start thinking about the way you have been taught and the priests you have been going to for spiritual guidance.  I am sure that you will think twice about which side these priests are on - On the side of Truth, or on the side of the prince of lies.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/j-kRwoZKjPk

P.S. New Observer, if you wish to direct something related to me, I ask you to do it directly through me and not molest other good people to instigate an attack against me, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Catholic Faith.  I can defend myself against any heresy with the assistance of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary!

Pax Christi!

Cradle - I think you’re still a bit confused. All baptized Catholics are also “born again.” We also read the bible and believe absolutely everything written in it.

Anyway, I’ve been guilty of this as much as anyone, but let’s try to keep comments at least somewhat related to the original post. We are getting too far astray from the appropriate subject of this post. If you have other things you’d like to discuss or questions you want answered about Catholicism (that are not related to the subject of this post) there are lots of other places online to have those. I really appreciate it!

I’ve really enjoyed everyone’s thoughts on the Latin Mass vs. Novus Ordo. Thanks again for sharing! I still intend on doing a followup post on the same subject sometime soon.  Pax!

Salus writes:  “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.” – Sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice – “The Little Number of Those Who are Saved.”

Salus, when did Rome endorse this as truth?  And your parish priest and bishop?  Perhaps you are unware that necromancy is forbidden.

Salus further holds:  “the Novus Ordo Missae form of worhsip, while valid, is not as efficacious and conducive to the salvation of souls.”

Gee, Salus, if I remember correctly from my parish grammar school, there is something about the saving blood of Jesus shed on the cross at Calvary pertaining to our salvation.  Our attendance at mass does not “save” anyone.  However, you are free to make up your own interpretation.

New Observer,

So, what you are saying New Observer is that you reject the miraculous visions that Saints have had?  Do you reject the apparition of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary?  This is an account that Saint Vincent Ferrer gave from a Miraculous Apparition that was given to the Bishop of Lyon from his archdeacon.  In this case, this is not necromancy.  The Church does recognize St. Leonard of Port Maurice and his sermons and teachings, thus the title, “Saint.”  In fact, if you wish to investigate further, please read - “The Lives of the Saints” as well as the “Golden Legend”  Volumes one and two.  Anything is possible through God the Father.  If he wishes to give to such an apparition, only he can allow it to take place.  I suggest New Observer to learn about the Catholic Faith through a very detailed instruction on the Catechism of the Catholic Church through a book called - “My Catholic Faith”  Approved by the Catholic Church for instruction back in 1953.  It is being taught especially in my parish, I know the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (Rome) uses it, as well as the following orders:  Fraternity of St. Peter (Rome), Society of the Good Shepherd (Rome), Society of St. Pius X (trying to get back with Rome) and all other Traditional Roman Catholic Orders, Churches, and Parishes.  You should investigate further to see what I mean.

Pax!

P.S.  You still have not commented on the link that I provided for you.  Have you seen it yet?  If you have not, here is the link again:  http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/j-kRwoZKjPk.

By the way, as far as Pope John Paul II’s praying with other denominations, what do you expect from a pope who underwent tremendous pressure from other false religions.  Instead, Pope Benedict XVI will call for Assisi III which will help correct all the misunderstandings about ecumenism.  He will call about all false religions and WILL NOT, allow them to have their false worship take place in the Catholic Church and WILL NOT pray together with them.  If you wish to deny this as I said, the proof is in the pudding.  Read the following plea from a Lutheran who wants to know what the Holy Father will do at Assisi III when it comes to Inter-religious prayer as the actions of his past predecessor, John Paul II:

http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18

Again, as I said before New Observer - “Get with the times of the Catholic Church and Our Holy Father - Pope Benedict XVI.

The NO when celebrated properly in latin with gregorian chant is something to behold. It is beautiful. I have only witnessed it once. But since that is even rarer than the TLM, I will stick with the TLM.

What John describes can be experienced every Sunday in San Antonio, Texas at Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church. I admit, it is rare…people always cite these examples of how the NO can be done beautifully, and I agree, but I have come to the point that, as a priest, I believe I am fated never to be in such a parish for the rest of life and never will experience the NO as I wish I could.

Salus,
I honored your request to view your link @ http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/j-kRwoZKjP.  All you have is reporter in Rome detailing how the current Magisterium of Bishops and Cardinals are not listening to Benedict’s request allowing the Latin mass to be celebrated in the diocese to which they govern.  As a result, the reporter states that Benedict has now issued approval—directly to priests—to perform the Latin rite as an “end around” many of his own appointed Bishops and Cardinals.  Seems like a tempest in a teapot with a bunch of 10 year old kids arguing over the last chocolate chip cookie.

Salus, (as you know) Benedict has the authority to decommission and replace any Bishop or Cardinal “at will” anytime he desires.  So why hasn’t Benedict removed and replaced those in rebellion to his orders?  You also should know that all diocesan priests are subject totally to the will of their local Bishop in absolute obedience.  Thus, (according to the reporter), priests should now begin to disobey their Bishop and follow Benedict’s papal instruction in defiance of their immediate authority.  But here is your problem, Salus.  On the one hand you cannot say you have placed all your trust and faith in the Magisterium as guardians and then, at the same time, condemn those Magisterium members that you personally disagree with.  Salus, are you really Catholic—or are you just Catholic when things go according to the Gospel of Salus and the Pope of the day that you prefer?  Clearly, you like Benedict and disapprove of John Paul II.  At the hour of death, Salus, I do not expect to be asked whether I preferred the Latin or the Novos Ordo.  You seem to think this will be Christ’s litmus test for yourself.  Enjoy yourself on that one.

Regarding John Paul II praying with false religions,—-Christians who are denominational, non-denominational and Evangelical are not “false religions.”  Christians follow Christ.  Then again, you have stated repeatedly that salvation is only found in the “Catholic” church.  By default then, (according to Salus) all non-“Catholic” Christians will end up in Hell.  If, on the other hand you actually were referring to John Paul II praying with Buddhists, Hindus and Islamics, —they are indeed false religions.  Meeting, witnessing or entering into discussions is one thing.  Praying with them, however, is non-productive, unwise and promotes equivalancy with Christianity.  All paths do not lead to God.  If that is what you really mean, then we agree on that point.

As a diocesan official and priest who also celebrates the Extraodinary Form, I feel I must offer an emendation to the above comment. Diocesan priests are not subject totally to the will of their Ordinary (diocesan bishop) in absolute obedience. The law of the Church states that parish priests are cooperators and collaborators with their Diocesan Bishop who are in his episcopal ministry, and the Diocesan Bishop is to regard the diocesan priests as his brothers and friends (Christus Dominus 28 and 29, Presbyterorum Ordinis 7). Yes obedience is involved (Presbyterorum Ordinis 15) but it is not the obedience of a religious to his/her religious superior such as I owed my abbot when I was a Benedictine monk. All of these documents are available on the Vatican website

With regard to the faculty to provide the Extraordinary Form, it is inaccurate to regard Summorum Pontificium as authorizing priests to disobey their Diocesan Bishop. The Holy Father wanted to respond to the requests of the faithful who were asking for the earlier Mass, and he realized that Diocesan Bishops were reluctant sometimes to meet these requests, so he decreed that priests do not need the permission of their bishops or the Vatican to celebrate these Masses, and urged Bishops to be responsive to the requests of the faithful. Summorum Pontificium is really directed more towards bishops than priests. The letter of the Holy Father to the world’s bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificium contains these relevant paragraph: “Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.”

Rev. Paul,—Thanks for your “offical” clarificantion/correction re the obedience of Diocesan priests to their Bishop.  I appreciate your insider and enlightened comments regarding this report.  The reporter on Real Catholic TV indicated that priests were now receiving papal instruction and were free to perform the Latin mass even if their Bishop was opposed.

New Observor—Thank you. In a sense priests are free to celebrate the Extraordinary Form Mass even if their bishop is opposed to it: the legislation specifically says priests don’t need the permision of their diocesan bishop. But the legislation was intended to let bishops and priests know that it was not supposed to get to that point, and to inform bishops that there had to be a solid reason why he would oppose a particular celebration. And the priest and bishop retain the right of appeal to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” which is the final arbiter in disputes between priests and bishops in this area, having been given that authority by Pope Benedict. The legislation is very “Roman” that way—subtly conveying the conduct that is expected of both sides.
In our archdiocese, the only comment ever made by our former archbishop was that a priest was limited to three Sunday Masses (including the Saturday Vigil), and therefore could not add the Extraordinary Form as a fourth Mass—and since I was already celebrating more than three Masses a weekend in English, I took him at his word atnd cut back on my Masses.

+JMJ+

Fr. Pluth,

Thank you for assisting New Observer on this issue.  I wanted to ask you, if there is a Bishop who does nothing to promote the Traditional Latin Mass in his Diocese, shouldn’t that also mean that he is defying the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum?  I will tell you that my Parish Priest is celebrating the EF in a small parish and that Mass gets quite crowded without room.  He is also somewhat isolated from the rest of the Diocesan Priests.  My parish priest is not really fazed by that issue since he carries on with his duties faithfully and tirelessly.  However, our priest does acknowledge that Our Bishop does absolutely nothing to promote the Traditional Rite nor does he encourage his Priests to learn the Traditional Rite.  I suppose this is what the next follow up document to Summorum Pontificum will be about?  Can you clarify this?  I would really appreciate your treatment on this if possible.

+Pax Christi+

Matthew, you wrote: “I’ve really enjoyed everyone’s thoughts on the Latin Mass vs. Novus Ordo. Thanks again for sharing! I still intend on doing a followup post on the same subject sometime soon…”

While the topic of how we worship God is important, may I suggest that more articles be written on matters of faith that have Eternal Value?  I ask because a friend just gave me a copy of Our Sunday Visitor. I was shocked to read the couple distributing Bibles overseas & that were recently killed by pirates on their boat, were Roman Catholic!  I thought they were Evangelical Christians.  If NCRegister reported their story already, I sorry I missed it.  They’re modern day martyrs, obviously, born again Christians, for whom the Bible is not only important, but they DIED bringing His Word to people that didn’t have it!  I’m still stunned.  What amazing people!  Please, more articles that have Eternal Value because life on earth is short, but our souls live forever.  All of us need to be equipped to be in His service, even if few of us are called to be on the mission field, distributing Bibles, as were this wonderful martyred couple.

@Salus Fides Rarely does a diocesan bishop openly defy the Holy Father. However, a diocesan bishop may exercise his rightful pastoral authority to furnish the minimum degree of compliance required. For example: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/08/archbishop-of-seattles-elegantly-harsh-stand-on-the-motu-proprio/ With regard to the forthcoming document, the only rumor I have heard is that it will impose restrictions on the use of the Extraordinary Form. However, that is only a rumor. Wait and see.

Salus, I’m sorry you face so much trouble having the form of Mass that you & others in your area, prefer for worship.  The KEY is giving glory to God.  Whatever causes glory to God to happen, be it traditional or the new Mass, I’d hope it would not be so difficult to provide that for you.

While I prefer the new Mass, because I can be engaged in the worship and participate throughout, FEELING the spirit of the Communion of Saints (worship in Heaven and on earth) if I had a choice between the new Mass only with all the abuses (like liturgical dances, hootenany Masses) then frankly, I’d be in your group too, wanting High Masses only, in Latin, with the priests back to the congregation, and women wearing Mantillas.  When I was a child, I wore a Kleenex on my head, with impunity!

When you wrote, “...know that in the Novus Ordo Missae, because the proper prayers of the Mass are not as efficacious as that of the Traditional Mass (because of its emphasis on elements of the Catholic Faith, the Novus Ordo Missae form of worhsip, while valid, is not as efficacious and conducive to the salvation of souls…”

Salus, the salvation of souls has nothing to do with how we worship at Mass.  The salvation of our souls is ONLY due to the Precious Blood of Jesus having been offered to God the Father, as payment for our sin. 

Please, Salus, will you read all the letters of St. Paul for Lent, slowly and allowing the words to become part of you?  Please read Paul and put aside all those books about the visions of dead priests, bishops and other saints.  Please Salus, focus on matters of Eternal Value. I applaud you for speaking up, like on this blog.  Not many Catholics do that.  So what you are doing is wonderful!!!!  Please equip yourself with the tenets of our Christian faith (the Deposit of Faith) from Scripture.  I promise, it will be time well spent.

I started from Genesis and read through to Revelation.  Many people begin during Lent, finding that reading the Word becomes a way of life - they can’t stop!  It’s like eating!  Food for our soul - the “Bible” = Basic Intsructions Before Leaving Earth.

Rev. Paul R. Pluth -  You wrote, “...but I have come to the point that, as a priest, I believe I am fated never to be in such a parish for the rest of life and never will experience the NO as I wish I could.”

In your opinion, what is THE ideal NO Mass?  I remember the traditional Latin Mass, as a child.  I would describe the NO Mass now as this:

1- Mass in English
2- Priests facing the people
3- Choirs singing hymns that encourage the congregation to sing along.

So just in your own opinion, what’s an ideal NO Mass? Secondly, you wrote:
“Diocesan priests are not subject totally to the will of their Ordinary (diocesan bishop) in absolute obedience.”

Wow!  I know a priest whose whole parish works FOR same-sex marriage.  Our bishop does nothing to rein him in, in fact, he seems to give this priest a platform in which to spread his position in our diocesan newspaper.  So thank you for clarifying that obedience is not necessary.  I thought it was SOLELY a bishop’s fault, when priests are loose canons. 

That, I believe, is a glitch in the system.  What well-run organization can survive successfully, with middle-managers not having to answer to superiors, in matters of great importance?  The whole purpose for having a top-down structure of authority, is so everyone will be on the same page, taking orders from above, allowing for accountability to superiors, should abuses take place.  So no wonder our RCC is in such bad shape.  Too many leaders are on different pages.

I also viewed the link Salus asked New Observer to view http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/j-kRwoZKjP and was surprised by it.  If priests are not accountable to bishops in matters relating to the Deposit of Faith, and bishops CAN IGNORE the magesterium/pope, we pew people are in trouble.

New Observer is correct when he/she asked, “So why hasn’t Benedict removed and replaced those in rebellion to his orders?”  The sad part is it was JPII that appointed all the bishops we have today.  Even my liberal-leaning, same-sex marriage supporting (presumably) bishop, doesn’t care if sound doctrine is taught, as long as the money rolls in.
It’s pathetic.  It’s not good leadership.  You sound like a wonderful priest - being kept down.  The RCC needs structural change, and I pray they will read Acts of the Apostles, and pattern our church by it.

Lastly, to all:
Regarding JPII praying with Buddhists, Hindus and Islamics, indeed false religions, and the claim that “All paths lead to God”, and JPII praying with them, I agree with New Observer when he/she wrote, “Meeting, witnessing or entering into discussions is one thing.  Praying with them, however, is non-productive, unwise and promotes equivalancy with Christianity.”  Amen to that!!!

Without a doubt, the Latin Mass.  I barely remember it as a child and attended English Mass most of my life.  I have had the opportunity to attend the Latin Mass for the past 3 years.  I have also been to English Mass when I could not attend Latin and although it is still Mass, it is not the same for me.  The Latin Mass is the most beautiful experience of the Mass.  It took me very little time to adjust.  I love the quiet solemnity and the beautiful Latin language. It is not dead, it is timeless.  It is more reverent and more respectful to God and I thank God for our beautiful priests who celebrate it in this form.  There’s nothing like it.

@ Born Again Cradle Catholic To answer your question about the Mass: I was a Lutheran pastor for a number of years before I became a Catholic, and I miss the strong musical tradition of hymnody that was solid in that tradition at the time I left to become a Catholic (sadly, no more). I’m not a fan of the pop-folk tradition that is current Catholic hymnody, and I don’t hear my congregations participate in the singing those songs, only the choir, but people seem to like that so I go along with it, even though it’s not how I would worship given my druthers and does not nourish me spiritually. That’s all I’m saying—because I am a priest and go where I am sent, I don’t have the freedom of a layperson to seek out a style of worship I might prefer, and I accept that, it goes with the territory. That really was the sole source of my lament.
With regard to obedience, what you say I said and what I said are two different realities. I adhere to the law and teaching of the Church on this matter, as expressed in its official documents Christus Dominus and Presbyterorum Ordinis, and will let those documents speak for me.

Rev. Paul -  Don’t be so sure people like the music.  They may not.  I attend two parishes every weekend.  At one parish, I HATE THE MUSIC.  But it’s a small parish with really nice people and a wonderful new pastor that KNOWS SCRIPTURE enough to put each and every reading into a frame for us.  I love his Masses!!!  He’s reverent & he has a true vocation.  He’s trustworthy & approachable.  He’s a good Christian man, who just happens to be a priest.

It’s a welcoming parish community, with all volunteer musicians because it’s a low-budget parish.  They have a keyboard, a guitar or two & singers.  Their music choices are sometimes hard to sing.  So I just sort of mumble through it.  Sometimes it’s frustrating because I want to worship through song.  But I sing from my heart, when the music choices are familiar, or easier to learn.  But there’s great doctrine in music!! 

I’m hoping this Advent 2011, with the word change in the liturgy, the music will be improved too.  It’s the CHOICE of the music.  Even in this low-budget parish, if it were just the keyboard & a cantor leading easier to sing hymns, I’ll bet more folks would join in.  I see others mumbling too. 

I LOVE SINGING THE GLORIA.  Even during Lent and Advent, when we are prevented from singing it in church, I sing it in the car, and in the shower!  When they make hymns EASY to sing, I sing at the top of my lungs in church too.  Believe it or not, a few people have told me they like my voice - even though I think I can’t carry a tune in a bucket - I just like to worship.  I really, really participate in Mass.  In fact, when the priest is blessing the bread and wine, at the Consecration, I bless myself, making the Sign of the Cross, and rededicating my life to Him, at every Mass.  At the “Holy, holy, holy!” = I picture myself worshipping in the Throne Room of Heaven, joining in with the angels and the saints. 

There have been cases of people who, as children, learned hymns, and later in life, when they have experienced tragedies (one was paralyzed in her teenage years, and underwent severe depression) what brought them out of it, and helped them through the trauma is the words to hymns that had sound doctrine.

So please, please— if you’re not hearing your parishioners singing along, please don’t presume they like it.  Why not put out a questionaire to your congregation, asking if they have a list of hymns that inspire them?  You may find yourself with a list of 50 easy to sing hymns that would encourage more participation.  It would be a win/win, because even more people may be apt to join the choir, which would LEAD the Mass and not serve as entertainment.  Speaking for myself, I dislike all the clapping after Mass for the musicians.  Where did that come from?  Ugh.
I sing.  So I do NOT clap.

Hey Cradle, I’ll buy into that.  And never did I expect to agree with my good friend Salus regarding the Novus Ordo.  While there are exceptions, some of the worst church music is now occurring in Catholic parishes.  Music every 90 seconds.  The mass has been kidnapped by modern day liturgists and music ministers on steroids.  At the end of mass—applause for the Lector, Eucharist ministers, for the Cantor, the Piano Player/Organist, Altar Servers, Ushers, Parking Lot Director, Coffee & Donut Servers etc.  It’s like a theatrical performance for the people in the pews.  How about clapping for Jesus instead?  And when you make a suggestion for one your favorite hymns, it’s “Oh, we can’t do that one because it originated in the (gasp) Protestant church.”  Or —“We can’t do that one because it’s “Christian.”  OMG !!!  “It’s Christian —someone will report us to the Bishop.”  Never mind that we already use many Protestant hymns except that our music people have changed the words.

New Observer - The OTHER parish I attend on weekends is in a wealthy area, the opposite of the low-budget parish I described above.  Hang onto your hats!! The budget for wealthy Sunday liturgy parish is a whopping $150,000 a year.  A 6-figure expense :( yet the pastor has to coax people to sing, sometimes even shaming us into it.

While I like to sing - and I always sing the Gloria at that parish because they make it easy w/ the melody - sometimes it’s just too much to sing ALL the hymns.  I like to reflect on the readings, and be still after Communion, rather than moved along so quickly, song after song.  In a way, Lent is nice.  All of it is trimmed down, by diocesan orders.

Most of the money must be spent on professional musicians and cantors.  That parish has the kind of music you described.  It’s okay in terms of the choices of hymns, which are fairly easy to sing.  And they have a lovely piano AND an organ too.  But there’s little time to pray - it’s too much of a good thing.  The pastor is, I guess, getting his money’s worth of music.  So it’s not really WORSHIP.  It’s entertainment, and he has to cajole the congregation to join in.  Hymns originating with Protestant writers are fine, as long as the doctrine is sound.

Matthew - how about writing an article where we pew people provide a list of our favorite hymns with sound doctrine to you, those that can be sung by ALL Christians?  I’d love to hear Fr. Paul’s favorite hymns too- those that would work in a Catholic parish as well as other Christian denominations, and that would be merely Christian.  There must be a lot of them.

This could build a bridge to our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, and serve a purpose.  It would be helpful to priests, like Fr. Paul, and to music ministers (that may only hear complaints, but few helpful suggestions) and it would be God-honoring, as all hymns are for Him.  It would help with evangelization and ecumenism.  I already have a list of my favorite Mass hymns!  How about it?

+J.M.J.+

This is a response to Born Again Cradle Catholic,

Again, I must re-iterate the importance of the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

This is probably the main problem that we have in the Catholic Church today which, in fact, no one in here has even addressed or commented about.

“The Way the Church Prays is how she Believes.”

Again!  I must provide this information to our readers since it has shown that there has been no comment about this stunning statement written by Fr. Carlo Braga - assistant to Fr. Annibale Bugnini, the author of the Novus Ordo Missae:

The response by Rev. Carlo Braga:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!”

Just to further emphasize my point about this important issue, I will provide an example on how the change in prayer leads to the change in belief and “doctrine” of the Catholic Church:

Feast of the Sacred Heart:

Traditional Rite - Post Communion Prayer   Novus Ordo - Prayer After
Missale Romanum 1962                         Communion
                              Current Sacramentary - Missal

May thy holy Mysteries, O Lord Jesus       Father, may this sacrament
impart to us divine fervor:  wherein       fill us with love.
we may taste the sweetness of Thy most     Draw us closer to Christ your
loving Heart, and learn to despise what     Son and help us to recognize
earthly and love what is heavenly, Who     him in others.  We ask this  
lives and reignest…                in the name of Jesus the
                              Lord.

Here is these set of prayers, you have a change in Catholic Church Doctrine.  Whereas, in the Ancient Rite prayers for this feast day, it directs us to pray for and focus on that which is heavenly and despise that which is wordly.  In the prayers for the Novus Ordo, same feast day, as you can see is very generic, there is no reference to Catholic Doctrine, also is very short and has stripped away all that should be prayed for on that feast day.  Because the law of prayer has been changed, the law of belief has changed as well. (i.e. Church Doctrine)  Remember the statement of Fr. Carlo Braga.

As we celebrate the Ancient form of the Roman Rite, it does provide prayers efficacious for the salvation of souls.  The way people pray nowadays is not centered on Christ and what we offer him, it is mostly centered on Man and provides for people an obscure and generic form of prayer.  (Vertical Dimension vs. Horizontal Dimension) The problem with the Novus Ordo is that it has the change in doctrine has circumvented the effect that people no longer pray anymore.  In the Novus Ordo, I have not met one Parish in my diocese that offers the Holy Rosary Before each Mass - Which is an important form of preparation for the faithful before the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Not one parish in my diocese offers the Holy Hour - Exposition and Benediction.  The only time when it is offered is during Maundy Thursday of Holy Week.  Where are all the chaplets? The Men’s Tabernacle Society?  Daughters of Mary?  Pilgrimages of the Spirit of Chartres?  Procession of the Blessed Sacrament during Corpus Christi Sunday?  ect…I can go on and on.  All of these are aimed for two things alone - For the Sanctification of Souls and Giving Glory to God the Father.  This, I know, is not taught in any of the Novus Ordo Parishes in my Diocese except one - where they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Traditional Rite.  Because there is more emphasis on prayer for the Glorification of God and the Salvation of Souls, there have been a large number of vocations at my parish and all have left for traditional orders.  It is a shame that because we have a Bishop who cares not to talk about the current crisis in the Church, there he is scrambling for vocations in the Diocese because the majority of them are old and retiring, the workshops and classes offered at the Diocesan Seminary do not produce any new vocations at a higher rate, I fear that the crisis in the Catholic Church will only get much worse to the point that Bishops around the world will see that in Traditional Parishes, they will see the fruits of their labor and will begin to realize that a change is necessary to keep their parish Churches going. 

Also Born again Cradle Catholic, you wrote:

While I prefer the new Mass, because I can be engaged in the worship and participate throughout, “FEELING” the spirit of the Communion of Saints (worship in Heaven and on earth) if I had a choice between the new Mass only with all the abuses (like liturgical dances, hootenany Masses) then frankly, I’d be in your group too, wanting High Masses only, in Latin, with the “priests back to the congregation”, and women wearing Mantillas.  When I was a child, “I wore a Kleenex on my head, with impunity!”

When attending the Traditional Rite, there should be no emphasis on “feeling”  because in reality, it about our soul and not about our senses.  Therefore, it is an intellectual, spiritual, and supernatural engagement with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that goes beyond anything that we can sense with our bodies.  As the saying goes - Remember man, thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return. (Ash Wednesday)

You also spoke about the “priest’s back towards the congregation.”  Again, you are only focusing on the Horizontal Dimension that the Novus Ordo provides - which is centered on Man.  In the Traditional Rite, the priest is facing “Ad Orientem” Facing East or Facing God the Father.  The Priest is then leading us in prayer and to God. 

You also mentioned about the issue of wearing a Mantilla and described your experience with that as - When I was a child, “I wore a Kleenex on my head, with impunity!”

Let me give you some background information on the purpose of the Chapel Veil:

First, for a woman to veil herself when attending Mass or participating in Eucharistic Adoration is an act of modesty. In doing so she shows that she understands the role of woman in God’s plan. Covering her hair does not mean a woman is ashamed of her feminine beauty, but that she is covering her physical glory so that God may be glorified instead. She shows her reverence for and surrender to God’s will by doing so. It is also a way of imitating Mary, our role model for chastity and purity.

Furthermore, it is a testament to the role of woman as a life-bearing vessel. The chalice which holds the Blood is veiled until the offertory, and the tabernacle veiled between Masses. The chalice and the tabernacle hold the Eucharist, they contain Life itself. Similarly, woman was created with the privilege of bearing human life.

Further information on veiling from a biblical sense - according to St. Paul’s letter to Corinthians:

Christian veiling is a very serious matter, one that concerns two millennia of Church Tradition—which extends back to Old Testament tradition and to New Testament admonitions. St. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:1-17:

Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God [i.e., if anyone want to complain about this, we have no other way of doing things, this is our practice; all the churches believe the same way]. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

According to St. Paul, women veil themselves as a sign that His glory, not theirs, should be the focus at worship, and as a sign of our submission to authority. It is an outward sign of our recognizing headship, both of God and their husbands (or fathers, as the case may be), and a sign of them respecting the presence of the Holy Angels at the Divine Liturgy. In veiling, they reflect the divine invisible order and make it visible. This St. Paul presents clearly as an ordinance, one that is the practice of all the churches.

Ad Iesum per Mariam!

I almost forgot to add this important piece of evidence about the increase of vocations at Traditional Catholic Orders.

The proof is in the pudding.  Please view these links on the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

Note:  View all the very young men who fill the ranks of these orders and there is a waiting list for both of these orders.

The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWw1WB71PT0

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5V_Oq0bJk

Pax!

I think I agree with Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) when he wrote that the Novus Ordo Mass is “...a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

Salus - You put thoughtful detail into your posts.  While I appreciate your enthusiasm, your thinking comes across like a modern-day Pharisee.  There is little heart and warmth in your writing, and a lot of rules and regulations instead. 

As for all the vocations in Traditional Catholic Orders, I wonder how many of those males are real MEN.  How many of them are emotional “man-boys” on an idependent Emotional Intelligence Quota scale, and how many of them would have homosexual inclinations?  That is a key point.  Do you have statistics on that?

I was shocked to learn that priests now age 47-60, have been in the seminary system since they were 14 and 15 years old.  The sad thing is even at ages 47-60, they’re emotionally still 14 and 15 years old, and after having been ordained 25 years.  So it makes no difference what kind of Mass they say - NO or Traditional.  They’re children.

Dear Born Again Cradle Catholic.  What is wrong with being in the seminary system for so long?  The seminaries that were orthodox of that era gave excellent formation, and were discerning as to whether the person had a vocation or not. 
A vocation is a calling that can come at various ages in one’s life. For some it does indeed come at a very young age. If that person feels called to be a priest at a young age, why should they not begin preparing themselves for a vocation that they wish to dedicate their entire life to.
The seminaries that were good in those past times weeded out the emotionally immature as well.
With the crisis that happened in the last number of decades sadly this was not emphasized as it should be, but that does not nullify the practice if implemented doctrinally, morally, educationally and emotionally correct.
Our Lady entered the temple as a child to live there until St. Joseph chose her as his bride.  She turned out pretty well.

+J.M.J.+

This response is for Born Again Cradle Catholic:

It shows that you lack knowledge of these Traditional Orders as well as their rigorous requirements to enter these seminaries.  It is not prudent to speak about such things if you do not have knowledge of them.

I am providing you the link to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest so that you may read about their seminary life.

http://www.institute-christ-king.org/vocations/seminary-life/

Also, I would address this question to their seminary or speak to a Traditional Priest from the Institute and ask them about their rigorous entry into the seminary.  I am sure you would learn a lot about them that way.

Secondly,  as a general rule, it is not prudent to make assumptions about these seminarians especially not on this blog site.  You could spark a faithful priest to tell you all that they have to go through.  To make assumptions about their manhood is ESPECIALLY uncharitable on your part.  I would advise you to learn about St. Joseph and how he relates to all religious vocations - for St. Joseph is the Protector of Holy Mother Church and the Patron Saint of Men in Religious Vocations as well.  Such are these seminarians who will be regarded as protectors of Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith.

As far as your following comment about what I expressed in this blog:

“your thinking comes across like a modern-day Pharisee.  There is little heart and warmth in your writing, and a lot of rules and regulations instead.  “

One of these days, you will learn and understand that as Traditional Catholics, we avoid getting into situations where it involves our emotions.  When it comes to our faith, we really do not apply an emotional aspect to our defense but rather a hard core emphasis on what is true and what Holy Mother Church teaches us.  Although we are Human, we must train ourselves to be prudent about our feelings, we are also not perfect.  However, we try and strive to live a perfect Christian Life and it is through the prayerful life of a Catholic that we must love our neighbor as ourself.  My comments only direct in being charitable to my neighbor who may not know or understand what it means to truly live our lives as Catholics and practice our faith.  If these “rules and regulations” do not appeal to your specific lifestyle, I would recommend that your sense of pride should not overshadow your obligation as a Catholic to be charitable, allow your soul to be cared for by a Traditional Priest, and follow what Holy Mother Church teaches for the purpose of sanctifying your soul and giving Glory to God the Father.

In te Domine, Speravi non confundar in aeternum. (From the Te Deum)
“In thee, O Lord, I have trusted: I shall not be confounded forever.”

Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea, quem timebo? Ps. 26
“The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?”

+Pax Christi+

+J.M.J.+

For those who wish to learn more about the Traditional Latin Mass and be given a great and complete commentary on each and every aspect of it by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, please view this link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Gotito7#p/a/f/1/R6AOvStZS64

The Commentary being given by Archbishop Sheen is on the Easter Sunday Solemn High Mass from 1941 at Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church, Chicago, IL.

Posted by Francis on Tuesday, Mar 22, 2011 3:51 PM (EDT): “Dear Born Again Cradle Catholic.  What is wrong with being in the seminary system for so long?”

Cradle’s reply-
Francis, our priests are supposed to be MEN.  The problem with accepting boys is two-fold:

1) they have no life experience, and what they are attracted to is the glitz and glitter of the priesthood, the ritual mostly, and it makes them into mere “Sacrament Dispensers” and
2) they are prevented from growing up into MEN.  With so many Catholics catering to them, and putting them onto pedestals, it further retards their emotional growth.  Our priest are not to grow INTO men, they are supposed to BE MEN when they are ordained, and being a man comes from life experience.

St. Paul wrote to Timothy about qualifications for men in ordained ministry, “For if a MAN cannot manage his own family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?”  Do you all know that a priest can adopt a child (even an infant) or children, with a simple okay from his bishop, but he cannot every marry a woman because she would be too much trouble for him?

1) The first thing God called “not good” in Genesis was for man to be alone and without a help-mate, a woman.
2) Look at what happened to Fr. Eutenauer - and he admitted it.
3) Look at what happened with Fr. Corapi, but I smell a rat with that one.  But his reputation?  Ruined.  Oh, my!
4) The churches own statistics (Thomas Plante, PhD from Santa Clara University) are that 22-45% of the clergy, priests and bishops, have homosexual inclinations.  Oh, my!  Pew people: wake up!  There are more important issues than having the Mass said in NO or in the Traditional.

If TLM - Extremest are right - the gates of Hell prevailed over the Church. Who needs to worry about outsiders attacking us? There are plenty of outsiders from within that are brutally assailing NOM (not NO) attendees and worshiping idols all in the name of Latin not Eucharist. To bad we can’t be looking back on this twisted sense of God in the history books, now.

+J.M.J+

With all due respect Cradle Catholic, your argument does not wash.  I have a couple of examples to share with you.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - God rest his soul, was born in 1895 and attended St. Viator College as well as entered St. Paul Seminary in Minnesota in 1913.  By that time he was 18 years of age.  He was ordained as a Roman Catholic Priest on Sept. 20, 1919.  He was the age of 24.

The Cure of Ars - St. Jeanne Marie Vianney wanted to be a priest since he was 4 years old and was born to humble farming family in France.  He was born in 1786, began to look upon priests as heroes around 1790 and was ordained a Catholic Priest in 1815.  He entered the Presbytery School in France in 1802 - He was only 16 years of age.  Due to the wars in Europe, he was unable to continue with his studies until much later.

St. Padre Pio was born in 1887 and knew that he wanted to dedicate his life to God when he was 5 years old.  He entered the novitiate of the Capuchin Friars by 1903.  By that time, he would be 16 years of age.

Cradle Catholic, I want you to consider these good Priests and ask yourself if they had homosexual tendencies or if they were not men enough to become priests.  The role of the priest is to offer sacrifice and dispense of the sacraments as well as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Again, I really think you should understand the vocation of the priesthood before you criticize those who are about to offer themselves body and soul to lead all souls to Heaven.  Who are you to question the intentions of young men who wish to enter the priesthood?  That role is only afforded to priests who can tell if a young man has a vocation or not.  Leave this decision to the candidate and the seminary and go about your business in trying to live your life through spiritual perfection as a Catholic.

+PAX+

Salas wrote:  “The role of the priest is to offer sacrifice and dispense of the sacraments . . .”  Salas, what you have described is the Levitical priesthood.  Jesus did away with that.  1 Peter 2:9 says:  “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood.”  Salas, Peter himself is calling all believers priests.

+J.M.J.+

Still, I have not received a response on the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi - and the comment from Rev. Carlo Braga on the change of Church Doctrine.  Is it difficult to respond to such an occurrence or example?  This is a major element that has introduced a crisis in the Church.  Any takers?

Ummm—-the Catholic Church, guided by the Successor of Peter, still believes that there is a difference between ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. Ministerial (i.e. ordained) priesthood in the Catholic Church is modeled on the Old Testament priesthood. As the ordination rite says, You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.

Rev. Paul, that is OT thinking.  In the OT, access to the Holy of Holies (where God resided in the Ark of the Covenant for the Hebrews) was only by and through the Aaronic priesthood lineage (the Levitical bloodline).  Sacrifice was necessary—first in the Tabernacle, which was the Outer Courtyard.  The priest would then wash himself following the “bloody” sacrifice at the Bronze Laver before entering the enclosed Tent of Meeting.  Inside the Tent of Meeting was the Table of Showbread directly opposite the Golden Lampstand.  Finally, facing the Veil to the Holy of Holies was the Altar of Incense which presented the priest as purified and cleansed prior to entering the Holy of Holies (God’s presence).  In the OT, this is where God dwelled.  Following Calvary, God now dwells inside every believer.  Each Christian is as Paul writes:  “Do you not know you are a Temple of the Holy Spirit?” —for He now dwells within each one of us.  We no longer require a “priest” to obtain access to the Father on our behalf for we now have immediacy and **direct** access on our own.  The OT requirement of priest as mediator was over and done at Calvary.  No more sacrificial ritual is necessary due to Jesus being the Supreme Sacrifice.  Man cannot improve upon that.  Regardless of what the ordination “rite” says —that is OT and not applicable in the NT.  Even Peter understood every follower of Christ is now a priest and did not present himself as special or unique to anyone else in the body of Christ.

New Observer, with all due respect, do you approach the altar daily and say the words of the Consecration?  Do the members of your parish then come to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.  Unless you are consecrated according to the order of Melchizedek, they are in for a bitter disappointment.  Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Old Testament, but to fulfill it.  Thank you for your valuable observation, Rev. Pluth.  I am really beginning to think that certain people posting here are moles.

New Observer, my thinking is the theology, doctrine and faith of the Roman Catholic Church. You are free to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, and to label the Roman Catholic Church’s theology of priesthood is Old Testament thinking. However, that is your personal theology and is not the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Your personal theology is contrary what is the purpose and role of the ordained priesthood Since this is a blog about Roman Catholic issues, I think that the distinction between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and your personal theology is germane.

Incidentally, there are also Old Testament verses speaking of the priesthood of all believers—St Peter got the idea from the Old Testament.

Well, the young priest at our parish did a Latin Mass with Gregorian chanters (yes, there’s a proper name for them) and it was incredibly spiritual.  What else can I say except that for the first time since I was 9 yrs. old, do I ever remember going to Mass and just ‘being with the Lord’ at the Last Supper.  And lo and behold that was part of the priest’s homily, that the latin mass gets you to ‘BE with Jesus’ and not have to worry about respones and ‘the peace sign’ (which I hate)-It drives me crazy and I dread that part of the Mass most because it takes away any reverenced mood you might be in.  So, for spiritual reasons I like the Latin Mass best. We followed the Mass along just fine with the book, one side Latin and one side English.  The Latin Mass for me was total ‘out of this world’, supernatural.  Besides, the devil hates Latin. And besides that, the entire world was praying the Mass in LATIN!  NOW THAT IS CATHOLIC COMMUNION!!!!

I loved not looking at the priest at the Latin Mass recently in my parish by a very young priest who knew his Latin beautifully. For the first time, I looked at the Cross and the Tabernacle!!!

A note about the NO Mass…we have priests, old and young who change things up so much with their own words, they love to hear themselves talk!, that the bell ringers (when we have them) told me that they didn’t know when to ring them since the priest changed things up so much.  We also have another visiting ‘snow bird’ priest who changes the gospel words…he will not say the word JEWS anymore - the word he uses is the people…so at Lent, its the people who crucifed Christ….well, that might be so with the Pope’s ‘new take’ on it but history is history as my diocsese told me and it is wrong for him to change the words unless it comes down from Rome…but he does it anyway and here comes another Lent with the priests own words…what will he decide to change next in the Mass according to his thoughts????

Rev Paul, thanks for your comment.  I agree with your understanding regarding the priesthood of all believers.  Your point made is absolutely Biblical.  Pastor/Presider/Teacher is still required.  This person role is still needed in church The idea or (role) of priest as human “mediator” based upon OT tradition between God and man, however, is negated by Calvary.  Levitical priesthood required succession from the tribe of Levi—a family tradition of priests for generations.  Chirst Jesus is now our High Priest.  He requires no successor because we know Him to be our eternal High Priest.  This is not my personal theology but that of OT Biblical history and Paul’s NT letter to the Hewbrews.

New Observer, thank you for witnessing to me. I have a Christian faith already, so no need to bother, and I am happy with the Church I’m in. If I want to convert to your church, I’ll let you know.

@Gina Nakagawa:  Perhaps you did not know that as woman of God, you as a believer in Christ Jesus, you are already “consecrated.”  Examine Deuteronomy 26: 19.  You have been set apart and made holy just as the Israelites were set apart and made free from Egyptian bondage.  No one is destroying the OT but rather it is a failure to recognize your role in the fulfillment of the NT.

Rev Paul, I am not requesting conversion to or from anything.  I do find your comment troubling.  I now understand your position to be that in order to have access to the Father, someone in your parish must go through you first.

I am well aware of my consecration to live the life of a Catholic Christian, but I have no delusions about being an *ordained* priest.  Perhaps that is the needed distinction.  I cannot say the words of consecration over the bread and wine and change their substance.  I cannot act in persona Christi in the confessional.  Thank you for your kind concern about my failure to recognize my role.  I appreciate your concern for my perceived lack of knowledge.  I know my role in my faith, and I know that I follow the Faith founded by Jesus the Christ upon the rock of Peter.  I still have the uncomfortable feeling that you are a mole.  I do think, however, that though they are pests, they are very cute. 

Additionally this has nothing to do with which you prefer, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin or in the Novus Ordo.  I also think that it is reprehensible that anyone should pick a venue such as this to attack the beliefs of any system of beliefs much less Jesus’ own Church.

Might I suggest that you set up your own web site and publicly invite Catholics to come to you to be advised about how foolish and ill-advised Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior of the world really was.

What was said to Rev. Pluth is exceedingly disrespectful and outstandingly arrogant(One of your confreres referred to me as arrogant.  It takes one to know one. That is sad and, yet, not surprising.  You belong to one of those sects whose mantra is a paraphrase of a line of dialogue from “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”  It was an excellent movie.  It is a miserable way of living.  For shame!

In case you are wondering, I am eating more spinach since you and “Cradle Catholic” entered the picture.

New Obserber,
While Old Testament Israelites were all “a kingdom of priests,” you might have noticed that only a few who were selected by God offered the sacrifices.

Don, point taken, but you had to be a Levite to be a mediator (priest) to offer sacrifice for the people.  We seem to have a fixation on that “title” while at the same time recognizing that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was the supreme and ultimate sacrifce.  If true, why is sacrifice still a requirement for the NT church?

New Observer,
Why is the Eucharist still a requirement for the New Teastament Church?  Because Christ said so:“This is my Body…Do this in memory of me…This cup is the new covenant in my blood, being given for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)  (By the way, notice the present tense in Greek.  The Eucharist isn’t a new sacrifice, but THE sacrifice being offered in God’s eternal time.

+J.M.J+

I shall end communication with New Observer with the following prayer set on every medal of St. Benedict, by the way, whose feast day was also on Monday.  I also advise all Catholics to obtain the medal of St. Benedict, The Scapular of Mt. Carmel, as well as the Miraculous Medal of Our Lady for protection against the forces of evil and the enemies of Holy Mother Church.  May they help and inspire us to carry on the protection of Holy Mother Church and defend the Roman Catholic Faith, the One True Faith against heresy.

“Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!

(Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)

I ask this to anyone that can answer my question:  These words “You are a priest forever…” referencing Melchezedeck is in the Bible.  Agreed. But I thought that was said about the coming of Jesus, as a prophecy, period, and it applied to Jesus, period.

When did those words begin applying to New Testament church members that were in the role of ordained ministry, serving as priests?

Please, please, I beg you:  when you answer that simple question, please just use the Bible to answer, or someone mentored by an apostle, and not the ramblings of some “father” that lived 400 years after Pentecost & had some visions of grandeur about the priesthood.  I have asked a simple question.  It should have a simple answer.  In advance, I thank you all.

Cradel Catholic,
I already pointd out that Jesus said “Do this in memory of me…This is the New Covenant in my blood.”
If you’re going to deny that Jesus meant what he said, you won’t accept that Hebrews 7 applies to Jesus and then to those who act in his name.

+JMJ+

Fr. Pluth,

In the midst of all the comments here, both good or bad, I want to wish you a blessed Feast of the Annunciation of Our Blessed Mother in Heaven.  Through her intercession, may she strengthen you with God’s grace to help you lead all the souls who are at your charge with all your sacrifices and mortifications.  May they all one day obtain the grace of eternal salvation in Heaven with you and witness the countenance of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ so that we may all love Him, serve Him, and be happy with Him for all eternity.

+PAX+

Dear Father Pluth,

May Our Blessed Mother, Mother of priests, shower blessings on you on this her most special day.  May her Divine Son bless you and yours.

+F. S. HS.+

In my last post, I asked how the words written about Melchezedeck being a priest “forever”, those written about Jesus, began to be applied to New Testament church members that serve in the role of ordained ministry, as priests.  Are we to think that even AFTER the death of ALL priests, they are priests FOREVER?  Are priests properly ordained, but that lived lives that were not worthy trust, still priests FOREVER in Heaven?

Hetero responded on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 10:42 AM with: “Cradle Catholic, I already pointd out that Jesus said “Do this in memory of me… This is the New Covenant in my blood.”

Cradle’s reply-
I don’t understand the connection to that verse, or the Hebrews chapter you referenced in your post, as documentation that any priest is a priest FOREVER.  Will you, or someone else, please elaborate further?

Also, Gina wrote to New Observer: “I also think that it is reprehensible that anyone should pick a venue such as this to attack the beliefs of any system of beliefs much less Jesus’ own Church.  Might I suggest that you set up your own web site and publicly invite Catholics to come to you to be advised about how foolish and ill-advised Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior of the world really was.”

Gina also wrote to New Observer: “You belong to one of those sects whose mantra is a paraphrase of a line of dialogue from “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”  It was an excellent movie.  It is a miserable way of living.  For shame!”

Cradle’s reply-
I have re-read New Observer’s posts with a fine-toothed comb.  I find nothing that would indicate that he/she deserves the nasty observations you have made, Gina.  In fact, much of what New Observer wrote indicates to me that he/she either was, or is, Catholic.  Most certainly, all he/she is doing is pointing all of us to God’s Word, and getting us to THINK.

I have identified myself as a Cradle Catholic, but since I have been willing to dialog about discrepancies I found in the Church and what I read in Scripture, even I have been accused of being “non-Catholic”,
“Protestant”, a “mole”, and even a trouble-maker.  I have had to defend my “catholicity” repeatedly, and it can get old.

So I will make an observation of my own:
I think most Roman Catholic pew people are ill-equipped to have a healthy and productive dialog with anyone that is not as brain-washed by the Magesterium, as they are.  As a result of not knowing the Bible en toto, they resort to making accusations about ANOTHER PERSON personally, and of making assumptions about who the person is, and what their motives are.

From what I read of New Observer’s posts, he/she is a God-fearing Christian, a follower of Jesus, and a member of the Body of Christ.  Gina, I would show restraint in making blanket statements such as, ““You belong to one of those sects whose mantra is a paraphrase…”, as you have absolutely NO IDEA of what you are saying, and I can only repeat what Jesus said on the Cross, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Further, I hope New Observer will forgive the low level to which these blogs sometimes sink.  +F. S. HS.+

I accidentally hit the incorrect button, so after this, you will not hear from me again.  I know that will break several hearts.  I must say I am sorry for all my “Popeye” moments.  .

Ordained priests are priests forever, but that does not guarantee that they will be perfect priests, or holy priests.  Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston wrote a beautiful prayer for priests that takes this into consideration. My adult Religious Education Class says it at the end of our meeting every Sunday. Witness what we are seeing now and how very hard that makes things for the good and holy priests who *are* among us.  The sins of priests will be fearfully punished.  Those who cause them to commit grave sin will be still more fearfully punished.  But good, bad or indifferent an ordained priest is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.  I think the passage in Hebrews foreshadows the acceptance of non-Jewish priests in the New Testament as everything and everyone in the Old Testament foreshadows the people and happenings in the New Testament.  That is why we cannot abandon it, or say it no longer applies at all.  Jesus said quite the opposite.

As to the “Magisterium” of the Church, that is something Jesus gave her. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of *hell* shall not prevail against her.  And I give the the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will be bound also in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.”  Magisterium means “teaching authority.”  It comes from the Latin word, “magister” (“teacher”).

I realize that members of certain Protestant denominations will not accept any of this.  I get upset when the words and wishes are denigrated.  I love Him very much, and if that makes me a babbling idiot, so be it.  I don’t question His Church nor do I question the authority He gave *His* Church, His Bride.  If that means there is something wrong with me, or my mentality, or my intelligence I proudly accept that.  I regret that I am inadequate to the defense of My Lord and Master.

Before I go:

Prayer for Priests-Richard Cardinal Cushing

O Almighty, Eternal God, look upon the Face of your Son and for love of Him, Who is the Eternal High Priest, have pity on Your priests.

Remember, O most compassionate God, that they are but weak and frail human beings.  Stir up in them the grace of their vocation which is in them by the imposition of the bishop’s hands.  Keep them close to You, lest the enemy prevail against them, so that they may never do anything in the slightest degree unworthy of their sublime vocation.

O Jesus, I pray
for Your faithful and fervent priests;
for Your unfaithful and tepid priests;
for Your priests laboring at home or abroad in distant mission fields;
for Your tempted priests;
for the lonely and desolate priests;
for Your young priests;
for Your dying priests;
for the souls of Your priests in Purgatory.

But above all, I commend to you the priests dearest to me, the priest who baptized me, the priests who have absolved me from my sins, the priests at whose Masses I have assisted and who have offered me Your Body and Blood in Holy Communion, the priests who have taught and instructed me or helped and encouraged me, ad the priests to whom I am indebted in any other way.

O Jesus, keep them all close to Your Heart and bless them abundantly in time and in eternity.  Amen.

Farewell.  God bless you.

+F. S. HS.+

Gina, you wrote, “But good, bad or indifferent an ordained priest is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

What will priests be doing “FOREVER”- offering sacrifices to God the Father?  If so, then on whose behalf will they be doing it?

And you wrote: “I realize that members of certain Protestant denominations will not accept any of this.  I get upset when the words and wishes are denigrated.”

Cradle’s reply - On numerous occasions, I’ve mentioned on this blog that I really am Roman Catholic.  While we don’t know for sure what denomination New Observer is [as he/she has never said] from reading his/her posts, New Observer knows a LOT about the Catholic Church, much more than most Protestants know about the Latin rite.  +F. S. HS.+

+J.M.J+

This response goes to Cradle Catholic:

Bible verses pertaining to the Roman Catholic Priesthood:

Psalm 109:4 “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.”

John 20:19-23 “Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Acts 6:3,6 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business…These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.”

II Timothy 1:6 (St. Paul to Timothy, whom he ordained) “For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.”

St. Francis of Assisi (later quoted by St. John Vianney): “If I saw an Angel and a priest, I would bend my knee first to the priest and then to the Angel.”

The Duties of the Priesthood:

The duties and powers of the priest are to confect the Eucharist at the Mass; offer the Sacraments of Penance, Communion, and Unction; to preside at the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; to solemnly baptize; to preach; to teach, guide, and sanctify his sheep. With ordination to the priesthood, a man has received the fullness of the Sacrament of Order. The symbols of this office are the stole, the chasuble, a paten with bread on it, and a Chalice filled with wine.

According to the Sacrament of Holy Orders:

Here I will focus on the elevation of men to the dignity of the priesthood.

Holy Orders is the Sacrament by which men become priests and are given a sacred power (sacra potestas) to act in total sacramental identification with Christ (i.e., to act in persona Christi) in order confect Christ’s Body and offer it up to the Father at the Mass for the remission of sins; to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Penance; to solemnly baptize; to preside during the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; to offer Unction to the dying; to preach; and to otherwise teach, guide, and sanctify their sheep. With—and only with—the permission of his Bishop, he may be delegated to offer the Sacrament of Confirmation, but to the Bishop alone is reserved the power to ordain other priests (though a priest may be delgated to ordain men to the sub-diaconate and the minor orders).

As in Baptism and Confirmation, the Sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient and can never be repeated once validly received; once a priest, always a priest (even if a priest is laicized and removed from his office, this mark remains).

As said, the minister of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the Bishop, and the matter of the Sacrament is the imposition of hands, which takes place during the beautiful ceremony of ordination. The form of the Sacrament is the words:

Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from Thee, O God, the office of the second rank in Thy service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.

Requirements:

A man who is to become a priest first receives the “tonsure”—i.e., he is received into the clerical state by being given a surplice and having hair shorn away at the crown of the head (over the last 400 years or so, the hair-shearing has passed out of use due to Protestant persecutions). With the tonsure, he becomes a cleric, but still has not received the Sacrament of Orders.

The tonsured cleric is then ordained to each of the Orders above, one at a time, receiving the power of each office, and ascending up through the ranks until he is raised to the dignity of the priesthood, at which time he receives the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Those of the Minor Orders are not obligated to pray the Divine Office or bound to the rule of celibacy (but if they marry they lose their office); however, once the Major Orders are entered into, there is no going back, and from the level of deacon on up, the actual Sacrament of Orders is received. Deacons receive partial fruits of the Sacrament, priests receive the totality of the Sacrament, with only Bishops having more authority.

+Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini; Qui fecit caelum et terram!+

+F. S. HS.+  Salus = we are a priesthood of believers, and we all have different ROLES in the Church, the ONE Body of Christ.  Yes, there are some MEN that are ordained, and commissioned to ministry.  But over the years, the ROLE has developed to the point where priests were so set apart from the rest of the Church (at least in pew people’s minds)that they have become like Jesus.  That is blasphemous.  It ought not be.  We have many problems in our Church, as a result of ignoring Scripture. 

The changes to the wording in our liturgy that will come Advent 2011 is not really that new anyway - it’s what we said PRIOR to Vatican II.  “I believe in God…” “And with your spirit..” - It’s like bell-bottom pants for women.  They were “in” in the 1970’s, and “out” in the 1980’s and then back “in” not long ago.  It’s not new, and neither is the wording to the liturgy.

Our Magesterium is focusing on things that have little eternal value - and it’s fiddling, while Rome is burning.  With parishes closing, and dioceses’ going bankrupt, we pew people need to focus on matters that are really important.  NUMBER One is to EDUCATE OUR PRIESTS in the Word of God so they can teach and preach it to us.  Not the catechism. Not what St. Francis or St. John Vianney said.  But what GOD SAID, in His inspired Word.

Reading ALL the verses you wrote from the NEW TESTAMENT, and comparing it with Paul’s writings, the conclusions you’re made (as a result of the Mageseterium’s teaching) does not jive.  We are a priestood of believers, “neither male nor female, not slave nor free..” but ONE BODY, with different roles.

Peter called himself another “elder” and every time someone wanted to REVERENCE even an APOSTLE, like Peter, the person was told NOT TO.  The same for angels - an angel told John the apostle to “get up”, and not to show any deference.  That does not square with what St. Francis (supposedly) said, and what John Vianney quoted.  +F. S. HS.+

+J.M.J.+

This response is to Cradle Catholic:

I still have not had any treatment from anyone on the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi from you or anyone else who has begun to attack the priesthood.  The change in the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi is an important piece of information that we as Catholics have to consider.

It is interesting how the argument has shifted from the use of the Forma Extraordinaria, to Church Doctrine, to the role of the Priest.  However, I have thrown in the element of the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi and STILL, I have not received anything on this issue.  In order for us to continue to have this dialog, you must comment on what Rev. Carlo Braga, assistant to the author of the New Mass, Annibale Bugnini about the change in doctrine in the church with the Change in the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi.  If you can do this Cradle, then I would be able to continue the dialog about the role of priests and their dignity and honor of their position as priests.  This has been a defining factor in the way society looks upon priests.  Anyways, I shall be waiting for your comment on the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi. 

If you have not followed along with this issue, here is Rev. Carlo Braga’s comment on the change of the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi again to jog your memory:

The response by Rev. Carlo Braga:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!”

Cradle Catholic, I want YOUR treatment on this and not New Observer.

+J.M.J.+

This response is also for Cradle Catholic:

Cradle, if you haven’t already read from The Telegraph, here is news about the Traditional Latin Mass.  I am sure that most modernist theologians and scholars as well as liberal bishops and priests will be in a tailspin once this gets going.  There will not be any loopholes in this instruction - you can take that to the bank!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100081356/the-traditional-latin-mass-in-seminaries-the-magic-circle-will-have-a-fit/

PAX

Salus- you quoted, “Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints”

Cradle’s reply-
I don’t think it really matters what words are used, frankly.  If the above quote were true, then the Apostles, and the early disciples and the early church members were NOT partaking in the Lord’s Supper, because they would not have had the proper liturgical words. 

My take is that what is important is:
1) Having the Holy Spirit inside of us BEFORE we are in Church, and going to church to be filled and nourished by Him through others.
2) Believing in the elements that we partake of - the Body and the Blood of Jesus
3) Being in Communion with each other, fellow believers, and with believers all over the world, & even in Heaven = the Communion of Saints.

If the above happens in Latin, great.  If it’s in English or Swahili, super.  It is the HEART.  “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” = what we do NOT want to hear, at our death.  We need to focus on matters of Eternal Value, that will outlive our time on earth.  Latin?  English?  Swahili?  All might go away- it’s the universal language of Love.  His Love.  Love for God.  Love for others.  That is eternal.

+J.M.J.+ 

Cradle Catholic:

How can you say that it does not matter what words you use???

Do you really understand the following phrase:  The Church’s Law of Prayer dictates her Law of Belief???

I will have you compare these prayers between the Traditional Rite and the Novus Ordo and see if your argument washes.

Mass of All Souls - Traditional Rite

O God, the Creator and Redeemer of all the faithful:
grant to the souls of Thy servants and handmaidens the
remission of all their sins; that through pious supplications
, they may obtain that pardon which they have always desired:
Who livest and reignest.

Mass of All Souls - NewRite

Merciful Father,
hear our prayers and console us.
As we renew our faith in your Son,
whom you raised from the dead,
strengthen our hope that all our
departed brothers and sisters will
share in his resurrection, who lives and
reigns…

If you look at these two prayers, it is not the matter of what words are used but how the prayer is expressed to reflect our belief.  The prayers of the novus ordo would not appear to offend protestants and non believers of the True Faith. 

Another question, what do you mean by -Proper Liturgical Words??? 

This is not magic, I hope you know.  This is all about prayer and how We as Catholics are to focus our prayer based on what Holy Mother Church has always taught and believed. 

Besides this, this is all the treatment you are going to give on this matter???  Even the Holy Father has quoted upon this issue on his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum.  It is in the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi that has called upon the need for the TLM to come to light again in the Church.

By the way, did you read the article I posted as well???

Also, I have other comparisons of prayers that you can look at if you wish.  It seems like the Novus Ordo was made so that protestants and non believers would not take offense to our Catholicity.

You quoted:

My take is that what is important is:
1) Having the Holy Spirit inside of us BEFORE we are in Church, and going to church to be filled and nourished by Him through others.
2) Believing in the elements that we partake of - the Body and the Blood of Jesus
3) Being in Communion with each other, fellow believers, and with believers all over the world, & even in Heaven = the Communion of Saints.

That is just it Cradle Catholic, this is your take and not the take of Holy Mother Church.  I would rather be in communion with the Church and the Saints in the following fashion:

1.  I go to Mass to Glorify God and offer my sacrifice to Him just as he offers His sacrifice to me upon calvary once more.

2.  It is my duty as a Catholic to attend Holy Mass and keep the day Holy by honoring him.  The Mass is what I have built my life around and it helps me in my everyday life.  If I could, I would attend Holy Mass on a daily basis, receive Holy Communion, and go to confession, but my state of life prevents me from doing this.

3.  To offer my supplications, reparations, beg for God’s mercy for my past life and the life I am to lead in the future.  I want to get to Heaven but I know that it will be hard and not all are saved if they do not live their life faithfully according to God’s will. 

Cradle, if you think you know you are going to Heaven just by thinking that you know the bible and know it word for word and proclaim the gospel your way???  Someone must have told you or taught you something awful because this is NOT what Holy Mother Church teaches.  I pray for your soul and the souls of others whom by no fault of their own are given the wrong teaching.  This is why we need to recover tradition!

+PAX+

Salus,  Please explain for clarity from the Traditional rite what is meant by “that through pious supplications they may obtain that pardon which they have always desired.”  What exactly is meant by this part of the prayer?

Also, are Protestants and “non-believers” the same?

+J.M.J+

For those who still do not understand the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi - Here is another prayer for comparison:

The Feast of St. Pius V

Collect Prayer - Traditional Rite

O God, Who for the overthrow of the
enemies of Thy Church and for the
restoration of divine worship didst
vouchsafe to choose blessed Pius as
supreme Pontiff: grant that we may be
defended by his patronage and so cleave
to Thy service, that overcoming all the
wiles of our enemies, we may rejoice in
perpetual peace.

Through our Lord…

Feast of St. Pius - Novus Ordo Opening Prayer

Father,
You chose St. Pius V as pope of your
Church to protect the faith and give you more
fitting worship.  By his prayers, help us to
celebrate your holy mysteries with a living
faith and an effective love.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ…

Let me ask, who do you think are considered as “enemies of the Church” in this prayer??  As you can see, the Novus Ordo Prayer takes away the Catholicity of the belief that the Church has always held and makes it less offensive to protestants and non-believers alike, thus changing the doctrine.

+PAX+

Salus Fides:
If you go back to the Latin, I think that you’ll find that the collect/opening prayer for the feast of Pius V was actually unchanged.  The differences between the unofficial English translation of the extraordinary form of the Missal and the soon-to-be-replaced ICEL translation of the ordinary form of the Missal probably come from the ICEL translators who back in the 1970s took the Good News Bible as their example of how to translate.
And I think that you’ll find that the “new” translation of the Missal will sound a lot like the “old” [pre-1970s] translation.

+J.M.J.+

This response is for Don:

What is an ICEL Translation?

Don, there is a change in the prayer and I have another example for you:

Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary - Secret Prayer
Traditional Rite

Enable us, we beseech Thee, O Lord,
to be fittingly prepared for offering these
gifts, and through the mysteries of the
most holy Rosary, so to meditate upon the life,
Passion, and glory of Thine only begotten
Son, that we may be made worthy of his promises:
Who liveth and reigneth…

Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary (Oct 7) - Prayer over the Gifts
Novus Ordo Missae

Lord,
may these gifts we offer in sacrifice transform our lives.
By celebrating the mysteries of your Son, may we become
worthy of the eternal life he promises,
for he is Lord forever and ever.

Don, your rational does not mesh with this prayer either.  Notice that the change in this prayer does not mention one word about the Holy Rosary.  If you were to read this prayer, you wouldn’t even know that this is recited on this feast day.  Tragically, a majority of people who are ignorant of these changes believe as you do and has changed Church Doctrine in the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi.

To prove that there were changes in the proper prayers for the Novus Ordo Missae, AGAIN - I must provide the response from Rev. Carlo Braga assistant to Rev. Annibale Bugnini who was the author of the Novus Ordo Missae and the change in the proper prayers - Braga admits to the change in the prayers:

The response by Rev. Carlo Braga:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!”

Don, I hope this information opens your eyes to what has destroyed the Church from within and in the present day, the Holy Father is desperately trying to recover the True Faith of the Catholic Church.  To further prove the Holy Father’s intentions, Summorum Pontificum was activated on Sept. 14, 2007 - The Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross - Which marks the recovery of the Wooden Cross, a battle fought by the Emperor Heraclius and the Persians in 628.  The Emperor succeeded in bringing the True Cross back to Holy Mother Church!

Salus Fides,
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy is the organization which provided the official translation that faithful Catholics have been using since the 1970s and has recently provided a “new” translation of the Ordinary Form of the Missal.
Are you really that ignorant of the facts concerning the debate over using the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form of the Missal?  And you claim to be opening MY eyes?

+J.M.J.+

This response is for Don,

Don, you still have not responded fully to my argument.  I am not ignorant anymore about these facts than you are.  Apparently, you have not read the response written by Rev. Carlo Braga.  This is the proof that I needed to understand the change in the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi.

Besides, the new translation of the Missal that we will have in advent of next year does not change much.  The only changes they are making is providing the proper translation of the Latin to English the Ordinary prayers of the Mass like the Gloria, Credo, Eucharistic Prayer I - Or should I say, the original Canon of the Holy Mass.  They are not changing the proper prayers of the Mass.  I would have to say that about 30% of the proper translation of the Latin to English was given to the New Missal.

So Don, calm down and try not to get me emotional about this.  This will not happen either.  Stick to the argument and not the passions.

+PAX+

+F. S. HS.+
Salus—Is it possible you are disregarding your own point about our Church leaders, the Magesterium, as being Holy-Spirit led, and that it is necessary for all of us to obey them, with no questions asked, or risk being considered as giving scandal to the Church, or traitors to Jesus, by even questioning what the Magesterium of 50 years ago decided?

I suggest this, because IF the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church led by St. Peter, and founded by Jesus Himself, and the Holy Spirit has been the real Leader of the Church, speaking through all the popes, and all the Magesterium consistently through all 2000 years, wouldn’t ALL the councils be directly from the Holy Spirit, & infallible too?

If that’s the case, Vatican II was 100% directed by the Holy Spirit, and it is infallible, and EVERYTHING that resulted from it, including the N.O., is from the Holy Spirit?

The Traditional Latin Mass is just out; the N.O. is in - and infallible, and from Jesus, if so.  And none of us, including you and the Traditional Latin Mass supporters, should be casting any doubt on the Vatican II developments, with the exception for bringing to our bishop’s attention clear abuses of the N.O. Mass, the way it was intended to be, you know, just not to offend Protestants.  Right?  Do you see how I came to this conclusion?  +F. S. HS.+

Salus, when St. Paul is hauled before the Jewish magistrate King Agrippa II on false charges, Agrippa tells Paul in Acts 26:28 “In a short time would you persuade me to believe ...”  Paul made a credible case for Christ which is most convincing to the Jew, Agrippa II.  Likewise to you, Salus.  Were you able to make a convincing case the mass celebrated only in Latin has a bearing on salvation I too would be persuaded.

+J.M.J.+

This response is for Born Again Cradle Catholic:

I do not disregard my own point about Church leaders, the Magesterium, as being Holy Spirit led.  As a Traditional Catholic, I recognize that which is contradictory to what has been transmitted in the true faith.  If I understand Catholic Church teaching and realize that there is something contrary to it and it is past off as Catholic Teaching, then there is error that exists in that teaching and it is my duty as a faithful Catholic to hold on to that which has been past down.  Papal infalability can only be displayed if he speaks Ex Cathedra - when teaching what Holy Mother Church has always taught, led by the Holy Spirit.

As you know, the Novus Ordo Missae was authored by Mgr. Annibale Bugnini.  This Mass was man-made and not inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Vatican II has been taken over by modern prelates who wanted to create a “world religion” that would accept other false religions and make them equal to that of the Church.(False idea of ecumenism) 

The Church teaches and defines as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,he possesses,by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

You should read the following Papal Encyclical that talks about Christian Unity:  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Cradle, you still have not answered any of my previous questions from your last quote.  What do you mean by proper liturgical words?

Still, you did not provide any treatment to the following article - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100081356/the-traditional-latin-mass-in-seminaries-the-magic-circle-will-have-a-fit/

I suggest you read them and get a sense of where the Church is headed.

+J.M.J.+

This response is to those who wish to know more about the Novus Ordo Missae:

Differences between the Traditional Mass and New Mass

Catholics always believed that the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed on the altar at the Holy Mass. By means of the sacrificing priest, the bread and wine is changed into the very Body and Blood of Our Lord at the moment of the Consecration. The words that the priest says at this moment constitute the Transubstantiation, a change of substance.

Quite different from this elevated notion of the Mass, the New Mass represents a shocking liturgical revolution similar to the Pseudo-Reformation of Luther and other Protestants.

Here are some keynotes of the New Mass that give it a Protestant tone:

•    The abolition of the sacrificial character of the Mass – We have a man-made liturgy in which mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been insistently removed, as well as any sacrificial tone, and only the notions of praise and thanksgiving retained. Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to emphasize the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice.

•    An emphasis on the memorial supper – According to this new conception, the Mass is principally a Communion service – a memorial of the Lord’s supper, a Protestant thesis emphasized by Luther in the 16th century. As Luther clearly stated, “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.” (2)

•    The priesthood of the faithful – The so-called priesthood of the faithful was over-emphasized and causes confusion with the sacramental priesthood. Catholic teaching is that it is the priest, and the priest alone, who is necessary for the Mass to be effective. To the contrary, the New Mass promotes the idea that the priest is a mere delegate of the assembly, and the people are an essential part of the “celebration.”

In fact, the General Instruction on the Novus Ordo states that the “people of God” celebrates the rite with the “priest-presider.” This equality between the priest and the faithful is what the Protestant leaders taught when they defended that the celebration of the “Lord’s supper” is realized jointly by the priest and the people.

What is the main difference, then, between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass? The traditional Latin Mass is the clear expression of Catholic teaching, which understands the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The New Mass was made to please Protestants, and for this purpose:

1. suppressed the sacrificial character of the Mass, denied by Protestants,

2. emphasized the Mass as a memorial and a banquet, as preached by Protestants,

3. stressed the role of the people as essential to the “celebration of the Eucharist,” also defended by Protestants.

The makers of the New Mass definitively wanted to favor Protestantism

There is the false notion many Catholics have that the New Order Mass is just a simple translation of the traditional Latin rite, with a few small changes here and there. This is not true. It is a re-write, and quite substantial one, undertaken by a commission set up by Paul VI to implement the Council’s teaching on the liturgy. (3)

The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.

Fr. Bugnini, the principal designer of the New Mass

Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (4)

A clear design to destroy the Mass

The designers of the New Mass have boasted endlessly on the novelty and revolutionary nature of their creation, and you can find many examples. I will only site one: Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated: “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” (5)

The critics have said essentially the same thing. Again, I will just cite one. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes, wrote that “the Novus Ordo Missae .... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent,” and that there are “implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” (6)

Based on these testimonies, as well as on the fact that the religious authorities have imposed that this New Mass be said everywhere, is it any wonder that so many Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence?

1. August 24, 2003.
2. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 202.
3. The ambiguous language of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the official document of Vatican II that deals with liturgy, is set out in Atila S. Guimarães’ In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, pp. 229-31.
4. L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.
5. Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.
6. Modern History Sourcebook: The Ottaviani Intervention, 1969, online edition.

+PAX+

Salus wrote:  “If I understand Catholic Church teaching and realize that there is something contrary to it and it is past off as Catholic Teaching, then there is error that exists in that teaching and it is my duty as a faithful Catholic to hold on to that which has been past down.”

Salus, you are in agreement with Martin Luther.

+J.M.J.+

Again, No one has brought up any real treatment on the Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi.  The only thing that has been presented to me by my confused friends is confused rational. 

I just would like to warn some of you, I am not particularly fond of anyone who insults, demeans, or disrespects a Catholic Priest who tries to give the truth about his priesthood, especially a Traditional Priest!  However, the best thing I could do is pray for that soul that he/she apologizes to that priest and is willing to go to confession for that.  If anyone did that to my parish priest, I would make sure that person gets an earful from me.  During this lenten season, I would refrain from using any slanderous language.

+F. S. HS.+

Wow - Salus, you shared a lot of information about which I had no idea.  Thank you.  I remember the Latin Mass, and I lived through the changes with the N. O Mass.  Of the two, and having read the Bible, I’d go with the New Mass, hands down, even after you wrote all that you did. I am not trying to be difficult, please understand I am very sincere in how I came to this conclusion.  Allow me to explain? 

You wrote:, “As you know, the Novus Ordo Missae was authored by Mgr. Annibale Bugnini.  This Mass was man-made and not inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Vatican II has been taken over by modern prelates who wanted to create a “world religion” that would accept other false religions and make them equal to that of the Church.(False idea of ecumenism)”

Cradle’s reply-
I can’t see that what you described above ever happened.  JPII met for a prayer meeting with other religions (and I objected to that…) but eevn then, it is still only acceptance of Jesus that is preached, as far as salvation.  With that said, it’s the Holy Spirit that draws people, and there are those that are known as “God-fearers” in Scripture, for whom God provides a way unbeknownst to me.  So ‘ecumanism’ with other religions is a touchy subject.  But all CHRISTIANS are one Body of Christ already.  Jesus’ real prayer was for Christian UNITY.  I can’t see how Christian unity is bad.

You wrote: “Catholics always believed that the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed on the altar at the Holy Mass.”

Cradle’s reply-
I believe Catholics are taught that at every Mass, it is the SAME sacrifice from Calvary that is still on-going, as new believers are saved every day.  It’s not “re-newed” or that would be like re-sacrificing Jesus over and over again, something Catholics are often accused of, and I’ve heard defenses against that.

But frankly, even the same sacrifice from Calvary does not make sense to me anymore - I used to think that was true, because that’s what I was taught.  But when we are Born-again, we are not continually being saved.  So when I go to Mass, I do not need to be AT Calvary anymore.

When we are born again, we are Justified, and that is a one-time event, where in Legal Terms, we are DECLARED Righteous by the Father, through Jesus’ Blood.  No more sacrifice is needed - at all, ever.

Jesus said, “Do this in Memory of Me” & we’re instructed to “not forsake the gathering of the assembly”.  So we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, all together.  I believe the NO folks got it correct.

At Calvary, and when Jesus died, He said, “It is finished.” - The veil in the Temple was torn, from top to bottom, indicating God the Father accepted Jesus’ sacrifice, and there was ACCESS for us to the Father, THROUGH Jesus. 

You wrote: “Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to emphasize the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice.”

Cradle’s reply-
When I read the Bible, and see what not only the early Christians did in Acts of the Apostles, but also how Justin Martyr described the Lord’s Day in his time, the NO Mass sounds correct, as opposed to the Latin Mass.

You wrote: “As Luther clearly stated, “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.” -
CRADLE REPLIES—- THAT’S CORRECT.

You wrote: “The priesthood of the faithful – The so-called priesthood of the faithful was over-emphasized and causes confusion with the sacramental priesthood. Catholic teaching is that it is the priest, and the priest alone, who is necessary for the Mass to be effective.
To the contrary, the New Mass promotes the idea that the priest is a mere delegate of the assembly, and the people are an essential part of the “celebration.”

Cradle replies-
Wow!  The NO Mass gets it right again!!!  Jesus is the only Priest that’s needed.  A human man, even an ordained man, is not necessary.  Salus, think about this: would Jesus hold His Church hostage to the whims of mere men?  No wonder I know fellow Catholics that say, “We need the priest to ‘bring us Jesus’”.  That is NO WHERE in the Bible, and the concept would be foreign to St. Paul, and even to St. Peter.

You wrote: “In fact, the General Instruction on the Novus Ordo states that the “people of God” celebrates the rite with the “priest-presider.” This equality between the priest and the faithful is what the Protestant leaders taught when they defended that the celebration of the “Lord’s supper” is realized jointly by the priest and the people.”

Cradle’s reply-
The NO is how the Lord’s Supper is described in the Bible!!  I am so excited to know this!!!

You wrote, “What is the main difference, then, between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass? The traditional Latin Mass is the clear expression of Catholic teaching, which understands the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary.”

Cradle’s reply-
If that was really Catholic teaching, then it was WRONG.  Salus, is it possible that from the time the Vatican instituted a liturgical Mass, UNTIL 1962, when the NO was instituted, the Vatican had it WRONG?  And the NO is actually CORRECT, and Scripturally sound?  I think so.

You wrote: “The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.”

Cradle’s reply-
Jesus’ prayer was for CHRISTIAN UNITY.  It looks to me as if the Holy Spirit WAS at work, with the NO, and used Fr. Bugnini, the principal designer of the New Mass, as you point out.

You wrote, “Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”  A clear design to destroy the Mass.”

Cradle’s reply-
I don’t see that as destroying the Mass, as much as honoring Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity, and for implementing what we know is in the Bible.  Salus, you’re making my day here.  I had no idea of any of this, and it’s really exciting.  What you see as a bad thing, I see as a great thing.  The Holy Spirit WAS in this NO change!!!  Now - any ABUSES must be corrected.  The devil is in the details, and often folks can go nuts with changes.  Liturgy MUST be respectful - as for the words, all liturgy must be God-honoring.

Lastly, you asked me what I mean by proper liturgical words - I believe even in non=Catholic Christian parishes, when the words Jesus used at the Last Supper are memorialized (“Do this in Memory of Me.”) those are the proper words.  Any Christian is obeying Jesus’ command to “do this”.
There are no ‘magic’ words to be said by priest or congregation - but rather, it is our heart that counts.  We worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

A final word about truth - it looks like the Vatican has been all over the place since they first came out with a liturgy - I think that was in the 5th century, but I may be wrong.  With that said, it’s possible the Vatican Magesterium was wrong too, from when the liturgy first started, until 1962!  Whoa.  That is sobering. +F. S. HS.+  Alleluja, He is risen!

+J.M.J.+

This response is to Born again Cradle Catholic:

I must admit that it was not my intention to change your perspective on the Catholic Liturgical Tradition of the Church.  However, someone has to stand and defend the Catholic Church from heresy and human error, however,  I do not wish to take the place of the great Church fathers and doctors of the True Faith.  But, it seems that you wish to continue to follow YOUR perspective on what the Catholic Faith should be in your eyes and not on what Jesus wanted us to follow in His teaching.  I wouldn’t say that you were being difficult with me but rather prideful in what YOU believe to be the truth in the faith. 

Sadly enough, one’s own opinion does not represent absolute truth in the sight of eternity fortunately enough.  God grants to those who wish to witness to the truth that special grace needed that is followed by enough prayer to say that one has been given the absolute truth of the matter when it comes to True Catholic Teaching!  Therefore, I follow Fr. Paul Pluth’s response and say, I also do not need any conversion to any of those false beliefs.

I wish to say, however, that in the light of what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has revealed to us that the Powers of Hell SHALL NOT reign against his Church and therefore, there is no power on Earth that will stop the truth from reigning in His Church.  We can all see that the Church is changing and is trying to recover it’s true self and there is nothing on this earth that can prevail against it.  The Heavenly Fire that engulfs the life of the Church and the souls that follow it shall burn bright such as the Saints and Martyrs who continue to be engulfed by the Sacred Fire of the Love of God and the Blessed Virgin Mary!

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

I have chosen three traditional Catholic Hymns which, in my opinion, signify the victory of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Our Blessed Mother in Heaven, the Communion of Saints, Holy Mother Church, and the faithful against Heresy, human error, Protestantism, attacks against Holy Mother Church, as well as the errors of liberalism and modernism in our Church today.  These hymns are in French, however, they all invoke that WE are faithful to God the Father, the Blessed Virgin, and HIS holy will. 

May these hymns inspire the listener to be engulfed by the Heavenly Fire that continues to engulf the Martyrs and the Saints who reside in eternal paradise with HIM! 

Nous Voulons Dieu!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbK5LgjxsSM

Nous voulons Dieu, Vierge Marie
Prête l’oreille à nos accents
Nous t’implorons, Mère chénie
Viens au secours de tes enfants.

Bénis, ô tendre Mère
Ce cri de notre foi
[Nous voulons Dieu, c’est notre Père
Nous voulons Dieu, c’est notre Roi.] [bis]

Nous voulons Dieu dans la famille,
Dans l’âme de nos chers enfants ;
Pour que la foi s’acroisse et brille
A nos foyers reconnaissants.

Bénis, ô tendre Mère
Ce cri de notre foi
[Nous voulons Dieu, c’est notre Père
Nous voulons Dieu, c’est notre Roi.]

Parle, Commande, Regne!  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8903k_parlecommanderegne_music

**Parle, commande, règne,
Nous sommes tous à Toi.
Jésus, étends Ton règne,
De l’univers, sois Roi.

Tandis que le monde proclame
L’oubli du Dieu de majesté,
Dans tous nos cœurs l’amour acclame,
Seigneur Jésus, Ta royauté.**

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es par la naissance,
Vrai Fils de Dieu, le Saint des saints ;
Et ceux qui bravent Ta puissance,
Jésus, sont l’œuvre de tes mains.**

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es par la conquête,
Au Golgotha, brisant nos fers ;
Ton sang répandu nous rachète,
Ta croix triomphe des enfers.

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es par Ton Eglise,
A qui tu donnes sa splendeur ;
En elle notre foi soumise
Voit vivre encore le Rédempteur.

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es par Ton vicaire,
Dont tu défends l’autorité ;
Par lui tu répands la lumière
De l’infaillible vérité.

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es dans cette hostie
Où Tu te livres chaque jour ;
Tu règnes par l’Eucharistie,
Gagnant les cœurs à Ton Amour.

Vrai Roi, Tu l’es sur cette terre,
Mais que bientôt brille à nos yeux,
Loin de la nuit et du mystère,
Ton beau Royaume dans les cieux.

O Marie, O Mere Cherie! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YDmA1k7u4&feature=related

O Marie, ô Mère chérie (Années 1870)

R. O Marie, ô Mère chérie,
Garde au cœur des français la foi des anciens jours !
Entends du haut du Ciel, ce cri de la patrie :
Catholique et Français toujours !
Entends du haut du Ciel, ce cri de la patrie :
Catholique et Français toujours !
Catholique et Français toujours !




1. Aux pieds de ta Mère bénie
Tombe à genoux peuple chrétien!
Et que ta bannière chérie
S’incline en ce lieu trois fois saint.

2. Console-toi, Vierge Marie,
La France revient à son Dieu;
Viens, souris à notre patrie,
D’être chrétienne elle a fait voeu.

3. Elle assiège ton sanctuaire!
Elle accourt dans tes saints parvis!
Pitié, pitié, puissante Mère!
Fléchis le coeur de Dieu ton Fils.

4. Rends la couronne à notre Père,
Confonds les méchants et leurs voeux;
Fais que le successeur de Pierre
Connaisse enfin des jours heureux.

+PAX+

Salus Fides,
Did you notiice that the country in which the hymns you cited where written, France, has gone Secular?  So what does that say about the effect of these hymns upon their listeners?

Salus, why do you persist in your criticizing of the mandates set by Vatican II?  You are not obeying the church and you are not obeying the Holy Father.

+J.M.J.+

This response is for Don:

Don, France is not totally secular as you would want to consider.  The Churches are still standing, The Traditional Latin Mass is still being said in France, Seminarians continue to pour into the French seminaries where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated, Traditionalists still attend the TLM at St. Nicolas de Chardonnet in Paris and at other parishes, St. Terese of Liseux is still the Patron Saint of France as well as St. Joan of Arc.  The bodies of St. Jean Marie Vianney and St. Bernadette Soubirous are still preserved and have not decayed after so many years along with other saints and martyrs.  The Church still exists in France.  I think these hymns are a testament to these facts.  As for the faithful who have strayed away from the faith, it is not entirely of their doing.  Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals will have a lot to answer for at the time of their particular judgement - just like you and I will.

+PAX+

Salus Fides,
Yes, the churches in France are still standing—as museums.
Do you eally believe that the Catholic Church is stronger in France than in the USA, even though in the USA Catholics are a minority (but a more evangelistic minority)?
The reason that France is a hotbed for those who left the Church for Traditionalist sects is because the CATHOLIC [“according to the whole (Church)] Church is so weak, because so many Frenchmen have turned secular.

Salus-  An Internet article just last week reported that MUSLIMS requested to use empty Catholic churches in France, for their prayer, because right now, they drop to the sidewalk 5 time a day, en masse, and pray to Allah.  That is pathetic.  I agree with Don Schenk,it is because most of our Church leaders are NOT ROLE MODELS, and they are WEAK MEN.

Teaching seminarians more Latin will not enable them to make DISCIPLES for Jesus.  You wrote, “I wish to say, however, that in the light of what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has revealed to us that the Powers of Hell SHALL NOT reign against his Church and therefore, there is no power on Earth that will stop the truth from reigning in His Church.  We can all see that the Church is changing and is trying to recover it’s true self and there is nothing on this earth that can prevail against it.”

Cradle’s reply-
Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever.  His church is also the SAME.  The Body of Christ is not a denomination.  The Body of Christ is composed of all persons that are “IN CHRIST” - anyone recognizing they are a sinner, and accepting Jesus died for THEIR own sins, and that TURNS to Jesus, asking for His Mercy, thereby gaining direct access to God (Salus, you can speak to God in Latin, French, English, etc - the Father understands all languages, and when you don’t know what to say, the Holy Spirit will speak FOR you to the Father, in ‘groanings’ of the heart..)

The Body of Christ - The Church - has ROLES for everyone to take part to make it work and grow. We are to 1) KNOW & LOVE God - we know Him through His Word 2) to glorify God - we glorify Him by making other disciples for His Kingdom 3) Love others - it is how we stay on track, focused on Him, and of matters of eternal value ... this world is not all there is.

Don - not only have Frenchmen turned secular, it appears as if weak Catholic leaders - all over the world, actually - have turned secular too.
We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world.  Many of these men rely on the world, and on wealthy Catholics to help them.

Check out the Vatican websites, look for photos of how our church leaders know how to party.  On each and every banquet table, are at least a half-dozen bottles of wine (and they don’t get 2 Buck Trader Joe’s Merlot that we’d buy…) and other delectibles.

No wonder there are so many seminarians studying to be priests these days.  First, look at the world economy - secondly, look at how boy-men of even average intelligence are treated. And we wonder why Muslims are clammoring to occupy the empty Catholic churches in France?  No amount of new Latin-speaking recruits are going to fill churches these days.

Kids are NOT STUPID, like I was, when I was a kid.  Salus - time to grow up.  The hand-writing is on the wall, & in France, it’s showing itself by the praying on sidewalks, 5 times a day & wanting to take over churches.  +Father, Son, Holy Spirit+ God, have mercy on Your people!!!!!

+J.M.J.+

This response is for both Don and Cradle Catholic:

Don, you quoted -“the reason that France is a hotbed for those who left the Church for Traditionalist sects is because the CATHOLIC [“according to the whole (Church)] Church is so weak, because so many Frenchmen have turned secular.”  I would argue and say that those who have left the church have left under the leadership of Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals who have the modernist and liberal agenda and have allowed abuses to go on in their dioceses, particularly the abuses and errors of the Novus Ordo Missae - from which you and Cradle Catholic Support.

I also believe Don that you are not a Catholic.  It is quite evident that you are not Catholic so, you can come out with the truth and say what sect you belong to.  Therefore, I pray for your conversion.  I may also ask Don, and I am just assuming here - you can correct me if I am wrong, what Lodge do you belong to?

Cradle Catholic:

You quoted saying -“it is because most of our Church leaders are NOT ROLE MODELS, and they are WEAK MEN.”

Salus response:  You are partially correct.  I would agree in saying that most of our Church leaders have lost their Catholicity and instead have turned to an enrichment of “Liberation Theology” instead of realizing their role as Priests, Nuns, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals - That is working for the salvation of souls and giving glory to God the Father.

I would also believe Cradle that you are a hardliner feminist.  The very responses that you have given in the past leads me to believe as such.  Feminism is an enemy of Holy Mother Church and attempts to fuel those movements who are for abortion or pro-choice.  Are you either one of these?

Cradle, you also stated -“Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever.  His church is also the SAME.  The Body of Christ is not a denomination.  The Body of Christ is composed of all persons that are “IN CHRIST” - anyone recognizing they are a sinner, and (accepting Jesus died for THEIR own sins, and that TURNS to Jesus, asking for His Mercy, thereby gaining direct access to God)

Salus Response:  This statement leads me to believe that you are not Catholic either.  However, I may also say that you could be Catholic to a certain extent - perhaps as what most Cafeteria Catholics are -“Charismatic Catholics”  Which is not the same as those who are part of the Roman Catholic Church.  If you have been baptized a Catholic, you are still attached to Rome but you have swayed from the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church.  I wouldn’t say that it was entirely your fault.  Again, it goes back to who was running the diocese you belong to and the priests who taught you along the way.  I pity those priests who are leading the souls in their charge into perdition.  I too, pray for your conversion.

+PAX+

Salus writes:  “I would agree in saying that most of our Church leaders have lost their Catholicity and instead have turned to an enrichment of “Liberation Theology.” 

You made this charge, so you need to explain yourself that most Catholic church leaders are now engaged in Liberation Theology.

Sweet Salus, you’re really starting to grow on me.  I have come to be fond of you - as well, since I’m in the Body of Christ, I’m called upon by Him to love you.  Thank you for praying for me - although I am already converted, each and every day, I pray for a filling with the Holy Spirit; mentioning my Cradle name before the Father, with Jesus Advocating for me, is much appreciated.

You wrote, “I would also believe Cradle that you are a hardliner feminist.  The very responses that you have given in the past leads me to believe as such.  Feminism is an enemy of Holy Mother Church and attempts to fuel those movements who are for abortion or pro-choice.  Are you either one of these?”

Cradle’s reply-
I am neither, Salus.  In fact, I have attended all the Pro-Life Masses and walks in my area, for 10 years, to stop the ungodly practice of abortion.  Just today, I asked my congress people to 1) DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND NPR and 2) every chance I get, I work for the preservation of traditional marriage, between one man and one woman. 

Further, I believe in Ephesians Chapter 5, in that a MAN is the head of a household, and only MEN are to be church leaders.  Women ought not be leading men, as priests or pastors, or even as we have now, as “Pastoral leaders”.  I am not a feminist.  In fact, I know you were only guessing, but calling me a feminist is more insulting than being called not Catholic.  All my actions, in private and in public, would indicate I am not only not a feminist, but I am ACTIVE in the preservation of God-honoring roles for men and women, per the Bible.

Of course, if a woman is doing a job equal to a man’s job, she should be paid equally for it-based on performance.  And women should have the right to vote, buy homes, etc.  But outside of that, it is MEN that are to be leaders in our church, and leaders in their homes; ideally, if we had more God-honoring men in political power across the world, and more God-honoring church leaders- they would be better role models and our world would become healthier, all for the glory of Jesus.  There is a book you may like, Salus, called “Passive Men - Wild Women.” It describes what happens, when men fail to fulfil their rightful roles. 

You also wrote, “However, I may also say that you could be Catholic to a certain extent - perhaps as what most Cafeteria Catholics are -“Charismatic Catholics”  Which is not the same as those who are part of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Cradle’s reply-
I do not identify myself with Charismatic Catholics, because, and this is just my own interpretation of the word, I don’t speak in tongues or go to Catholic Charismatic Conventions.  I feel uncomfortable, sort of like an “odd man-out” at those functions.  So I avoid them.

But I have Catholic friends that are Bible-literate, and they do speak in tongues that no one can understand.  As long as when WE TALK, we can talk in English and about His Word, I’m fine with it.

Salus, I’m fine with you too - even with your desire for Latin and the Latin Mass.  But what’s important is that we keep our noses in the Bible, and not exclusively in the Catechism, or reading News from the Vatican.  Only the Word, the Bible and it’s Truths, saves.

Lastly, Salus writes:  “I would agree in saying that most of our Church leaders have lost their Catholicity and instead have turned to an enrichment of “Liberation Theology.”

Cradle’s Reply-
Salus, you sound Protestant.

+J.M.J.+

This statement is for New Observer, Don, and Cradle:

I will end your repeated attempts for dialogue with the words of a strong and famous Bishop:

Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

+PAX+

Salus- Those wanting Jesus killed were the Jewish leaders of His day.  Based on what New Observer, Don & I, Cradle, have written, we serve Jesus, we do not want Him killed again.  Besides, His sacrifice was once for all.  He said, “It is finished.” then ascended.  Sacrifice is over.  God the Father, was satisfied.  We, His followers, are forgiven.

I must point out that the strong and famous Bishop did not do what Jesus did, in that Jesus came not for folks that were well, but for SINNERS, to call them to repent.  Jesus did not avoid sinners - He ate with them.
So if New Observer, Don and I were not already Christ’s followers, you should dialog with us. 

Lastly, that bishop should have known it was not Eve that was ultimately responsible for having been fooled by the devil - it was ADAM, the first weak boy-man to shirk his own responsibity to LEAD his household. Some things never change - God help us.  I think the bishop just had nothing to say to the communists of his day, and he avoided the conversation.  Did he really capitalize “Error”?  Oh my.

Salus- please read the Bible.  Ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you as you read it.  The Bible is God’s love letter to all of us.  All I’m trying to do is to get you to read the Bible.  How can that be wrong?

I am a sojourner I will becoming into full communion with the church this Easter Sunday, so my opinion might not mean much here, but I do prefer the Latin Mass to the novous ordo, because to me the novous ordo seems to be missing something.

+J.M.J.+

Pax Christi Patrick,

God has given you the grace to become witness of the Truth.  May the most Blessed Virgin Mary grant her intercession upon you to strive for the truth and to avoid the errors of the Devil, the World, and the Flesh.  It is my hope that you will continue to strive for the truth and that the flame of the Love of God help you to persevere in your quest for spiritual perfection.

My opinion does not matter either when it comes to the teachings of Holy Mother Church Patrick.  You and I have found the Traditional Latin Mass and I am sure that you will obtain all of the graces necessary to become a faithful crusader of the Eucharist!  I am from Texas Patrick, where are you from?

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

For those who are interested in learning about the Traditional Latin Mass, there is a very good and accurate clip about this Mass as the commentary is given by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.  He will provide every piece of information from the gestures to why the Mass is said in this manner.  The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place on Easter Sunday 1941 at Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church in Chicago, IL.  May God Bless You all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64

+PAX+

Salus:
Thank you for that video. I will watch it.
I do have a question. For example, during Lent (and Advent), my parish sings the Kyrie. Personally, I think that since these two seasons are penitential, singing should be less and things more solemn. Am I wrong here? Was this the custom in the Latin Mass; was that the difference between High and Low Masses, for example? One had more singing and the other less? How many Eucharistic Prayers were there in the Old Mass? I know of the Roman Canon. Were there others?
I noticed a post about there being more “feeling” and “emotions” today than maybe in the past, which tended to focus more on the spiritual. While those should not be the primary, I believe the Mass should engage all of our senses and powers: sight, sound, smell (I love incense), as well as mind, heart, soul, emotions; who isn’t moved by a beautiful hymn?

+J.M.J.+

Pax Christi James,

I want to thank you for your questions James.  I do not claim to be an expert in the Traditional Latin Mass but I thank God every day for a good teacher in our Parish Priest who gives a class on the Traditional Latin Mass.

For Lent and Advent, you are correct in that these two liturgical seasons are penitential.  The Church does require for the organ to remain silent during the season of Lent.  However, there is still a difference between the Low Mass (No singing in the Kyrie) the Missa Cantata (High Mass) Where the Kyrie can be sung without the organ, and the Missa Solemnis (Solemn High Mass) again where the Kyrie can be sung without the organ.  You can still have a High Mass and a Solemn High Mass for the Lenten and advent seasons depending on the Class of the Mass.  What I mean by classes deals with the specific feast days.  For example, The feast of the Annunciation is a 1st Class Mass and can be celebrated as a Low Mass, High Mass, or Solemn High Mass.  The 1st Class is the Highest class for a feast day.

You also asked, “How many Eucharistic Prayers were there in the Old Mass? I know of the Roman Canon. Were there others?”

There were no Eucharistic Prayers I,II, III, IV like there is in the Novus Ordo in the Traditional Rite.  This was just the Roman Canon and the Rite of Consecration which is included in the Roman Canon.

You also stated,“I noticed a post about there being more “feeling” and “emotions” today than maybe in the past, which tended to focus more on the spiritual. While those should not be the primary, I believe the Mass should engage all of our senses and powers: sight, sound, smell (I love incense), as well as mind, heart, soul, emotions; who isn’t moved by a beautiful hymn?”

James, these days and times do tend to reflect on the passions and senses.  You can see in the world today that all of our sense are constantly “bombarded” to appeal to our senses.  In the Traditional Latin Mass, the spiritual focus reflects on abandoning the world, the devil, and the flesh.  The world and the flesh are part of what engages us in our senses, so the intellectual (soul) should be our main focus and emphasis on our engagement with Christ and the Communion of Saints.  For it is truly taught by the Church that we give Glory and Honor to God the Father and provide supplication for the expiation of our sins.  Therefore, we must abandon the world, the devil, and the flesh, in order to communicate to God for that purpose.

However, you are right in saying that our senses can be used to focus on the smell of the incense, the beautiful hymns, all our mind, heart, and soul, are engaged on the primary focus of the one true God! We do not need to raise our hands in the air and sing out loud for God to hear us and become a distraction during Mass. Silence is where we let our soul hear God and we allow our soul to speak back to him. I would use an example that I use for myself.  Focus on the Saints and Martyrs who lived on this earth during their time.  They were engulfed with the Heavenly Fire of the Love of God that directed their minds and their hearts to Him.  They acted on behalf of their Love for God, His Blessed Virgin Mother, and of His Church.  Allow your mind to control your passions and your body and direct the Love that God gives you to Him!

I hope I answered your questions James.  I hope I didn’t fumble around my answers.

James, again, I want to thank you for your questions and I hope we can converse on a regular basis regarding the Church, The Traditional Latin Mass, and anything sacred about the One True Faith.  God Bless You!

+PAX+

Salus Fides,
I was a fan of Joseph Ratzinger before he became Benedict XVI; that is the “sect” that I belong to—the only “The” Church, not some breakaway sect that claims to be “really” Catholic.
And did you know that the French originally objected to the Tridentine Missal, prefering the “Gallican” one insead?
If you want to claim to be Catholic, follow the Pope and not some sectarian leader.

+J.M.J.+

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/u/1/YqM4KRiozk4

I will let this good gentleman do the speaking for me.

+PAX+

Salus Fides,
Do you mean that you refuse to accept the authority of the pope or of church councils like Vatican II?
Any way you slice it, that’s not Catholicism.

+J.M.J.+

I appeal to God and Our Holy Father the Pope!  His motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has brought me closer to my faith, the faith of my fathers, the true worship of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in communion with the Saints and Martyrs.  Heavenly Father, allow the burning flame of your Love engulf my soul so that I may continue to do thy will and not my own.  May all my mortifications, supplications, and sacrifices be a testament to my Love for thee.

MOTHER of mercy and of love, most blessed Virgin Mary, I, a poor and unworthy sinner, fly to thee with all my heart and all my affection. I implore thy loving-kindness, that even as thou didst stand beside thy dear Son as He hung upon the Cross, so wilt thou also stand by me, a poor sinner, (and by all the priests who are offering Mass here today and throughout the entire Church) [and beside all thy faithful people receiving the most sacred Body of thy Son]. Grant us, that by thy grace, we may (offer a worthy and acceptable sacrifice in the sight of the most high and undivided Trinity) [receive it worthily and fruitfully]. Amen.

O MATER pietatis et misericordiae, beatissima Virgo Maria, ego miser et indignus peccator ad te confugio toto corde et affectu; et precor pietatem tuam, ut, sicut dulcissimo Filio tuo in Cruce pendenti astitisti, ita et mihi, misero peccatori, (et sacerdotibus omnibus, hic et in tota sancta Ecclesia hodie offerentibus) [et fidelibus omnibus sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus sumentibus], clementer adsistere digneris, ut, tua gratia adiuti, (dignam et acceptabilem hostiam in conspectu summae et individuae Trinitatis offerre valeamus) [digne ac fructuose illud sumere valeamus]. Amen.

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+
From the 1962 Roman Missal

ANGELS, Archangels, Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, heavenly Virtues, Cherubim and Seraphim; all Saints of God, holy men and women, and for you especially my patrons: deign to intercede for me that I may be worthy to offer this Sacrifice to almighty God, to the praise and glory of His name, for my own welfare and also that of all His holy Church. Amen.

ANGELI, Archangeli, Throni, Dominationes, Principatus, Potestates, Virtutes caelorum, Cherubim atque Seraphim, omnes Sancti et Sanctae Dei, praesertim Patroni mei, intercedere dignemini pro me, ut hoc sacrificium Deo omnipotenti digne valeam offerre, ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui et ad utilitatem meam totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae. Amen

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

This is to clarify what our Holy Father’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum is, here are the basic points.

The main purpose of this Motu Proprio is to “provide precise juridical norms so that the Church can attain fuller unity” and “to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”

Summary of the Twelve Articles of Summorum Pontificum

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI (Novus Ordo) is the ordinary form to be used for the liturgy while the Missal promulgated by Pius XII and then by Bl. John XXIII (Missal of 1962) is the extraordinary form. The 1962 Missal was never outlawed.

In Masses without the people, priests can use the 1962 Missal except during the Triduum.

Communities or Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life can use the 1962 Missal.

The faithful who wish to attend the Masses mentioned in Art. 2 can do so with permission.

Where a group desiring the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal stably exists in a parish, let the pastor accede to their requests willingly. There may only be one such celebration on Sundays and feast days.

In Masses according to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII the readings can be proclaimed in the vernacular.

If the faithful cannot obtain the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal from their pastor, let them go to their Bishop, if he cannot accommodate them, let them go to the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

If a Bishop wishes to grant a request for the use of the old Missal and is somehow prohibited, let him go to the Ecclesia Dei Commission for advice and help.

Pastors are allowed to celebrate the sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and Confirmation according to the 1962 Missal as the good of souls may suggest. Priests can also pray using the Roman Breviary of Bl. John XXIII.

Bishops can erect a personal parish for the celebration of the Roman rite according to the older forms.

The Ecclesia Dei Commission is to have the form, duties and norm for action that the Roman Pontiff may wish to assign to it.
The Ecclesia Dei Commission will exercise the authority of the Holy See by maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of these dispositions.

Whatever is decreed by Us by means of this Motu Proprio, we order to be firm and ratified and to be observed as of 14 September this year, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

+PAX+

Salus:
I did not know that the organ was supposed to be silent during Lent/Advent. I do know I “felt” something wrong with so much singing during these two penitential seasons but couldn’t put my finger on it. By the way, I love the organ. I wish I could play it.
Also, agreed about being bombarded. It is everywhere. However, I think part of that is because we don’t want to be silent; our conscience might speak to us!
I think any prayer — including THE Prayer, Mass — should “go deeper.” We might start out verbally praising and worshipping but , ultimately, that should lead us to more and more silence. It’s like we “settle down.” I imagine that as one grows deeper in prayer — it becomes a good habit — that likely, prayer will be less and less voiceless and more interior. If you ever noticed, someone like Mother Teresa and John Paul II, among others, could carry on a conversation and yet fully pray the Rosary. That is something I imagine is not that common but perhaps it should be.
I am a Eucharistic Minister in my parish but it sometimes becomes too much. I can attest to the fact that reverence for the Eucharist — some people wear clothes the cat wouldn’t drag in but wouldn’t think of such a thing were it a party! — has dissipated. I cannot say with certainty why — I was born in 1964, so I never experienced TLM; as I wrote originally, the one weekend we had a “Nostalgia Mass” it was the NO in Latin — but it is a fact. It breaks my heart to see this but I try to start praying for these people. We used to have 40 Hours in our parish but haven’t for 14 years or so, ever since our then-pastor disrespected a number of priests concelebrating the closing Mass, having them seated in the front row and having a bunch of EM’s distribute, even to the priests! By the way, he hated the Rosary; I told people within weeks of his coming here that he was a “protestant in Roman Catholic collar!”
Let us hope and pray that the Bishops will be more amenable to allowing the Latin Mass more and more on an every-Sunday basis.

+J.M.J+

For those who continue to follow error, I would like to point out what our Holy Father mentions about the 1962 Missal of Bless. John XXIII as the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI as the Ordinary Form.  There are reasons for that.

Pax Christi James,

I like the organ as well, especially when it plays the Traditional Catholic Hymns that mean a great deal to us as Catholics.  If you would like to hear my Traditional Catholic Hymns, please visit my Youtube Channel:  http://www.youtube.com/user/Gotito7 I am trying to put more out in time to recover all that has been lost.

I agree with your understanding of prayer.  However, I also want to emphasize that as we continue to understand the interior form of prayer that the TLM also teaches us how to pray as well.  If you were to look at the 1962 Missal, the proper prayers - Introit, Collect, Secret, Communion, and Post Communion prayers, it helps us focus on how we should pray to God the Father and focus on the feast of that day so that we may give full recognition of the merits of the saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary.  My parish priest encourages us to also obtain older prayer books that will help us to pray more efficaciously.  Most modern prayers that are used in some prayer books either appeal to our senses or they appeal to a “Horizontal Dimension” (Centered on Man) rather than to a “Vertical Dimension” (Christ Centered.)

As far as the dissipation of the Reverence for the Holy Eucharist, the reason why reverence for Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist has dissipated is because people no longer believe in God’s presence in the Holy Eucharist.  The Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi of the Novus Ordo has affirmed that.  If people believed in the true presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, they would not dress immodestly, they would be going to confession to receive Christ worthily, they would be more obedient to God’s laws, and there would be more religious vocations.  If you do attend the TLM more often James, you will see the difference in these parishes.  I wouldn’t say that the faithful are completely at fault for this because it also reflects heavily on some of our Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals who do not believe in Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament either - which is a sad but true phenomena. 

Also James, just a little tidbit for you to follow as a faithful Catholic, whatever you have heard about the USCCB as a governing body, it isn’t true.  They are mostly an organization WITHOUT real power to dictate Church law.  Just read this article with excerpts coming from the Ratzinger Report:

First Sunday of February 2011: Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
The US Episcopal Conference

Some time ago (Sept. 16, 2010), Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR, gave a stirring and frank talk about the role and limitations of the USCCB. The US Bishops’ Conference is an entity which has no legislative power. Bishop Vasa quoted largely from The Ratzinger Report:



The collective does not substitute for the persons of the bishops, who… are “the authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care.”

Ratzinger confirms:

No episcopal conference…has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” Why does he insist upon this point? “Because it is a matter of safeguarding the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure and not on a kind of federation of national churches. The national level is not an ecclesial dimension. (The Ratzinger Report with V. Messori, ch. 4).

Bishop Vasa adds a few interesting remarks:

I have never seen or heard the conference, either as a whole or as a committee, make any remarks critical of what individual bishops might have done or failed to do in their own dioceses. I think the conference fully understands the limits of its jurisdiction; I could not say the same about the faithful at large.

These merely pastoral documents

are often couched in what could be described as softer or less rigoristic language… the vagueness, whether intentional or not, has occasionally been a cause of concern and even consternation. Sadly, since sound teaching is often rejected out of hand, the teachers who advocate a popular, ear tickling message are more likely to be admired and warmly received and accepted by our secular age. This contributes to an even further flattening of the message.

Quoting St. Gregory the Great, he concludes that “There is prudent silence, but there is also imprudent silence. There is indiscreet speech, but there is also discreet and bold speech.”

He ends his talk by giving examples of courageous bishops: Burke, Martino, Tobin, Olmsted and Bruskewitz [these bishops are labeled “courageous” because they are “conservatives” in the Conciliar Church and have publicly opposed certain liberal errors, earning them ridicule of some clergy], who “are acting not as members of a congress of bishops, but as individual bishops in their own dioceses. They have each shown a very serious determination to avoid indiscreet speech, while overcoming what would otherwise be an imprudent silence.” (“The Bishop and the Conference” at InsideCatholic)

It is certainly refreshing to see an American bishop stand on high ground and remind the Catholic world of truths long forgotten, like another John the Baptist preaching in the desert. Yes, the landscape around the Church in America is rather deaf to such preaching. Collegiality was the by-word at Vatican II for democratizing the Catholic hierarchy, the “October Revolution” to quote the arch-modernist, Congar. It was about to turn the papacy into an instrument of councils and of national churches until the Holy Ghost decided to stop short of heresy. The ambiguous decree [give reference of the document] of Vatican II still left the Roman power de facto neutralized ever since the painful experience of Humanae Vitae which saw one man, Paul VI, oppose for the last time a plethora of angered episcopal conferences. Never would the following popes dare to oppose openly such powerful illegitimate entities, which have no status in the nature of the Church founded by Christ.

So we have what we have altogether seen too much: a paralyzed central Roman power which is visible, at the mercy of an invisible distant lobby from overseas. We have individual bishops virtually powerless, due to peer pressure from above and pressure from below, demanding their submission to the episcopal conference. Here, what Bishop Vasa does not mention speaks louder than what irregularities he openly avows: a) the USCCB is saying much that means little, as colorless, tasteless and smell-less as water; b) the mental sufferings undergone by individual bishops whose positions are bitterly criticized by his colleagues only because they go beyond the flat statements of the episcopal conference; c) the de facto inability of bishops to run their dioceses as successor of the Apostles; d) the scarcity of episcopal initiatives and courage.

If Christ established his Church as a monarchy and not a democracy, it is for obvious reasons:

Because “the buck stops here” and we know who is ultimately responsible. This person is ready to put his head on the block if things go bad whereas “democratic” society nowadays is turning into a “plutocratic”, “media-cratic” and ultimately a “cryptocratic” society where the buck stops nowhere and nothing gets changed.

Because democracy forgets the plain principle that eminence is the lot of few and average people are mediocre and can produce only mediocre governments. And, at least a few decades ago, the cardinals joining in conclave vowed before God to elect the best candidate for the papacy; this did wonders. When the Church was not yet upside down, the bishops at large were truly eminent. Imagine a football team run by an average committee! You can be sure that it would never win the Super Bowl.

This also includes what priests have told me that the USCCB had voted to allow the use of receiving the Eucharist in the hand and standing.  This also includes the use of EM’s to distribute the sacred hosts.  Please do some research James and ask questions about these issues.  You are going to get some interesting answers.

+PAX+

+PAX+

there’s a website for proplr who want to be faithful to the Church’s—and Benedict XVI’s—vision for the liturgy:

http://www.adoremus.org/

+J.M.J.+

For those who are interested in the Church’s true teaching on ecumenism, please refer to one of the many Papal Encyclicals that followed the direct line of belief of the Catholic Church.

Please read:  Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI(1928)on true Christian Unity.  Obviously, anything in opposition to this great teaching can be considered error.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

+PAX+

Salus Fides,  I read your linked article issued by Pope Pius XI in 1928.

Pope Pius XI states:  8.  “This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”

Contrast the above papal document with the Gospel below:

Christ Jesus states in Mark 9:38-40-  ““Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”  “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

Surely, Salus, you will have a defense (weak though it may be) for the Pope preaching a false gospel contrary to the above passage in Mark 9.

+PAX+

Salus Fides,  regarding your linked article issued by Pope Pius XI in 1928.

Pope Pius XI states in Part 8:  “This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”

Contrast the above papal document with the Gospel of Christ Jesus below:

Mark 9:38-40:  “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”  “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

Salus, what is your defense for the Pope preaching a gospel contrary to the passage in Mark 9?

+J.M.J.+

Again, for those interested in reading about the True Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and the miracles performed:  This relates to the Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey who on November 8, 1565 was possessed by the Devil and demons and the Exorcism lasted until February 8, 1566 near the town of Vervins, Picardy, Northern France at the Church of Our Lady of Liesee in the presence of the multitude there. 

In this, Christ proved himself present in the Blessed Sacrament and commanded the demons out while the protestants, who tried to prove the Church and the Pope as false believers in Christ, attempted to exorcise these demons using their protestant prayer books but to no avail.

This is an account of what was made official by the Catholic Church as this story was given the Imprimatur by Archbishop McCloskey of New York 1884 and written by Fr. Michael Muller CSSR and was taken from Chapter 5 of the book titled:  “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”

http://olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml

+PAX+

New Observer: did you read 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 yet?

Don,
I am familiar with 1 Cor.

+J.M.J.+

Te Deum laudamus:
te Dominum confitemur.
Te aeternum Patrem
omnis terra veneratur.
Tibi omnes Angeli;
tibi caeli et universae Potestates;
Tibi Cherubim et Seraphim
incessabili voce proclamant:
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
Pleni sunt caeli et terra
maiestatis gloriae tuae.
Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus,
Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus,
Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus.
Te per orbem terrarum
sancta confitetur Ecclesia,
Patrem immensae maiestatis:
Venerandum tuum verum et unicum Filium;
Sanctum quoque Paraclitum Spiritum.
Tu Rex gloriae, Christe.
Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius.
Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem,
non horruisti Virginis uterum.
Tu, devicto mortis aculeo,
aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum.
Tu ad dexteram Dei sedes, in gloria Patris.
Iudex crederis esse venturus.
Te ergo quaesumus, tuis famulis subveni:
quos pretioso sanguine redemisti.
Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis in gloria numerari.
Salvum fac populum tuum,
Domine, et benedic hereditati tuae.
Et rege eos, et extolle illos usque in aeternum.
Per singulos dies benedicimus te;
Et laudamus Nomen tuum in saeculum, et in saeculum saeculi.
Dignare, Domine, die isto sine peccato nos custodire.
Miserere nostri Domine, miserere nostri.
Fiat misericordia tua,
Domine, super nos, quemadmodum speravimus in te.
In te, Domine, speravi:
non confundar in aeternum.

+PAX+

Salus Fides:
I don’t get the point of your post relevent to comparing the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Missal.  If you believe that choirs can’t sing the Te Deum, in Latin or English, with the Ordinary Form of the Missal, somebody forgot to tell the bishops at the cathedral I sing in; and if you believe that singing the Te Deum in parishes was common before Vatican II you’re mistaken.
New Observer:
If you’re familiar with 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, which states that since the Eucharist is a sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ we should examine ourselves before we partake, it’s your Gospel—that the Church should invite unbelievers to partake—that opposes the Scriptures.
If you believe what the Scriptures teach and the Church believes about the Eucharist you may receive a special dispensation to receive the Eucharist without letting Protestants know what you believe.  (One “Jesus rock” musician took advantage of this.)

+J.M.J.+

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

Beware:  Matthew 7:15-28

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

http://olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml

+PAX+

Salus, you wrote “...who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?”  Of all your comments, this one borders on insanity.  I see where you have now retreated to (only) centering upon Communion with the bread & wine.  The encyclical issued by Pope Pius XI accuses non Catholic Christians as practicing false Christianity.

Here is what Jesus said (again) for you Salus in Mark 9:38-40 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”  “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

The statement of Pius XI from 1928 is not centered on your rite of Communion.  I will not give you a pass on this Salus.  Your link is responsbile for many people reading this false teaching by Pius XI.

The ritual of Communion is not the topic.  How will you, Salus, defend yourself and defend the statement by your Pope Pius XI when Jesus says exactly the opposite in Mark 9:38-40?  Please now admit that Pope Pius XI is guilty of false teaching.

+J.M.J.+

Matthew 7:15-28——>  The disregard for those who perform iniquity in His name.

Direct line of Catholic Teaching

Papal Encyclical - Nostis et Nobiscum - Pope Pius IX (1849)(Protestantism) On the Church in the Pontifical States
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm

Papal Encyclical - Lamentabili Sane - Pope St. Pius X (1907) Syllabus Condemning the Errors of Liberalism and Modernism
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Papal Encyclical - Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - On False Doctrines- Pope Pius IX (1863)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Papal Encyclical - Notre Charge Apostolique - Pope St. Pius X (1910)On the Doctrine of the Modernists
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10notre.htm

John 16:13—-A reference to Pope Pius XI Encyclical Mortalium Animos -Part VIII

From the Athanasian Creed:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal….”

“...He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

http://olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml—-> A must read!

+PAX+

Posting by Salus:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.”

“This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

As I thought.  THANK YOU, SALUS—for exposing both yourself and the teaching of the Catholic church that only Catholics will attain heaven and Christians both denominational Protestants and Christian Evangelicals cannot be saved and are on the pathway to hell.  I wonder if Pope Benedict would “sign on’ to this?  John Paul II did not.

+J.M.J+

http://olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml—-> A must read!

+PAX+

Salus,  You have nothing to say to readers any longer except to post links up with PAX and J+M+J.  You have no defense and are unable to explain anything in your own words.  Everyone is still waiting, Salus, for you to defend why Pius XI is teaching a false Gospel contrary to Jesus in Mark 9.

+J.M.J.+

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

Beware:  Matthew 7:15-28

+PAX+

Salus, where is your faith to stand and defend what you say you believe?
Pius XI’s statement is contrary to Mark 9.  As Moses told the people:  “Choose ye this day whom you will follow !”  Do you, Salus, follow the Lord or the pope?  It’s alright if you admit Pius XI’s statement is false teaching.  Maybe this is something new for you to see as did the blind man at the pool of Siloam.  Those Pharisees who remained blind were the ones Jesus was upset with.  The blind man went through a progression of learning new truth about the Christ.

+J.M.J.+

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

Beware:  Matthew 7:15-28

THE EXORCISM OF NICOLA AUBREY

By Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

It is indeed a remarkable fact that, as the devil made use of Luther, an apostate monk, to abolish the Mass and deny the Real Presence; in like manner, God made use of His arch-enemy, the devil, to prove the Real Presence. He repeatedly forced him publicly to profess his firm belief in it, to confound the heretics for their disbelief, and acknowledge himself vanquished by Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. For this purpose, God allowed a certain Mme. Nicola Aubrey, an innocent person, to become possessed by Beelzebub and twenty-nine other evil spirits. The possession took place on the eighth of November, 1565, and lasted until the eighth of February, 1566.
Her parents took her to Father de Motta, a pious priest of Vervins, in order that he might expel the demon by exorcisms of the Church. Father de Motta tried several times to expel the evil spirit by applying the sacred relics of the holy cross, but he could not succeed; Satan would not depart. At last, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he resolved to expel the devil by means of the sacrament of Our Lord’s Body and Blood. Whilst Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, Father de Motta placed the Blessed Sacrament upon her lips, and instantly the infernal spell was broken; Nicola was restored to consciousness, and received Holy Communion with every mark of devotion. As soon as Nicola had received the sacred Body of Our Lord, her face became bright and beautiful as the face of an angel, and all who saw her were filled with joy and wonder, and they blessed God from their inmost hearts. With the permission of God, Satan returned and again took possession of Nicola.
As the strange circumstances of Nicola’s possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to “expose this popish cheat,” as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him. One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: “Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don’t you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!”
“I will expel thee in the name of God,” said the preacher, solemnly.
“You!” said the devil mockingly. “You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?”
“I am not a devil,” said the preacher, angrily, “I am a servant of Christ.”
“A servant of Christ, indeed!” said Satan, with a sneer. “What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe. Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!”
The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, “O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!”
“And I pray Lucifer,” cried the evil spirit, “that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master.”
On the arrival of the priest, several of the Protestants went away—they had seen and heard more than they wanted. Others, however, remained; and great was their terror when they saw how the devil writhed and howled in agony, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament was brought near him. At last the evil spirit departed, leaving Nicola in a state of unnatural trance. While she was in this state, several of the preachers tried to open her eyes, but they found it impossible to do so. The priest then placed the Blessed Sacrament on Nicola’s lips, and instantly she was restored to consciousness. Rev. Father de Motta then turned to the astonished preachers, and said: “Go now, ye preachers of the new Gospel; go and relate everywhere what you have seen and heard. Do not deny any longer that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Go now, and let not human respect hinder you from confessing the truth.”
During the exorcisms of the following days, the devil was forced to confess that he was not to be expelled at Vervins, and that he had with him twenty-nine devils, among whom were three powerful demons: Cerberus, Astaroth, and Legio. On the third of January, 1556, the bishop arrived at Vervins, and began the exorcism in the church, in the presence of an immense multitude.
“I command thee, in the name and by power of the real presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly,” said the bishop to Satan in a solemn voice.
Satan was, at last, expelled the second time by means of the Blessed Sacrament. On leaving, he paralyzed the left arm and right foot of Nicola, and also made her left arm longer than her right; and no power on earth could cure this strange infirmity, until some weeks after, when the devil was at last completely and irrevocably expelled. Nicola was now taken to the celebrated pilgrimage of Our Lady at Liesse, especially since the devil seemed to fear that place so much. Next day Father de Motta began the exorcism in the church of Our Lady at Liesse, in the presence of an immense multitude. He took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, showing it to the demon, he said: “I command thee, in the name of the living God, the great Emmanuel Whom thou seest here present, and in Whom thou believest.”
“Ah, yes!” shrieked the demon, “I believe in Him.” And the devil howled again as he made this confession, for it was wrung from him by the power of Almighty God.
“I command thee, then, in His Name,” said the priest, “to quit this body instantly.”
At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the devil suffered the most frightful torture. At one moment the body of Nicola was rolled up like a ball; then again she became fearfully swollen. At one time her face was unnaturally lengthened, then excessively widened, and sometimes it was as red as scarlet. Her eyes, at times, protruded horribly, and then again sunk deeply into her skull. Her tongue hung down to her chin; it was sometimes black, sometimes red, and sometimes spotted like a toad. The priest still continued to urge and torture Satan. “Accursed spirit!” he cried, “I command thee, in the Name and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly from the body of this poor creature.
“Ah, yes!” cried Satan, howling wildly, “twenty-six of my companions shall leave this instant, for they are forced to do so.”
The people in the church now began to pray with great fervor. Suddenly Nicola’s limbs began to crack, as if every bone in her body were breaking; a pestilential vapor came forth from her mouth, and twenty-six devils departed from her, never more to return. Nicola then fell into an unnatural swoon, from which she was aroused only by the Blessed Sacrament. On recovering her senses, and receiving holy communion, Nicola’s face shone like the face of an angel. The priest still continued to urge the demon, and used every means to expel him.
“I will not leave, unless commanded by the bishop of Leon,” answered the demon, angrily.
Nicola was now taken to Pierrepont, where one of the demons, name Legio, was expelled by means of the Blessed Sacrament. Next morning Nicola was brought to the church. Scarcely had she quitted the house, when the devil again took possession of her. The bishop who was requested to exorcise Nicola, prepared himself for this terrible task by prayer and fasting, and other works of penance. On arrival of Nicola in the Church, the exorcism began. “How many are you in this body?” asked the bishop.
“There are three of us,” answered the evil spirit.
“What are your names?”
“Beelzebub, Cerberus, and Astaroth.”
“What has become of the others?” asked the bishop.
“They have been expelled,” answered Satan.
“Who expelled them?”
“Ha!” cried the devil, gnashing his teeth, “it was He whom you hold in your hand, there on the paten.” The devil meant our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
The bishop then held the Blessed Sacrament near the face of Nicola. The demon writhed and howled in agony. “Ah, yes! I will go, I will go!” he shrieked, “but I shall return.”
Suddenly Nicola became stiff and motionless as marble. The bishop then touched her lips with the Blessed Sacrament, and in an instant she was fully restored to consciousness. She received holy communion, and her countenance now shone with a wondrous, supernatural beauty. Next day Nicola was brought again to the Church, and the exorcism began as usual. The bishop took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, held it near the face of Nicola, and said:
“I command thee in the name of the living God, and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the sacrament of the altar, to depart instantly from the body of this creature of God, and never more to return.”
“No! No!” shrieked the devil, “I will not go. My hour is not yet come.”
“I command thee to depart. Go forth, impure, accursed spirit! Go forth!” and the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament close to Nicola’s face.
“Stop! stop!”, shrieked Satan; “let me go! I will depart – but I shall return.” And instantly Nicola fell into the most frightful convulsions. A black smoke was seen issuing from her mouth, and she fell again into a swoon.
During her stay in Leon, Nicola was carefully examined by Catholic and Protestant physicians. Her left arm, which had been paralyzed by the devil, was found entirely without feeling. The doctors cut into the arm with a sharp knife; they burnt it with fire; they drove pins and needles under the nails of the fingers; but Nicola felt not pain; her arm was utterly insensible. Once, while Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, the doctors gave her some bread soaked in wine (it was what the Protestants call their communion, or Lord’s Supper); they rubbed her limbs briskly; they threw water in her face; they pierced her tongue until the blood flowed; they tried every possible means to arouse her, but in vain! Nicola remained cold and motionless as marble. At last, the priest touched the lips of Nicola with the Blessed Sacrament, and instantly she was restored to consciousness, and began to praise God.
The miracle was so clear, so palpable, that one of the doctors, who was a bigoted Calvinist, immediately renounced his errors, and became a Catholic. Several times, also, the Protestants touched Nicola’s face with a host which was not consecrated, and which, consequently, was only bread, but Satan was not the least tormented by this. He only ridiculed their efforts.
On the twenty-seventh of January, the bishop, after having walked in solemn procession with the clergy and the faithful, began the exorcism in church, in the presence of a vast multitude of Protestants and Catholics. The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of Nicola. Suddenly a wild, unearthly yell rings through the air—a black, heavy smoke issues from the mouth of Nicola. The demon Astaroth is expelled forever. During the exorcism which took place on the first of February, the bishop said:
“O accursed spirit! Since neither prayer, nor the holy gospels, neither the exorcisms of the Church, nor the holy relics, can compel thee to depart, I will now show thee thy Lord and Master, and by His power I command thee.”
During the exorcism, which took place after Mass, the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and said: “O accursed spirit, arch-enemy of the ever-blessed God! I command thee, by the precious blood of Jesus Christ here present, to depart from this poor woman! Depart accursed, into the everlasting flames of hell!”
At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the demon was so fearfully tormented, and the appearance of Nicola was so hideous and revolting, that the people turned away their eyes in horror. At last a heavy sigh was heard, and a cloud of black smoke issued from the mouth of Nicola. Cerberus was expelled. Again Nicola fell into a death-like swoon, and again she was brought to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. During the exorcism which took place on the seventh day of February, the bishop said to Satan:
“Tell me. Why hast thou taken possession of this honest and virtuous Catholic woman?”
“I have done so by permission of God. I have taken possession of her on account of the sins of the people. I have done it to show my Calvinists that there are devils who can take possession of man whenever God permits it. I know they do not want to believe this, but I will show them that I am the devil. I have taken possession of this creature in order to convert them, or to harden them in their sins; and, by the Sacred Blood, I will perform my task.”
This answer filled all who heard it with horror. “Yes,” answered the bishop, solemnly, “God desires to unite all men in the only holy faith. As there is but one God, so there can be but one true religion. A religion like that which the Protestants have invented, is but a hollow mockery. It must fall. The religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true one; it alone shall last forever. It is destined to unite all men within its sacred embrace, so that there shall be but one sheepfold and one shepherd. This divine Shepherd is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the invisible head of the holy Roman Catholic Church, whose visible head is our holy Father the Pope, successor of St. Peter.”
The devil was silent – he was put to shame before the entire multitude. He was expelled once more by means of the Blessed Sacrament. In the afternoon of the same day the devil began to cry: “Ah! Ha! You think that you can expel me in this way. You have not the proper attendance of a bishop. Where are the dean and the archdean? Where are the royal judges? Where is the chief magistrate, who was frightened out of his wits that night, in the prison? Where is the procurator of the king? Where are his attorneys and counselors? Where is the clerk of the court?” (The devil mentioned each of these by name.) “I will not depart until all are assembled. Were I to depart now, what proof could you give to the king of all that has happened? Do you think that people will believe you so easily? No! No! There are many who would make objections. The testimony of these common country-people here will have but little weight. It is a torment to me that I must tell you what you have to do. I am forced to do it. Ha! Cursed be the hour in which I first took possession of this vile wretch.
“I find little pleasure in thy prating,” answered the bishop. “There are witnesses enough here. Those whom you have mentioned are not necessary. Depart! then; give glory to God. Depart – go to the flames of hell!”
“Yes, I shall depart, but not today. I know full well that I must depart. My sentence is passed; I am compelled to leave.”
“I care not for thy jabbering,” said the bishop, “I shall expel thee by the power of God: by the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Yes, I must yield to you,” shrieked the demon wildly. “It tortures me that I must give you this honor.”
The bishop now took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and held it close to the face of the possessed woman. At last, Satan was compelled to flee once more. The next morning, after the procession was ended, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was offered up as usual. During the consecration, the possessed woman was twice raised over six feet into the air, and then fell back heavily upon the platform. As the bishop, just before the Pater Noster, took the Sacred Host once more in his hand, and raised it with the chalice, the possessed woman was again whisked into the air, carrying with her the keepers, fifteen in number, at least six feet above the platform; and, after a while, she fell heavily back on the ground.
At this sight, all present were filled with amazement and terror. A German Protestant named Voske fell on his knees; he burst into tears; he was converted. “Ah!” cried he, “I now believe firmly that the devil really possesses this poor creature. I believe that it is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ which expels him. I believe firmly. I will no longer remain a Protestant.” After Mass, the exorcism began as usual.
“Now, at last,” said the bishop, “thou must depart. Away with thee, evil spirit!”
“Yes,” said Satan, “it is true that I must depart, but not yet. I will not go before the hour is come in which I first took possession of this wretched creature.”
At last the bishop took the Sacred Host in his hand, and said: “In the name of the adorable Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – in the name of the sacred body of Jesus Christ here present – I command thee, wicked spirit, to depart.”
“Yes, yes, it is true!” shrieked the demon wildly; “It is true. It is the body of God. I must confess it, for I am forced to do so. Ha! It tortures me that I must confess this, but I must. I speak the truth only when I am forced to do it. The truth is not from me. It comes from my Lord and Master. I have entered this body by the permission of God.”
The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of the possessed woman. The demon writhed in fearful agony. He tried in every way to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. At length a black smoke was seen issuing from the mouth of Nicola. She fell into a swoon, and was restored to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. The eighth of February, the day appointed by God on which Satan was to leave Nicola forever, arrived at last. After the solemn procession, the bishop began the last exorcism.
“I shall not ask thee any longer,” said the bishop to Satan, “when thou intendest to leave, I will expel thee instantly by the power of the living God, and by the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, His beloved Son, here present in the Sacrament of the Altar.”
“Ha, yes!” shrieked the demon. “I confess that the Son of God is here really and truly present. He is my Lord and Master. It tortures me to confess it, but I am forced to do so.” Then he repeated several times, with a wild, unearthly howl: “Yes, it is true. I must confess it. I am forced to leave, by the power of God’s body here present. I must – I must depart. It torments me that I must go so soon, and that I must confess this truth. But this truth is not from me; it comes from my Lord and Master, who has sent me hither, and who commands and compels me to confess the truth publicly.”
The bishop then took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, holding it on high, he said, with a solemn voice: “O thou wicked, unclean spirit, Beelzebub! Thou arch-enemy of the eternal God! Behold, here present, the precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Master! I adjure thee, in the name and by the power of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who is here present; I command thee to depart instantly and forever from this creature of God. Depart to the deepest depth of hell, there to be tormented forever. Go forth, unclean spirit, go forth – behold here thy Lord and Master!”
At these solemn words, and at the sight of our sacramental Lord, the poor possessed woman writhed fearfully. Her limbs cracked as if every bone in her body were breaking. The fifteen strong men who held her, could scarcely keep her back. They staggered from side to side; they were covered with perspiration. Satan tried to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The mouth of Nicola was wide open, her tongue hung down below her chin, her face was shockingly swollen and distorted. Her color changed from yellow to green, and became even gray and blue, so that she no longer looked like a human being; it was rather the face of a hideous, incarnate demon. All present trembled with terror, especially when they heard the wild cry of the demon, which sounded like the loud roar of a wild bull. They fell on their knees, and with tears in their eyes, began to cry out: “Jesus, have mercy!”
The bishop continued to urge Satan. At last the evil spirit departed, and Nicola fell back senseless into the arms of her keepers. She still, however, remained shockingly distorted. In this state she was shown to the judges, and to all the people present; she was rolled up like a ball. The bishop now fell on his knees, in order to give her the Blessed Sacrament as usual. But see! Suddenly the demon returns, wild with rage, endeavors to seize the hand of the bishop, and even tries to grasp the Blessed Sacrament itself. The bishop starts back; Nicola is carried into the air and the bishop rises from his knees, trembling with terror and pale as death.
The good bishop takes courage again; he pursues the demon, holding the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, till at length the demon, overcome by the power of Our Lord’s sacred body, goes forth amidst smoke, and lightning, and thunder. Thus was the demon at length expelled forever, on Friday afternoon, at three o’clock, the same day and hour on which Our Lord triumphed over hell by His ever-blessed death.
Nicola was now completely cured; she could move her left arm with the greatest ease. She fell on her knees and thanked God, as well as the good bishop, for all he had done for her. The people wept for joy, and sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving in honor of our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. On all sides were heard the exclamations: “Oh, what a great miracle! Oh, thank God that I witnessed it! Who is there now that can doubt of the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar!” Many a Protestant also said: “I believe now in the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament; I have seen with my eyes! I will remain a Calvinist no longer. Accursed be those who have hitherto kept me in error! Oh, now I can understand what a good thing is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!”
A solemn Te Deum was intoned; the organ pealed forth and the bells rung forth a merry chime. The whole city was filled with joy.
This great triumph of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament over Satan occurred in the presence of more than 150,000 people, in the presence of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the city, of Protestants and Catholics alike. I have published a lengthy account of this extraordinary affair in a little volume entitled “Triumph of the Blessed Sacrament.” These facts are well authenticated by the accounts published in various languages – French, Italian, Spanish, and German, as I have shown on pages 13, 14, and 15 of the above-mentioned little volume.

The above was taken from Chapter 5 of the book The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. (Imprimatur: Archbishop McClosky, New York - 1884); published by TAN Books & Publishers.

Salus, my friend, don’t you see what you are doing?  Just coping & pasting what someone else wrote is not faith.  These things are troubling to you because you have never heard them before.  Put your faith in Christ first and not popes —especially when they issue a false gospel.  How is putting Chirst first making someone a Communisit or a devil?

God forgive me, please.  Why do people like New Observer dripping smarmy “kindness” and “understanding” call Jesus “raqa” and “fool”  I ask, “How dare they?” and my blood pressure explodes the blood pressure device.  After all how could Jesus ever set up *His* church the way *He* wanted it to run.  Who does He think He is anyway? God or something?  How very arrogant.  New Observer needs to read the Bible with understanding and Faith.  Hopefully, New Observer will learn something.  Read the Bible.  Accept what Christ has said whether you like it or not.  Stop attacking the Pope, the Eucharist, Mother Mary, the Saints and everything else that does not please your ego.  If you belong to a Protestant denomination, I can find the name of the founder.  I can guarantee it will not be Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Saviour of the world.  Have some respect for the Founder of the Catholic Church.  Have some deference for His Bride.  Put a lid on your ignorance.  Tell the Christ you regret your insults to Him and to everything He holds dear.  I know He will accept the apology. He does not need or deserve another thorn in His Crown.  God bless you at Easter and always.  I am ever a proud member of the Church Militant until I become, I hope, a member of the Church Triumphant.

To Gina Nakagawa- I noticed by reading New Observer’s comments that he/she merely points out to everyone what the Bible teaches, & encourages everyone of us to READ the Bible. The “BIBLE” = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.  Bible truths were revealed by God, containing important truths we must know.

Gina, you wrote: “I am ever a proud member of the Church Militant until I become, I hope, a member of the Church Triumphant.”

Cradle’s reply-
If you are a member of the Church Miliant now, you’d not have to “hope” you become a member of the Church Triumphant later.  You would KNOW you are a member of the Church Triumphant, now.  You would be certain of it - because God’s WORD is trustworthy.  The (Holy) Spirit inside of you bears witness that you’re a member of the Church Triumphant, now.

You would have already been Justified = a legal term, a status change denoting your position in Christ.  Right now, you would be going through the process of Sanctification that goes on until we draw our last breath. Then the next step is Glorification = with Him in Heaven, officially a member of the Church Triumphant. 

There is no “hope” for a Christian, in the usual sense of the word.  Unless you mean a “hope” that is 100% certain, total assurance that you are saved.  If you do not think you are saved, it’s likely you are not.  You may just be a member of the Roman Catholic Church - even one in good standing with your parish.

But that is not sufficient for being a member of the Body of Christ.  To find out what IS necessary, just read the Bible, which is where New Observer has been trying to suggest to everyone that we do.  I do not read N.O.‘s posts as drippy kind -I read all his/her posts as sincere.

N.O. is probably very sincere when N.O. says forget the Pope and picks and chooses what to send and what to ignore.  I do not question sincerity.  I never get satisfactory answers, either.  I did not say drippy, I said smarmy.  I may not please many people here, but, if you are going to claim concern for Jesus’ word you must accept it all.  You must accept the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of the New.  You must accept that The Woman is the conduit of our salvation.  I do not presume that I will be saved.  I have been redeemed by the suffering of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but like Judas, I can reject that redemption.  I am only praying that the fruits of my “tree” will be good fruits!

To Gina: This is the way I see it - N.O. is not saying “forget the Pope”. But when the pope, current pope or past popes, say something that differs from a teaching in the Bible, the Bible wins.  The pope loses.

Regarding what the Bible says, as a *whole*, I agree with you.  The OT is a foreshadowing on the NT. Correct! But we must DEFINE OUR TERMS properly.
“The Woman” is Israel.  The Woman is not Mary.  “Salvation comes from the Jews” - I don’t remember if that phrase is in the Bible, or not.  But, Gina, salvation comes from the Jews - Jesus was a Jew.  That is what that phrase means.  Note that God is not finished with Israel, even now.

Revelation is filled with references to Israel.  Mary’s job is over.  Mary does not become ‘re-pregnant’ with Jesus and start her role as His mother all over again.  Jesus does not become a little baby again.  Jesus will come again, as Victorious, His Name: Faithful & True - He will come with wrath at those that rejected Him.  If you are saved now, you & I and N.O., will come back with Him. 

I applaud that you are praying the fruit of your ‘tree’ are good!!  We are saved once, then we are rewarded after our death, for good works.  We are (as James wrote) “saved FOR good works” & “faith without works is dead.”  When we love God, we WANT to do good works for Him, and use our lives in a manner that glorifies Him.  That is what N.O. is doing too, by encouraging all of us to read His Word, the Holy Bible.  Encouraging us to read His Word is a Good Work, and it shows N.O.‘s good fruit.

If you are redeemed by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, you can’t be UNredeemed.  Judas was never “redeemed”.  Until he hung himself, Judas could have been redeemed.  But instead, Judas chose despair.  Judas did not trust Jesus.

Even on the cross, Jesus said about his killers: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”  The Roman centurian that said of Jesus, “Surely this WAS the Son of God.” - he was redeemed.  The thief that said, “We are being punished for what we did, but (Jesus) did nothing to deserve (being crucified)” - and He asked Jesus to remember him - he was redeemed.

Judas was never redeemed.  Judas just had a role to play in Jesus’ death, a death God the Father required, so all of us (you: Gina, N.O., myself, and whomever accepts it) can live forever in Heaven, with the Triune Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Our eternal life with God came at a huge price.  But it is a free gift to us, and when we accept, it is certain and it is never removed from us.

God is not what I’d call when I was a child, “An Indian giver” - meaning giving something to someone and then taking it back, if the recipient gets on our bad side after we gave the gift.  Is there another word for that now, so I can be more polictically correct?

+J.M.J.+

Gina,

I thank you for your comments.  I am not going to spend my time and waste a good mind with New Observer and dialogue with him.

As I mentioned before:

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

So Gina,  if New Observer can’t get it right, even with a logical argument, then we have expressed our Christian Charity.  I would say, just let him go.  He is full of errors and just focuses on the bible to explain his faith.  For us Catholics, we have our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we have our Saints to intercede for us, and we also have our Tradition.  There is only so much you can say or do to defend the faith.  This man is filled with the illness of pride.  All you can do is pray for this poor man and his conversion.  As long as you follow God’s will and his law with as much sacrifice as possible, he will see this and bless you with his Heavenly reward.

+PAX+

Salus posted “then we have expressed our Christian Charity.  I would say, just let him go.  He is full of errors and just focuses on the bible to explain.”

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again.”  Salus, how is that possible?

Instead of entering into productive dialog, you: (A) cut & paste writings from various sources and never use your own words, (B) resort to using Latin, (C) are unable to explain what you believe, (D) fail to address a clear Gospel error issued by Pius XI in 1928, (E) discount and belittle the use of God’s Word, the Bible as a tool for teaching, (F) call me evil and a Communist, (G) criticize John XXIII and Paul VI who are part of the Holy Magesterium whom you are failing to obey as a loyal Catholic to Holy Mother Church—which you have said is a sin to disobey the Pope, and (H) you have put forth writings which say all non Catholics are going to hell which Pope Benedict says is not true.  On that last one, Salus, check with your Pastor and see if he also agrees with you or if he agrees with Benedict.

Salus, you are typical of people who have no credible defense for their posts.  A Communist?  Really, Salus.  The Soviet Union ended in 1989.

Born Again Cradle Catholic,
So your Scriptural exegesis is that all the references to Mary in the New Testament after Jesus’ birth can’t refer to her, since Mary stopped being Jesus’ mother after his birth—and that therefore all of the references to her as the mother of Jesus’ brothers have to refer to natural children, not “the rest of her offspring” refered to in Revelation 12:17?
That’s one way of looking at it.

And New Observer,
My answer to the question of whether or not I follow Jesus or the pope is “Yes!”
You might have noticed that when Moses asked the Israelites if they followed God or not, he wasn’t telling them to leave him; he was asking them to chose between God’s chosen representative, himself, or the Protestants living back then.

New Obsercver,
If Pius XI’s statement was in opposition to your interpretaion of Mark 9, it wasn’t in opposition to Romans 16:17.

On the other hand, if you’re old enough to remember the way that the Tridentine Mass was celebrated at the average parish, you should be old enough to remember that the Feenyites were excommunicated back in the 1950s, before Vatican II, for promoting the heresy that only Catholics can get to Heaven (ironically).
(Father Leonard Feeney, their founder, was allowed to be reconciled back to the Church on his deathbed without mentioning his heresy, but that was a mercy to a dying man.)

Don, the passage from Mark 9 is not my interpretation but Christ’s own words.  Catholics delight in spinning the “your interpretation” card when things Jesus has said in the Gospel do not fit statements issued by the pope.  And if you wish to bring up Romans, should we assume you accept as doctrine everything Paul has stated in Romans?

How ironic.  Salus is announced into the starting line up and then disappears into the clubhouse.  You and Nakagawa need to then come off the bench and pinch hit for him.

+J.M.J.+

Now, I am sure that New Observer is a protestant.  Most of what he says is not in line with Traditional Catholic Teaching.  As our Lord mentions in John 8:42-44 :

“Jesus said unto them:  If God were your Father, you would indeed love me.  For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:  Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.  “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Then Our Lord goes on to say, “But if I say the truth, you believe me not.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  He was the only offspring that was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost.  She was free from any stain of original sin since the moment of conception in her mother’s womb.  She was conceived to replace Eve and to give birth to Jesus.  Therefore, as the mystery of the Rosary goes, She was crowned in Heaven as the Mother of God.

Now, I don’t really care that N.O. believes that Pope Pius XI teaching is false.  I really don’t expect him to believe.  However, it is in line with all the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church!  That cannot be denied. 

Also, I never criticized Blessed John XXIII as N.O. would have you believe.  You will never find a criticism of Pope Paul VI either as N.O. would have you believe.  Just look through all my posts and you will never find a personal criticism of either one of these pontiffs.

The Pope is Christ’s Vicar on Earth and we follow our sovereign Pontiff.  However, their actions can be criticized and what judges them is Catholic Teaching itself.  If one knows their Catholic Faith very well and understand’s its teaching, one would realize that it is the very teaching that will criticize the actions of any Priest, Nun, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, and Pope. 

Now, I would like to say that the devil would like the One True Faith to bow to him with reverence.  The devil does not care about these protestant sects because they are already bowing to him with reverence.  Just read the following true story:  http://olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml   The Church, just like I, will not bow to the devil, nor to New Observer, who is the follower of lies and is fixing to deceive the rest of those who follow these blogs.

As for Cradle Catholic, she has bowed to the devil and is easily spreading his lies as well.  She mocks the Most Blessed Virgin Mary (ET VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST!) and the teaching and will of her beloved son.  She does not believe in the Real Presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the most Blessed Sacrament - who only by a consecrated priest can transubstantiate and consecrate the most sacred host into the body and blood of Our Lord in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As for Don, he also has bowed before the devil in saying that he does not believe that one finds salvation only through Holy Mother Church.  Now, I would not agree that all Catholics go to Heaven.  That is an untrue statement.  It is indeed not easy to be a True Catholic, it is not easy to follow her teaching, and it is not easy to get to Heaven!  If one thinks that one reads the Bible, does good works, and acts like a good person, is going to get to Heaven is sadly mistaken!!!  As for Don, I would have to say to him that the Traditional Latin Mass is timeless, it transcends time and space, it never grows old!  If one has the belief that it does not transcend time and space, then they have no idea what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is.  Basically, I do not judge these people, but the teachings of Holy Mother Church does.  I am only a witness to this teaching and wish to stay within the sphere of Truth given to us by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!  I would encourage all those who want to know more about the salvation of souls through Holy Mother Church, please read the following teaching of the Catholic Church “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS” which means “NO SALVATION OUTSIDE the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”  I have additional encyclicals that support that teaching: 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#On Heretics

The Errors of Martin Luther:  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“Engage in dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again…?  We cannot accept such a dialogue.  We know what came of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil.  We were lost because of her…because she entered into dialogue with the devil.  You just don’t engage in dialogue with the devil.  You don’t engage in dialogue with the communists.  There can’t be any dialogue with Error.”

Beware:  Matthew 7:15-28

+PAX+

Salus,
Great to finally see you back in the game.  No doubt your miracle recovery from the IR.  You cannot be certain.  You do not like Catholics who do not agree with your thinking even accusing Don, Cradle and myself of bowing before devils.  Salus, it is you who sow lies and seeds of doubt concerning God’s Word.  I have all your posts and will publish them so that everyone will see your disobedience to Rome, your bishop and your parish priests.

““NO SALVATION OUTSIDE the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”  I have additional encyclicals that support that teaching says Salus.  More lies, Salus.  Benedict does not agree nor does the Magesterium.  Repent Salus, before it’s too late.  PAX.

+J.M.J.+

To those who read these posts, I can say that N.O. has resulted in publishing and posting my blog responses and threatening me to bring it to the attention of my parish priest, from which he does not know who it is, to my Bishop, from which he does not know who it is, and bearing false witness to me disobeying the Vicar of Christ in Rome and Holy Mother Church.  He does not know what my real name is.  Now, I wouldn’t mind being persecuted or threatened because I know that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is with me, through Holy Mother Church, The Blessed Virgin Mary would be with me to console me and strengthen me, I also know that I would be praying for the saints’ intercession to assist me while I am being mocked in Jesus’s name, and my Guardian Angel to give me counsel. 

I would rather die a martyr of Christ than to die in such sick ways.  If it means winning my salvation in this manner, then let be done to me according to God’s will.  I already detest the devil, the world, and the flesh as well as these petty threats.  I would gladly mortify my body for the Love of God and His Church.  I would gladly welcome N.O. ‘s persecution, his mockery of me and my belief in the True Faith, his attacks, as I shall continue to transmit the True Faith with devotion.  If it means going back to God the Father in this way, then let it be done according to God’s Will. This I attest, All for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, All for the Love of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Auxilium Christianorum!  For the flame of Love that I long for to be with Christ and the humility to ask for pardon and expiation of all my past sins.  For the intercession of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, that she may make my prayers more pleasing to God the Father as I ask for his mercy.  I plead to the Poor Souls in Purgatory and any of those whom I helped release with my supplications at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  May this become all encompassing to offer all my Love and my being to Christ my King!  “Sweet Heart of Jesus, BE MY LOVE!”

+PAX+

Salus, sweet Salus - Lighten up, please! I read his/her posts & New Observer did not mean to hurt your feelings at all.  Breathe.  Stay calm.

This is just a blog, where we can all share thoughts.  I’ve appreciated having your ideas, and most importantly, knowing how you came to think the way you do - I do not agree with all you write, but we need to all remember that it is “To God be the glory!” - and it is He we all serve.

New Observer,
As a Catholic I do accept everything that Paul wrote in Romans, because after all we’re the ones who originally judged that it taught what we believe.  It’s just your interpretation that we reject.
As for Mark 9, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians are, in some imperfect way, members of the one and only Church—in that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, most Protestants have valid baptisms, and all try to teach the Gospel.  that doesns’t mean that anyone who knows which Church is the true one has a right to leave it for one of the break-away sects.  So how do you feel about Romans 16:17?  Do you reject that part of Romans?

This morning I was listening to Catholic radio.  The subject was the importance of The Church being “apostolic”.  I always thought apostolic meant we were to be taught the truths handed down from the apostles.  I was wrong.  That’s not what is meant by the Magesterium’s apostolic.

From what I heard on the program, apostolic was focused almost soley on the handing down of power (authority) by church leadership.

As a result, I’m curious to know how we got our “Cardinals”, also known as “Princes of the Church”.  I ask because I’d like to know whose apostolic positions Church Prince: Cardinal Law of Boston, and Church Prince: Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles would have filled.  Can anyone please tell me?

+J.M.J.+

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#871

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly defines the Hierarchical Constitution of the Church.

They are titled as “Princes of the Church” because they are in a position of being the possible successor to the Pope and are involved in the membership of the College of Cardinals, who elect the new Pontiff. 

It is the Pope who appoints Archbishops as Cardinals.

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

I would also caution the listener of the expressed opinions of those who work for any Catholic Radio Network, even priests or bishops.  We still have a lot of priests and bishops who do not faithfully transmit the traditional teachings of Holy Mother Church.  Instead, they are expressing their liberal and political agenda that does not clearly relate to the Traditional Doctrine of the Church…i.e. Cardinals Roger Mahoney and Bernard Law have mostly expressed views of Liberation Theology - Peace and Justice Ministry instead of the Salvation of Souls, the Apostolic Teaching of giving Glory to God the Father:  To know, love, and serve God so that a soul can be with Him in Heaven.  Finally, the offering of Sacrifice as well as the dispense of the Sacraments.

+PAX+

Born Again Cradle Catholic,
When Catholics (and the creed) refer to the Church as being “Apostolic,” they mean that both the creed and the bishops of the Church come down from the Apostles.  (The first bishops were ordaind by the Apostles, they ordained their successors, etc.)
And the “college of Cardinals” is the electoral college for electing a new pope.  The term “cardinal” comes from the Latin “cardo,” or hinge.

You didn’t learn much about the Church before you left her, did you?

Don- You ADDED the Creed to “apostolic”, which is what I thought the term meant too.  I thought it was a body of belief, like the “Deposit of Faith”, in addition to the positions being handed down to each generation. 

But the way “apostolic” was described on the radio program was it was PRIMARILY the handing down of the positions of men only.  Nothing at all was said about the beliefs they taught, or, as you wrote, the Creed.
Apostolic, apostle.  Person.  Not a belief set.

I know the college of cardinals elects the new pope.  I did not know the term comes from Latin, cardo - hinge.  But my question was where did the “COLLEGE of Cardinals” come from, and where can I find the original members of it?

Are you saying St. Peter, St. James, St. Paul and the others were known to their early churches as “Princes”?  I want to know who the Princes were back then.  Do you know?

PS- Don, the last time I was at Mass was last Sunday.  And I’ll be there again this Sunday, God-willing.  So I never left the Church.  I only read the Bible, and I believe what I read - it’s so clear - so I SOUND like I physically left the Church, but I did not.

+J.M.J.+

To understand the dynamic effects of the “New Evangelization” of Holy Mother Church, please watch the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/2/KaQgqtiRDu0

To understand why these dynamic effects are occurring and the purpose for the “New Evangelization,”  please watch the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/0/ekN0Dcj_aJ8

+PAX+

to CRJohnston:
The way the NO estabilishment has treated traditional Catholics should give pause to why some TLM advocates can be quirky and seen as angry.
The fact that the Holy Father basically exposed the post V2 lie—- and it turly was a LIE, that the TLM was never abrogated.
How many sincere Catholics were ridiculed, made to feel crazy and left in a spiritual wasteland because their priests and bishops lied and wouldn’t offer the TLM, but would do any other kind of crazy liturgical experiment.
Father, you should have more patience and some compassion.
ALSO, you shouldn’t base your opinions on the TLM from those that are attached to it. The TLM objectively gives greater glory and honor to Our Lord and also better exhibits the truth of the faith regarding the mass. For this reason and this reason alone you should consider saying the TLM.
There is a book you should read about NO priests that returned to the TLM, they say it restored thier faith and priesthood. You should read it.

Born
Again Cradle Catholic,
When you read Titus 1:5, does your translation read, “I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to pass out Bibles in every town.”?  Mine says “to appoint elders.”
And 1 Timoyhy 3:15 calls the Church, not the Bible, the pillar and foundation of truth.
And “college” comes from “collegium,” a gathering.  The term is usually used to refer to an institution where tutors are gathered (a “university” is a college where a wide variety of fields are taught) but it’s also used to refer to our own “electoral college,” the gathering of electors for the election of our president.  The first pope was appointed by Christ (Matthew 16:18-19), for centuries the pope was elected by votes within the diocese of Rome, and then the pope made the vote for his successors more universal by appointing electors, or cardinals.

Don Schenk- Two questions:

1- What role did an “elder” fulfill in the early church?

2- Regarding the pillar & foundation of “truth” - what is the “truth” referred to?  Has that “truth” changed from the time the New Testament letters were written?  Is the book of Peter, James, and all of Paul’s 13 letters still “truth”?

By the way, I know “The Truth” is a PERSON= Jesus.  But even the devil believes in Jesus.  The devil just does not FOLLOW Jesus.  So the foundation of “truth” must be New Testament teachings, right?

1.)  The Greek “presbyteros” (elder) became our “priest.”  Read the esrly Fathers of the Church is you want to learn what they did.
2.)  But of course since, like Pilate, you ask “What is truth?”, you’ll deny what the early Fathers wrote, believing that there must have been a secret underground church that taught your beliefs.  But it was THE Church which collected and canonized the New Testament.  It was Protestants like Martin Luther who rejected books like James because they didn’t teach “the Gospel” (his doctrine).

Don-  It is my understanding a presbyter was to preach & teach the Gospel, and “deacon” was a service oriented, appointed role.  From there, our Church Fathers, Magesterium, etc., developed the role of priest to be:

1- priests “forever”, like Melchezedek - a title belonging ONLY to Jesus.
As if even in HEAVEN, we pew people will STILL need a priest to intervene for us to God.

2- priests are like angels NOW to “show us what it will be like to live in Heaven” - yeah, right.  Another one just bit the dust, a television priest from Los Angeles removed HIMSELF from ministry, for having a sexual relationship with his second cousin.  So much for that lofty goal.

3- We NEED priests to “bring us Jesus” - what Bible-literate person would believe that?

4- Without a priest, there is NO EUCHARIST - see question in point #3.

Between the necessity of the ordained priesthood, and the title of Vicar of Christ given to the pope - frankly, who needs Jesus?  Not Catholics. Looks like with the pope having the keys and the priests keeping the power and control, the “church” is running fine on its own.  = it amounts to PRIDE.  Read the Bible and learn the TRUTH.  The Bible is the inspired Word of God - & the church belongs to Jesus.  He is in control. He needs no ‘vicar’.

The 1965 Missal was the best of both worlds. But if I had to choose, and I do, I go with the 1962 Missal. There is something that bothers me about the break with the Tridentine Missal that was implemented by the Bugnini Concilium. “Stripping from out liturgy anything that is too Catholic and seperates out brethern” just seems too radical an agenda. And questions swirl around the NO and its’ conception. So growing up during the NO period I have switched to the Tridentine Rite. No abuses are blaring or outrageous to me if there are any. Therefore I don’t have to worry about what will happen next during Mass.

Born Again Cradle Catholic,
If deacons were only supposed to seve, not teach or preach, then St. Stephen the first-martyr would never have been stoned.  (See Acts 6 through 7.)
So you not only reject what the Church Fathers taught, you reject what the Bible teaches.
Denying what the majority of the world’s Christians believe (the Catholic Church by itself is half, and add the Orthodox and the “high-church” Anglicans and Lutherans and you get over 2/3rds) leads you into confusion.

+J.M.J.+ 

Pax Christi Mitch!

Your comments resonate the general movement which is taking place in the Church and the faithful.  It is through the grace of God that people are beginning to see and understand that Modernism and Catholicism are not the same Church.  However, as our Lord stated in the bible, “If you Love me, follow my commandments.”  With this, he does not mean just the 10 Commandments but also ever other commandment that he gives.  Most of all, people nowadays should follow the same example as the rich young man who kneels before Jesus and asks, “Good Teacher, What must I do to obtain eternal life?”  Jesus DID NOT respond in this manner:  “Do whatever your heart tells you and follow your heart…” as what most people like to think nowadays with their obscure, erroneous, and sentimental admonitions. 

Jesus tells the rich young man, “if thou wishes to gain eternal life, you must keep my commandments.”  The young man says that he has done so from Childhood and asks Jesus what else he is lacking, Jesus responds in like manner, “...you lack one more thing.  Give away all your possessions to the poor.  Then come and follow me and you shall receive the eternal treasures in Heaven.”  Again, Jesus gives a commandment!

Although Mitch, I must say that with the way some modernists throw their influence around in the Church, I would disagree with you in saying that we must not worry about what will happen next….we must always stand guard and protect Holy Mother Church and the very gifts that the Holy Father has given us and advance with his Motu Proprio - Summorum Pontificum! 

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

Case in point Mitch, look what has come out in these two articles posted by Catholic News Service concerning “World Youth Day 2011”  The so called “YOUCAT” Catechism that will be distributed to those youths who will attend.  It is quite unfortunate how the modernists work in the Church to lead souls to their damnation.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/world-youth-day-catechism-suggests-endorsement-of-contraceptive-methods/

and then…read this article:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/youth-catechism-publisher-says-contraceptive-language-not-in-original-text/

+PAX+

Salus - We are ALL called upon to “preach and teach” the Gospel.  But a deacon is a SPECIFIC ROLE in the Church, that is service oriented, by nature.  Look up the first 7 deacons that were appointed.

Stephen was only one of the 7.  Deacon’s were appointed as a service-oriented role, to be sure the Jewish widows and the Hellenistic-Greek Jewish widows were treated fairly.

Having deacons allowed the apostles to do what they were intended to do -
preach and teach, as ordained to that ROLE, and not to wear so many hats.
Unfortunately, today, our pastors and priests are back to wearing too many hats again.

So even with that, our church ignores Biblical wisdom.  Even in Vatican documents (I can’t tell you which one, but I remembered reading a papal encyclical on the priesthood, & the duties of the priest) it is written that a priest should PRIMARILY, Teach and Preach the Word.

That’s another point about which the Vatican is correct, but they do not follow through with EDUCATION for the priesthood, so they can be good preachers.  Bishops are all over the place, in terms of what they consider important, and it leaves us pew people with weak teaching, from the top, down.

Further, church leaders (and our own bishops and priests) are causing what they say to be irrelevant.  After all, how can they have much impact, when we only hear them preach for 7 minutes every Sunday, and as a rule, they do not preach about what Paul wrote.  Paul is KEY to understanding Christianity.

Instead, the Vatican spends its time working endless hours on something like this - liturgy: should it have more Latin or more English?—and then they wonder why the morals of the world is going to hell in a handbasket.  The apostles focused on what was of NUMBER ONE importance:
being credible by teaching the Word.

Paul writes about that somewhere in Thessalonians.  I forgot where.  But it specifically talks about the importance of teaching God’s Word.  If there are clergymen in Rome that are well-versed in God’s New Testament Word, they’re being ignored too… just like the Vatican ignores Paul.

+J.M.J.+

Cradle Catholic,

As a spiritual exercise, I give a charitable admonition to ask you to read and hear the following:

St. Paul

Letter to the Romans Chapters 7-13.  Douay-Rheims Bible (Latin Vulgate)

Also, listen to these excellent Lenten Mission talks given by a priest who is growing in Holiness - I am sure you will learn a lot from him:

http://homeplanotx.gotdns.com/DISK 1/Fr_Rodriguez_all/2010 Lenten Mission

If you complain about these priests, then you have been listening to the wrong priests who give a watered-down modernistic version of the True Catholic Faith.

Also, just to inform you, this is from a Diocesan Priest.

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

If anyone wishes to hear very good sermons from priests who are trying to grow in holiness, please go to the following website:

www.audiosancto.org

You will definitely learn a lot about the True Catholic Faith.  Ask yourself, is this how your own parish priest teaches?  I would also recommend that you do not follow what is to your liking but what pertains to the truth about our faith!

+PAX+

Salus - thank you for the links.  I’ll look into them.  For the record, I really appreciate priests that just teach the Bible as it is, and those that don’t try to twist the meaning into what they want it to say.

The first thing I ask myself, when I read the Bible is, “What is it saying?”  Secondly, I ask, “Can this be interpreted literally?”  Third is, “What would the original readers thought of it?” - that’s the best way to know the real meaning of a verse.  Read it in context.  I hope these priests you have recommended do that too.  I’ll look into this.

Here in the diocese of Saltillo, there is not even the remotest possibility that celebrating the Mass in an unknown language would de seen as in any way desirable. Perhaps the North American fixation with a 45 minute Mass has more to do with some people’s displeasure than the rite itself. A Mass that is longer because the priest lacks confidence in the rhythm of the rite and chats away is also a shame. As a child I was at plenty of bad liturgy done in Latin. Bad liturgy in any language or in any rite is just bad; but even so, Christ does make himself present.

+J.M.J.+

Pax Christi Father Coogan,

I will assert that if prospective seminarians were presented before a Priest with the Knowledge of the Faith and were determined to have a vocation, I am sure that you are going to have a seminarian who will recognize and understand that he is going to be a priest forever, “Tu es sacerdos in aeternam…”  and will understand that as a priest, he shall carry serious eternal consequences if he does not carry out the will of God and lead his faithful to the path of salvation.  This seminarian is going to understand that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Divine worship and glorification of God the Father through his unbloody Sacrifice and that the liturgy needs to be Celebrated according to the rubrics presented by the Roman Catholic Church - Not by a single Bishop (Annibale Bugnini).  He will Celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass taught correctly at the Seminary.  If the seminarian is not taught correctly and seriously enough, then God’s particular judgement will not only fall on those teaching those seminarians but also on the Bishops who should oversee the proper training of those prospective seminarians.

If you have a priest who does none of the above and proceeds as “business as usual” and by ways and means of a mediocre standard, then according to the Teaching of the Catholic Faith, he will carry with him the particular Judgement of God.  As Catholic Teaching goes, there is a particular place for priests in Hell for those who did not follow God’s will.  This is not my opinion, this is Catholic Teaching as it has been presented to me by a priest who strives very hard to carry out his vocation according to God’s will and is trying to grow in holiness!

+PAX+

I groew up with the tridentine mass and do prefer It to the novus ordo mass to me it is more reverent and you don’t have all the people running up to the alter to give out the precious blood and shaking of hands for peace, too much distraction.  I like kneelling down to recieve the host witch contains both body and blood of Jesus Christ. As far as the latin It is a universal language, that means you can go anywhere and follow the mass with your own missel which has both latin on one side and your own language on the other side.  I just find the tridentine mass more reverent. I don’t get mad at those who like the novus ordo mass, I just know what I prefer.  Mary Ann

I’ve been to both forms of the Mass frequently, with wide variation as to how the Masses were said.

PREFERENCE: I like the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad orientem. Or the Tridentine Mass as a Dialogue Mass (a development not in the Mass that was approved by Pope Benedict XVI and done - if I have this right - only under indult). For those not familiar, the latter is the Tridentine Mass, but everything the altar boy or choir say/sing, the people do, too. And the priest waits for the choir/people to finish before proceeding with anything, which makes a longer Mass when sung. And the priest speaks audibly where appropriate.

ATTEND: The Novus Ordo in a typical American parish. My only options right now are that or an FSSP Mass, which we attend when the scheduling works better (read: when a child has an accident on the way to an earlier Mass, etc., as it’s at 2pm).

LIKE: I grew up with the Novus Ordo, so I like *hearing* the priest so I can close my eyes and not be lost as to the mystery being performed in front of me. I like participating in the parts of the Mass that aren’t for the priest alone, and I think some of the developments contained in the Tridentine Mass reflect a time before microphones and widespread literacy… and these positive advances should allow a better expression of the Mass. I like the use of both old and new testament readings, and that we read more of the Bible overall. I like the solemnity of the Latin Mass, the beauty of the vestments (that doesn’t have to be limited to the Tridentine but often is), and the odd (if explainable) openness to having young children in the nave during the Latin Mass, given it’s usually quieter at parts. Then again, I like that the Novus Ordo engages my restless little ones better. Oh- and I like ad orientem, a lot.

DISLIKE: I don’t like how so many priests feel they can alter the Novus Ordo to fit their whim in places it’s not allowed. I don’t like some of the ‘extras’ that go with either rite: unfitting music, music that highlights the performer and not the song/prayer, music that is entirely (through the whole Mass) un-sing-along-able, disrespect for the Eucharist through praying the rosary or disregard for the tabernacle or sacred spaces like the sanctuary, etc. You can surmise other dislikes from what I’ve said above.

In the end, I am not at home pretty much anywhere I attend at the moment; this used to bother me a great deal. But I have simply come to realize that a change needed to be effected in me: God allows all of these things to constitute a valid Mass. And - well… - if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s got to be good enough for this lay woman in her current vocation.

I for one will abide by the decision of the Holy Father : both must be prayed with all due reverence.

However, I understand your concern for division versus unity, that is, if I understand you.

Recently, a fellow catholic declared to me how wonderful it was to finally attend a “real” Mass (Tridentine). My reply was to ask him whether or not he has attended Mass since the late 60’s.

Finally what is confusing to us pew catholics is the understanding that it was the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Council Fathers that inspired the use of the vernacular.

Peace

+J.M.J.+

Pax Christi Phillip,

I wouldn’t consider you or anyone else who is Catholic as a “Pew Catholic” because one should be living their faith in their everyday lives and living the liturgy as well. 

Also, I agree that the Church should not be divided.  However, the reason why there is division in the Church in certain instances is because there are Catholics who wish to remain faithful to the Faith that their ancestors and their fathers before them.  They understood that Catholicism is not just a religion but a way of life and a way of salvation for their souls.  They do not wish to live their lives as Catholics who have lost all that they gained from their ancestors, i.e. Their customs, their morals, their faithfulness to the Truth.

Your response to the gentleman who commented on attending a “real mass”, your reply to him may have not been charitable because it sounds to me that he has had his share of abuses that he has seen at Mass since the changes that occurred after Vatican II.  I know I have!  It is quite horrible and deplorable…believe me.  It terrorizes the soul to experience such things.  It may even cause someone to lose their faith!

Finally,  the reason why you may consider confusing for one to believe that the Holy Spirit to inspire the use of the vernacular is because it was not the Holy Spirit who inspired such a change in the liturgy but rather the will of one Msgr. Aniballe Bugnini - the Author of the Novus Ordo Missae.  Read the response given by his assistant Rev. Carlo Braga commenting about the changes upon the Mass:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!”

To top it all off…here is a comment by Msgr. Aniballe Bugnini:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.”  - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

I close with the following quotes by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II respectively:

December 7, 1968: “The Church finds itself in a period of uneasiness, auto-criticism, we would say even auto-destruction. It is like an interior confusion, sharp and complex, which no one would have expected after the Council… We thought of a flowering, of a sane expansion of the ripened conceptions of the great assizes of the Council. That aspect exists likewise. But… we come to notice above all its dolorous aspect. As if the Church were striking itself.” (Pope Paul VI, Discourse of December 7, 1968; Documentation catholique, 1969, col. 12);



“We believed that after the [Second Vatican] Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about?  We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. …  It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.” 

Pope Paul VI, Address, June 29, 1972, On the Occasion of the Ninth Anniversary of His Election (emphasis added).


“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” (Pope Paul VI, Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977)


“There reigns over Europe a “sort of practical agnosticism and religious indifferentism” to such a degree that “European culture gives the impression of a ‘silent apostasy’” John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, nº 7 & 9, DC nº 2296, 20 July 2003, pg. 671-72.

+PAX+

Salus- If the Vatican has known all about this, and attributes the New Mass to “Satan” (did I read that correctly?) why has no one done anything about it, before now?  Why would the males in the Vatican take 15 years to be re-writing the words to the liturgy, allowing all these abuses to take place, in the meantime?

Why didn’t JPII demand the bishops he appointed, in his 25+year term as Pope, to REIN IN the priests that are causing the liturgical abuses?

I seem to remember that when there was some major disaster in another country several years ago, a tsnuami if memory serves, the Vatican issued an edict to every single diocese in the WORLD, and every parish that Sunday, prayed for the people that were suffering loss, as a result.  I remembered thinking, “Hmmm.  The Vatican CAN do things quickly, and it CAN spread the word quickly, when it wants to.”

If it’s true that Satan is behind the New Mass, and the loss of reverence for God, wouldn’t you think the Vatican leaders would be ALL OVER THAT, and QUICKLY?  I would think they’d be speedy about it, IF they were MEN.
If they were *qualified* and God-honoring MEN.

+J.M.J.+

I would have to say that as far I understand, if one wanted to investigate the causal relationship between the Traditional Rite and the Novus Ordo Missae and the reasons why this New Mass was authored by Msgr. Aniballe Bugnini, the only conclusion I can come up with is purely speculative - Because I never lived during that time and I have not the time or energy to devout to investigate this issue further.  The fact that they were “males” has nothing to do with it.  The fact that there was an actual motive is what should be investigated.  It just so happens that among those involved with Vatican II were Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and the Pope - Who all happen to be males - this does not implicate a deficiency in their decision making process.

However, if one is interested in some notable forms of evidence that may link to the motivation of creating a “New Mass”  I highly recommend reading a book called, “AA-1025:  The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle.”  For a sample of the information found on this book, please click on the following link provided by Tan Books.  A leader in popular Catholic Books.

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/communist_spy.htm

+PAX+

I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but i do like the mass in the venacular much better.  I am mindful that as a child from todler to teenager i had NO IDEA what was happening in the mass, becuase I didn’t know Latin.  I did not take latin in my Catholic High School, i took french instead.  I am looking forward to the Upcoming changes in the mass becuase i think there is a corection of some errors that the Trial and errors of the 60-through the present have gleaned.  I only wish some of the REVERENCE would be brought back as well.  I had left the church for more than 25 years and just recently returned.  I miss the reverence, one of the things i longed for while in an Evangelical Chruch.  I was dismayed when i returned to find it almost completely missing.  Cardinal Arenzi the prefect for the liturgy says that receivng communion in the kneeling position and on the toungue is the prefered form.  Standing and in the hand is only premitted by Rome’s approval.  The Bishop Conference of the Country would have to vote with 2/3s majority to ask for a change.  BUT, NO ONE should be denied communion should they kneel or prefer recieving on their tongue.  NO BISHOP has the authority to refuse them!  IT is a condition of the ‘permitted’ variation to stand and recive on hand.  They are NOT allowed to refuse anyone on knees and tongue!  I do long for the days… when people recognized the presence of Christ in the tabernacle and genuflect before sitting or even receiving communion.  I must at least bow… after all, although Christ is in me, I am still the mortal man i have always been.  The Eucharist is 100% Jesus Christ… my Lord and MY GOD!  I feel unworthy to receive him unless i at least bow.  The chruches and dioceses that continue to instill this truth are the ones that seem to be flourishing.  Those that don’t may have members… but they are Cathlic in Culture only.  Sad.  I KNOW there are exceptions to this… but few and far between.  I wish the USCCB would vote again, admit the error and return to the revernece the chruch has lost and as a result lost members.  Do it with the new mass changes coming.  (fogive my spelling…this post ‘don’t have spell check.’  LOL)

Salus - When I mentioned that our Magesterium are all males, I didn’t mean to imply their reasoning is deficient.  It’s just lopsided.  Women are to be help-mates to men.  But at the Vatican, women are just there to do the laundry, etc.  They are seen and not heard.

In our church, for the most part, not only women, but also lay men are kept out of the decision process.  Even the PROCESS.  That is a huge detriment.  It fosters the idea of there being a culture of clerical elitism.  It is not healthy.

I know plenty of very Godly men, each Bible-literate, and in our church, we don’t even have their wisdom at the local parish level, because it’s who has the most money and connections that is chosen to be in the lay leadership roles.  Thus, few if any pew people, men or women, would have any impact on what comes out of the Vatican.

The results of what comes out of the Vatican is a sort of “in-breeding”, where minds that think alike (all of them male) just take sides, and make pronouncements.  We pew people are at their mercy.  It ought not be like that.

Born Again Cradle Catholic.  I sense your frustration that Rome is full of males that seem elitist.  You may be right.  Yet, if those elitist are as bright and as well educated and spirit filled like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Archbishop Dolan, Cardinal Arenzi, I will not be the man (or women) to tell them that I know better than they do.  As a modest Catholic with an income of less than $35K, I am a Lay Minister and there are just as many Women in my parish as there are men.  YES, none of those women are priests, bishops, or cardinals.  However, one of the pictorial associates… the pastors assistant IS.  I also that many of the Chancery and other positions of power are held by Nuns as well.  The Chancellor of my dioceses is a NUN.  I am sure, if you look in Rome, even in the HISTORY of ROME and the POPES you will find MANY RELIGIOUS WOMEN who have had the Pope’s Ear.  There is NO doubt of the influence of women in the Church…. MARY our Most Blessed MOTHER being the PRIMARY example and first CHRISTIAN!  I like to say that the women in the Church… look back at some of the Church Doctors who were woman… ST. CATHERINE for example.. have had GREAT influence.  Please know, I do understand that you do not see them in positions of POWER leading the Charge… but their roles are very important and evident.  I must say, I THINK that when Jesus Said… “The FIRST shall be LAST, and the LAST will be FIRST” should give hope to EVERY woman who plays a role in the Church! 
My Dear sister in Christ, I do not believe you will ever see female priests in the Catholic Church.  Let me tell you why I think this is so.  I AM NO SCHOLAR I assure you.  During the time of Christ and especially in the Jewish Culture, women had no role in the ruling parties of the Synagogue or Church.  Jesus himself called ONLY 12 MEN… not 6 men and 6 women.  Modernist say… well that is because it was a man’s world during Jesus time and in the Jewish culture.  THAT is very TRUE… but I affirm that it was so as a directive from God and Jesus Himself.  Otherwise, he would have chosen women.  To those who say the reason was because there were NO female priests, I say… YES, THERE WERE… in MANY of the cultures of those days… GREEK, Eastern, ROMAN, and ASIAN all had PRIESTESSES!  Greek Mythology had more FEMALE gods than males!  I have to believe that God picked the Time of Christ arrival at the “FULLNESS of TIME” and I will leave his reasons… to him explain.  I can only go with what I read in scripture and the Judea-Christian tradition… no women priest.  Do not be discouraged… if you become a Mother Teresa or St. Catherine… you will have your day.  Otherwise, I hope that like I, you will accept the role you have in God’s Church and be the very best person you can be. I shall do the same.  Together we WILL and CAN make a difference in our very own corner of the world.
In no way do I say these things with any malice or looking down on you.  I humbly apologize if that is how you take my words.  God bless you and Keep you this day and always.

+J.M.J.+

Pax Christi Bill,

I want to emphasize, and I am sure you may have heard this from a priest or a Bishop, that the USCCB IS NOT A GOVERNING BODY!  If you read the Ratzinger Report, you will see how our Holy Father affirms this with great enthusiasm.  The USCCB cannot vote or pass legislation about anything related to the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.  Therefore, permission was granted to US Bishops in certain areas to allow reception of Our Lord in the hand and standing.  However, the PREFERRED POSTURE, as recommended by the Church is kneeling and on the tongue.  We, as Catholics, have a duty to preserve and demonstrate that posture to others and our Children so that the reverence can speak volumes to them and help restore their faith.  Remember, the thoughts of our Lord can be demonstrated by the gestures that postures that we observe as Catholics.

For a very informative piece of information concerning this issue, please click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/u/0/8pA-kLY2CkY

Also Bill, I also thank you for the response above as well!

+PAX+

+J.M.J.+

Bill, this is for your information:

First Sunday of February 2011: Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
The US Episcopal Conference

Some time ago (Sept. 16, 2010), Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR, gave a stirring and frank talk about the role and limitations of the USCCB. The US Bishops’ Conference is an entity which has no legislative power. Bishop Vasa quoted largely from The Ratzinger Report:

The collective does not substitute for the persons of the bishops, who… are “the authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care.”
Ratzinger confirms:

No episcopal conference…has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” Why does he insist upon this point? “Because it is a matter of safeguarding the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure and not on a kind of federation of national churches. The national level is not an ecclesial dimension. (The Ratzinger Report with V. Messori, ch. 4).

Bishop Vasa adds a few interesting remarks:
I have never seen or heard the conference, either as a whole or as a committee, make any remarks critical of what individual bishops might have done or failed to do in their own dioceses. I think the conference fully understands the limits of its jurisdiction; I could not say the same about the faithful at large.

+PAX+

Pax… thank you.  I am aware the bishops are not a governing body.  AS I understand it they needed to have 2/3 majority in order to ask ROME to allow or get permission to stand and recive in the hand.  I also know that only after they get approval from Rome and promise not to chastise Communicants who want to recieve communion kneeling and/or on the tongue.  Unfortunatly i have witnessed for myself outside of my own diocese communicants being chastised for seeking reception kneeling and on the tongue.

Thank you for your aditional comments as well on your second response.  God Bless you.

I love it when we can ALL be ever striving - that, “all may be one!”

To those who have never seen the Novus Ordo offered in a beautiful, and reverent manner, every single Sunday, and every day as a matter of fact, should attend Mass at St. Raymond of Penafort, in Springfield, Virginia.  Our pastor also celebrates the Tridentine mass every 1st and 3rd Friday of the month.  Come and see how beautifully the Novus Ordo can be offered by holy and dedicated priests, “in persona Christi”.  Oh, and our parochial vicar is really looking forward to the new revisions coming this Advent.

Wow, so many comments, so many ideas. I was raised when the Tridentine Mass was the only mass celebrated. i had no problems with the Latin, indeed, I enjoyed it as well as the beautiful Gregorian chants during high masses. The Novus Ordo did nothing for me when I saw and heard how the priests began to improvise and change parts of the rituals here and there. The solemnity, the respect towards the Holy Presence went out the window with people chatting away and not allowing others to meditate, pray in peace. But the icing on the cake was when the Real Presence was set aside and placed away for the main altar. What a shame! Are we so ashamed of having the Lord placed at the center of the altar where He belongs? Are so ashame that we have to turn our backs to Him when celebrating the Mass? What happened to the Thursday’s Holy Hour when we could enjoy His presence on the altar? I was recently visiting the city of Popayan, better known as the “Ciudad Blanca”  or the “White City in Colombia. I visited the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption and, lo and behold, there He was on the altar, the Blessed Sacrament in all His glory for the faithful to adore. Such a beautiful sight but one that is rarely seen in the states or here in Puerto Rico. May the Lord open the eyes, the hearts of the bishops so that we, at the very least have a chance to see once again the True and Only Church full of more souls looking for the Lord’s presence and His blessings. If I wanted to go to a public market I would not like it to be my parish church where I go to pray, to meditate, to be in His Real Presence without the noise or the chattering of uncaring people, including some of the priests. Yes I do love the Tridentine Mass and look forward to attending one soon! God bless!!!

Bill you wrote, speaking about our church leaders: “Yet, if those elitist are as bright and as well educated and spirit filled like John Paul II”.

Cradle’s reply-
Please forgive me for what I about to say here, because it is likely to shock you:  I do not believe JPII was as Holy Spirit-filled as you do.  The reason I say that is that there have been many, MANY people expressing concern over his fast track to sainthood, tring to be heard in that process.  They are being ignored.  Yet the numerous and varied concerns these people have brought up are valid.

So I do think our existing church leaders are as spirit-filled as he was, but they too, are likely not filled with the HOLY Spirit.  They, like him, are being led by their own opinions, and they are ignoring anyone that disagrees with them, no matter how sound the concern is.  That is a problem.  Therein lies the elitist clerical attitude.  God is not honored by that.

For the record, I am 100% opposed to women being ordained to the priesthood.  First, it would run contrary to ALL that is known to be true in New Testament Scripture, and it would be contrary to not only New Testament universal church Tradition, but also Jewish Tradition too, our roots.

Women are not to lead men.  Women are to help other women, and to help children, and women are to be help-mates to priests, as their wives, not as their pastors, assistant pastors, or even non-ordained bosses.  MEN are to be in the roles of LEADERSHIP.  Women (their WIVES=covenant partners for life) are to influence the clergy at home.  If only Catholics would read the Bible.

By the way, I may be mistaken about this, but I think Mother Teresa bucked the system (hierarchy) in her day, to start her order.  I don’t think the ‘spirit-filled’ men of her day, wanted her to do her work, as she wanted it.  She did not obey them, if memory serves.

It’s me again! Have you missed me?
Maybe this has already been answered; I don’t know because there are so many comments.
In the Old Mass, was the Good Friday proclamation of the Gospel of John ever sung? I have posted before that I believe that Masses during Lent should be more solemn and have less singing but in my parish, we sing the Gospel in Good Friday. It bothers my spirit because we should be entering into the death of Jesus and singing should be verboten in this situation. Am I wrong?

James,
It may be new to you, but singing the Passions during both Palm Sunday and Good Friday is a long tradition in the Church.  Catholics (e.g., William Byrd) sang only the words of the Gospels, while Protestants (e.g., Johan Sebastian Bach) added comentary. (You can find settings of the Passion by either composer in a well-stocked store that carries classical music CDs.)

+J.M.J.+

James,

Please view the following links that will help explain the Triduum for the Traditional Latin Mass and what is included in it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Gotito7#p/c/0B848247BD27EE6E/12/y7yOdQc_cNA

Also, you may wish to view the Order of the Good Friday Liturgy and it should give a good explanation of how it should be followed:

http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/goodfri1955.html

Also, I ask that you view the following which are the (Reproaches - Improperia (Popule Meus)which is sung during the Good Friday Liturgy during the veneration of the Crucifix:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Gotito7#p/c/586C052222B4E778/22/vsqWSv5nJoI

+PAX+

I am a traditional Catholic and have attended the TLM my entire life.  I also attended an admittedly liberal NO Catholic High school so I had quite a bit of experience with the new mass and its adherents. 
That being said I prefer the TLM hands down.  I agree with all the other posters who believe that the TLM is more reverent and Christcentric.  I am always uncomfortable when I attend the NO mass.  I really don’t have a better way to explain myself than to say that it creeps me out. 
However my biggest gripe with the NO mass- and its followers- is how liberal, irreverent and almost un-Catholic (as I understand the meaning of the word) it all is.  There is Father Bob and Sister Sue.  There are laypeople giving communion- The BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus Christ. 
As a mother I am now raising my children in the TLM.  The perils that await them in our world terrify me.  I do not believe that the modern values and morals taught by the clergy and members of the NO will serve them well on their path to heaven.  There are no longer any absolutes!  Homosexuality, birth control, and abortion are all to be viewed through the lens of moral relativism.  I am raising my children to be educated, thoughtful, and practicing Catholics and I believe the TLM will help me to do that.

MamaN
I understand just how you feel.  I left the Catholic Church when I was 25 years old and vowed never to return.  Well, you know the old saying… Never Say Never.  I returned in 2005 from the Evangelical Church.  One of the things I did miss while I was gone was the Reverence, and respect… Pomp and pageantry of the old days.  It really hurts me to see the lack of Kneelers, Lack of Bowing, much less genuflecting.  The Sense of Holiness… the “setting apart” is really missing in the diocese I grew up in.  It too was a liberal Diocese.  Obviously after 22 years I find myself, living in Diocese of Ogdensburg It is much more ‘orthodox’ (for lack of better term.)  Every Church has kneelers, many people at least bow, before receiving the Eucharist… but there are some more liberal parishes.  However, I know the Bishop who has been our bishop for only a year now.  His predecessor was transferred to my old diocese and I think they are in for a little bit of Change.  For example, the cathedral of my old diocese no longer uses crystal and silver for the Precious blood and The Eucharist.  They are once again using the gold chalice.
As far as the TLM… I do not know Latin.  IF your children do not know it… do not expect them to hold on to it.  IF they don’t understand it… the will not hold on to it.  You run the risk of having them leave the faith when they leave the ‘nest’.  I am looking forward to the new mass changes coming in the fall, as I think some of the language will be better and more accurate.  I just wish more of the reverence and respect would be brought back with it.
Don’t be so hung up on the Latin… If your children can get more out of the English speaking mass… you should consider taking them.  Besides, if you train them with the respect and reverence… you may start a trend.  Please at least consider it.

I want you to know that I am NOT against the Latin Mass, but I think it is for those who understand it, or at least understand the language.
God Bless,
Bill

Don and Salus:
Thanks. As always, I try to post in a spirit of humility because I do not know everything — ALMOST everything but not all (LOL) and I thank you for your quick replies. I will look at your references. Thanks.
Jim

Please excuse in advance (insert smilies) my annoyance and detail about this matter.  I have seethed over the years that the central point of the matter is almost always missed: the meaning (not the language) of the text. I speak as a linguist and translator with an thorough knowledge of Latin (which I taught in University) and of the theory of translation. (This is not bragging, but supporting my right to say what I am saying.)

The Novus Ordo itself, which exists originally in Latin(not in its vernacular translations), embodies an overall weaker theology than the Tridentine text (its meaning). The vernacular translations are not the best (to say the least).

Vernacular translations have the huge advantage of being understood, which I think is preferable to mouthing the sounds of a almost universally unknown language. Unfortunately, this misses the point that the translations often don’t quite convey the meaning of the original texts.

Most Tridentine supporters would rather have a Latin Novus Ordo text than a vernacular Tridentine text, which is just plain - strange.  They also usually want all of the external paraphernalia of the Tridentine mass: the candles, incense, vestments, etc., as if these things were essential theology.

Why not do the most obvious thing in the world: use vernacular translations of the Tridentine Mass Latin language texts rather than of the Novus Ordo?  The translations, of course, would have to be done by competent translators (not by the ICEL).

I appreciate Mr. Cioppa’s distinctions, but I can’t for the life of me see why one should not simply have accruate translations of the ‘missa normativa’, that is, the rubrics of 1970 that was designated the ‘Novus Ordo Missae’.

Its forgers sought to suppress what was not central (many unnecessary repetitions and venerations, which were not in accord with sound liturgical principles), and it promoted celebrating the liturgy in the vernacular(s), which is a fundamental liturgical principle of the church throughout its history.

Finally, it in essence accords far better with the refinements in understanding of eccesiology articulated at Vatican II. 

For those who idealize the pre-conciliar rubrics, they simply do not have an historical comprehension of either how ineffective, overall, the so-called ‘Tridentine’ rubrics were for the vast majority of the faithful, i.e., the church, as such.

FWIW, there is such a thing as the revised Order of Mass offered in Latin. The Association for Latin Liturgy* fosters its use.

So Mass in the vernacular, & Mass according to the pre-Conciliar Missal in Latin, are not the only alternatives possible to Catholics of the Latin Rite. 

*Called the Latin Liturgy Association in the US, and perhaps elsewhere outside England.

I’ve been to all three, & ISTM the revised Missal is preferable: it gets away from treating the priest as the sole offerer, and emphasises that the Mass is the offering of the entire Church (of which the clergy are a tiny if essential part).

Offering a single rite in a single language has its attractions, and the great virtue that the drawbacks of translation are avoided; the drawback is that different populations do not praise God “each in [their] own tongue”, so variety within unity is lost.

As for the abuses: the rites are not the cause of the abuse (the pre-Conciliar Missal has been abused for the purposes of satanism, for example), but only the means: a holy priest will offer Mass holily because of the sort of person he is & how he has been trained; an unholy priest will offer Mass abusively, because of the sort of person he is & how he has been trained. Interior conversion will heal the Church - a purely external change of rites is no more than shifting the deck-chairs.

@Cradle Catholic who posted on Saturday, Mar 12, 2011 5:22 PM (EDT)

“1- the Magesterium’s teachings about indulgences for ourselves
2- how we can pray people out of Purgatory
3- the whole idea of Purgatory, where we are still stained by sin, albeit venial sin, and that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross did not make us “righteous” in the Father’s eyes, even though the whole book of Romans and ALL of Paul’s writings would dispute it.
4- the whole saga of all the reasons there would be NO Eucharist, without a priest, basically holding pew people hostage to mere men, and calling them ‘other Christs’.
5- the idea that the pope is infallible - even on matters of faith and morals, and that he is the Vicar of Christ to the rest of us.
6- the ever=growning teachings about Mary - Queen of Heaven, sinless from birth, perpetual virgin (even after the virgin birth of her FIRST-BORN son)
7- the ever=growing list of saints and how we pray TO them, and ask for THEIR help, giving them all the attributes that belong to God.  If both of us are praying to St. Jude at the same time, he hears us BOTH?

As for synods and councils - how come they don’t do it the way they did it at the Council of Jerusalem?”
————————————-
Briefly:

a. Indulgences are good and pious and are of great help to our salvation
b. the holy souls detained in Purgatory can helped by the prayers of the Church on earth, esp. the Mass; inc. Masses offered for them.
c. There is a Purgatory
d. Priests are mere men, but with Divine authority; because they have the same ministry as Christ. He forgives sin through them. That is how God seems to work: through His creatures - including them (& us).
e. The Pope is, under certain conditions, infallible; since his infallibility is one with that of the other bishops, and of the Church, who is the Bride of Christ, this is not surprising; especially as it is a sharing in tnhe infallibility of Christ Himself - for *all* graces, this included, are from Christ.
f. The All-Holy Mother of God is Queen of all creation, therefore, of heaven and earth; is immaculate; ever-virgin; assumed into heaven in body & soul.
g. Of course the number of Saints is ever-growing - this is evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
h. We don’t go them instead of God, because their holiness is not instead of God’s, but is a fruit of it. One might as well say that we listen to the Bible instead of the Holy Spirit, or are saved by grace rather than by Christ. People who say such things about the Saints are treating then as alternatives to God, when they results of His grace and power. By that logic, love of neighbour is an alternative to love of God - rather evidence of love of God. And the Saints are our neighbours.
i. Jesus is the “light of the world” - which is what He says His disciples are too. Words applied to God can also be applied to created things. There are many examples of this in the Bible. Holiness is proper to God Alone, for He is its Origin; that does not stop the angels, the Chosen People, and the Temple, and the people in the churches to whom St. Paul wrote, being called holy too. The Saints know about us as fully as God wishes them to - and they are not limited by space and time as we are, because they are reigning with Christ. *Of course* they can hear us :) 

If the Church were not a bit larger today than it was in the days of the Apostles, the method of holding councils might be the same as it was then. The Church in Acts 15 did not spread from Canada to Japan, from Iceland to the Falklands. It does today. So the organisation is a bit more complex. Changelessness is fine for fossils - but there’s not much life in a fly trapped in amber 10 million years ago. The Church is not a fossil, but a living organism. It changes in order to remain the same.

I’m sorry you have so many difficulties.

Another event that identifies the Sheep and the Goats.
What that means is that time will tell as always. The truth will set you free or damn you.
Sometimes it (the Truth) is not what we like and that is the problem. We humans tend to accept only what we like , not what is and look for excuses to sidestep it or denigrate it.

One common thread I see among those who are wary of the traditional mass is that many have never attended one.  I attended an FSSP mass last fall at the request of a friend.  Previous to that, I had a strong sense of revulsion toward the casual, offensive way NO attenders dress and behave.  Only when I saw the peaceful, reverent, prayerful traditional mass did I realize how chaotic, noisy and banal the NO is.  Please, mind you, I attend a very conservative parish in a VERY conservative diocese.  The choir sings Palestrina, Dubois, Mozart, and even chants the antiphons in Latin.  This “window dressing on the banal” however, does not prevent the gum-chewing, flip-flop wearing yawners from squirming in their seate on their way to the ball game, and approaching the Holy of Holies in mini-skirts and hot pants.  Today’s ecumenical pastor is so afraid of offending while teaching that the teaching simply does not happen.  The FSSP parish I now attend simply publishes a dress code, elegantly and simply worded, in the bulletin.  One gets the feeling when meeting the joyful, delightful, in-love-with-Jesus people, however, that no instruction is needed for what should be the obvious.  Regarding the anger of the traditionalist:  I have been an NO attender my entire life.  You can bet I was angry when I saw how we have been cheated in the dumbed-down newrite.  My anger has subsided because I now have access to the Mass of the Ages, although it is 45 miles away.  Now, I no longer have to feel the weekly anger and frustration watching silly parents in peek-a-boo spandex feeding their squealing kids cheerios during mass.  It seems that if the clerics and parents know how to behave, VIOLA…so do their kids!

Dear Matt,

The myth of “noble simplicity” for the dumbing down of the Mass is a clever but ridiculous fabrication.  One only has to read the writings of the power brokers in ICEL to find the motives therein.  Did Jesus speak Latin at the last supper?  No, he likely spoke Aramaic or perhaps Hebrew because of the occasion.  Many catholics fall into the mistaken notion that the Mass is the “last supper.”  This mistake is emblematic of the stripping away of the sacrificial foundation of the meaning of our Mass.  We are at the foot of the cross at Mass, not at a community meal.  When I started attending an FSSP mass, I finally got it, after 40 years of being catholic.  The idea that we have to be primitive in order to be authentic is another clever mind game.  Which of the modern progressives in the ICEL rode to his back-room meetings on a camel?  Lest we forget, when God left instructions for the creation of the Holy of Holies, it was anything but primitive.

Dear Eileen Ratigan:
I not only attended Mass acording to the 1945 band 1962 Missals, I was an altar boy from 1959 to 1965.  You may be interested in knowing that not only does the Vatican agree with you about “noble simplicity” but it also has directed that the new English translation restore what was lost in the 1973 English translation.
I have no problem with people who are attached to the 1962 Missal, but I don’t see how you can oppose the 1992 Missal and still call yourself a Catholic, when in fact you’re a Protestant against the Church.  I minored in history in college, and back in the late 1600s the (then newly-issued) Tridentine Missal was a bigger change in the way that Mass was said (except for the language).

I have returned!!!
Eileen:
That is a great last line: ...“if the clerics and parents know how to behave…” ... and how very, very true (and its voila!!! lol). I also like the line “one gets the feeling when meeting the joyful ...” because it is so true; if you are truly in love, you will dress for the occasion and it won’t be a burden; it will be a joy. That is the problem, ain’t it? How many people are “in love” with Christ? No one will have an audience with a king or president dressed in hot pants or flip-flops, yet how many attend Church like they were going to a ball game?
The ICEL is a joke, too. How could they not have given us a correct translation all those years ago? Are these people experts or clowns?
I will disagree slightly, though, about the Mass being “The Last Supper.” I believe it is and so much more: it is a sacrifice without equal; it is a memorial and re-presentation - understand that in terms of what that meant to the Jews, that the event being remembered was, in a sense, being brought to life again. This means that there should be even more reverence and solemnity, not less. One “word” - especially in our finite languages - cannot begin to exhaust the whole meaning of an infinite act such as This. I agree that if many of our so-called “experts” believe that ALL It is is the Last Supper, they are mistaken. Even there, they don’t have it right. Jesus fed the Twelve at the Supper; they didn’t feed themselves. We should receive or be fed - a passive act of humility - not take. I am an Extraordinary Minister in my parish and it sometimes breaks my heart to see the shameful way FAR too many people receive - I should write grab - The Sacred Species and how they are dressed. Of course, too many then beat a hasty retreat out the door, yet any other “party” and they are the last to leave. Sad.

Don Shenk said, “... I don’t see how you can oppose the 1992 Missal and still call yourself a Catholic, when in fact you’re a Protestant against the Church.”  Well, Don, then the Pope must not be catholic either.  He has a VERY big problem with the current rite.  That is why it was re-written.  As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said ofthe New Mass,  “in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”  You may want to also check out Canon Law, which states that if there is a radical departure (basically a 180) in church teaching or practice, the faithful have a duty to oppose it.  The Pope has done just that.  Are you united with him, or am I?  I argue that passively watching the destruction of faith in the real presence is a grave sin, even if it is done in the name of being friendly and agreeable and politically correct.  The only time Jesus showed real anger was when he drove the contamination out of the temple.  “Zeal for your house consumes me.”  Anyone who is not angry at the numerous abuses and outrages against the real presence can hardly call himself catholic, either, as he is allowing the desecration of the Holy of Holies and just going along to get along.  The kind of rhetoric that you are using, accusing traditional catholics of not being catholic, is just the kind of mean-spirited hatred that keeps the church divided.  PEACE!

@ Eileen—you wrote:  ” I argue that passively watching the destruction of faith in the real presence is a grave sin, even if it is done in the name of being friendly and agreeable and politically correct.”  How is your faith in the Lord being destroyed by the NO unless your faith is based solely upon ritual?  I certainly hope not.  And even if Benedict is unhappy with the NO —Benedict may not live too much longer.  What will happen if the next pope is perfectly satisfied with the NO and does nothing to change it?  I don’t see how one’s faith in the Lord is destroyed based upon ritual or the ceremonial.  That idea of faith seems rather shallow.

Dear New observer,

Who said anything about my faith being destroyed by the NO?  I did not say any such thing.  It is funny how those who defend the NO cannot seem to stay on the topic.  They accuse people of not being catholic and being invested in a ritual.  The mass is more than “a ritual”.  It is, according to JPII and B16, the source and summit of the faith.  It is worship.  This is not some pagan ritual out of somebody’s imagination.  It cannot be separated from the faith.  It is not outside the faith.  It is integral to the faith.  That is why it must be protected with all vigor.  The idea that faithful catholics, like the Pope, think the newrite is a bit “off the rails”, is the reason for the reform of the reform that you will see this Advent.  Funny, liberals and progressives who claim that I am disobedient and ritualistic for wanting improvements in the “groovy” liturgy of the sixties are making disobedient noises about conforming with the Advent changes.  Hmmmmm.  Interesting!  Meanwhile, I will continue to go to the FSSP ancient Mass and let you modernists continue with your science project until you get it all worked out.

PEACE!

@ Eileen —it was YOUR comment that said: “I argue that passively watching the destruction of faith in the real presence is a grave sin, even if it is done in the name of being friendly and agreeable and politically correct.”  How else is one to view your comment except that you (Eileen) are watching the destruction of the faith?  If that is not what you mean then please be more clear.  Furthermore, I am not advocating for the modernist viewpoint or the old school.  Both the NO and the Latin have their place.  The preferece of mass (style) is simply not relevant to my own faith in the Lord.  We can probably agree, however, that the Folk mass was never attractive and lacked both reverence and dignity.  I don’t know who invented the Folk mass, but I always thought it was a bad idea born in the mid 60’s to make the mass relevant to the “youth.”

New observer, right on.  Salvation is always relevant.  It does not need trendy entertainment value to be relevant.  I decorate churches, and when I decorate, I stay away from trends.  I use classical and proven designs.  In other words, in the eighties I did not use mauve like everyone else.  In the nineties I did not use hunter green like everyone else.  All of the “up-to-date” trends in their times look cheesy and silly a decade later.  This is exactly what I am talking about.  ICEL claims to have made the mass more “ancient”, but there is nothing really ancient about electric guitars, synthesizers, and mini skirts in the sanctuary.  Anyway, after 40 years in the liturgical desert, something is being done about it now, thank God.  The destruction of faith I was talking about is the aftermath of Lex orandi, Lex credendi…the law of prayer = the law of faith.  So many have lost their faith in the real presence since the NO was established.  Maybe your faith is not connected to faith in the real presence, but I don’t see how any catechized catholic can be unaffected by the 67% of catholics who now see the eucharist as “symbolic” just as most of our protestant brethren do.  Look at the disintegration of the culture since the changes.  The body of Christ in the Eucharist truly has an effect on the body of Christ, his church.  You just can’t convince me that your average yawning catholic flip-flopping up the aisle chewing gum believes he is meeting his divine Lord and Creator.  That is the loss of faith I am talking about.  Now, if you think that the action of Our Lord giving us his flesh and blood to save us is just an unimportant ritual, then perhaps it is your faith in danger, not mine.  The faith and the Mass are inseparable.  That is why so many wise saints have said, “Save the liturgy, save the world!”  At least visit one FSSP high mass and see what I am talking about.  So many of you NO people protest so vigorously about the EF, but have never been to one properly celebrated.  Try it!  You will know for a fact that there is something HOLY going on there.  PEACE!

Dear Born-again Cradle Catholic,

I thought CHRIST, not Paul, was the key to Christianity.  It was Paul, oddly, who condemned the “I belong to Paul” kind of thinking.  Paulism can be its own religion if one is not careful.  The Lutherans have already made that mistake.  Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.  Remember, all of the scriptures are inspired, not just Paul.  Read James and Peter and Acts for some refreshment, and for a very catholic viewpoint.  All catholics should know their bibles.  On this we certainly agree.  The book, “The Fathers Know Best” by Jimmy Akin proves abundantly from ancient writings that the catholic church interprets scripture just as did those who were closest to Christ, including Paul.  Never forget that the Bible which is so worshipped by the protesters, was assembled, codified and protected through the ages by the Roman Catholic church.  God be with you all and keep fighting for the faith!

Dear Matt, recently a friend of mine who does NOT believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah told me she didn’t want to go to a catholic mass…that she wanted to go to her episcopal neighborhood church instead where she would be permitted to go to “communion.”  I asked her gently, “Communion with what?”
To her, the Sunday service is a place to show unity with other humans.  Communion to her means hand holding, feeling good, feeling one…with other humans.  It never occurred to her that communion is union with the mystical Christ in his flesh in the accident of the humble bread. When I explained that she must believe that Christ is truly and physically present to be permitted into Catholic communion, it made perfect sense to her.  She declined, because she doesn’t believe. (YET!) She went to her neighborhood church and held hands and felt good.  The catholic viewpoint on unity and communion does not mean all going to hell together in one unbelieving big happy group.  Remember what scripture says about not discerning the Body of the Lord.  It is a dangerous error.  It is that deadly error to which I feel that the NO has contributed over the past 40 some years.  This is why I go to the FSSP mass, kneel at the communion rail, protect the Host from my unclean hands with pure white linen, and receive Him in awe and utmost devotion, my beloved Lord and Saviour.  LONG LIVE BENEDICT XVI!!!

Dear Born again cradle convert,  Have you noticed that the priest purifies his hands before confecting the Eucharist?  But not us folks.  People blow their noses, blow their kids’ noses, cough and sneeze into their hands, shake hands with one another and then presume to receive Our Lord with grimy hands.  Theological constructs aside, our hands simply are not ready to receive the Holy of Holies.  Many priests complain about some who “grab” the host and saunter off.  Even Christ considered equality with God something not to be grasped at.  The idea of receiving in the hand is bold but not humble.  As far as our mouths and accordingly our hearts, we are not to approach communion without first going to confession to cleanse our souls, mouths and hearts of any mortal sin.  Again, I refer you to scripture from your hero, Paul: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (Corinthians 11:29)  I agree that the bible must be taken in its entirety. I love the fact that the Roman Catholic church is a “both/and” faith.  It does not isolate and make denominations out of one or two phrases of the bible.  I also believe that millenia of brilliant scholars before us have written about the scriptures in detail and are trustworthy guides.  For as the Eunuch said to Phillip, “How can I understand scripture if there is nobody to explain it to me?” (I am paraphrasing). We are most fortunate to be able to read scriptures in light of the wisdom of the ages and especially in the light of those who were alive with the apostles and their direct successors. There are two great books toward this end.  One is The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin.  The other is The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching by Chantal Epie. Who better than the very early Christians to enlighten us about what Christ and the apostles meant in difficult passages?  Keep studying and preaching the Word, man.  I can tell you love the Lord!

Hi Matt -
It is interesting as to the varying comments regarding your question. What the survey proves I would have no idea. I’m sure you have some practical intention in mind. As a cradle Catholic who left the faith as a young man I spent a good portion of my adult years studied many religions in the world hoping to find some answers. After all that combined with a career as a biologist for the Federal government I concluded that there is, indeed, a (one has to be insane to be a scientist and not recognize creation) God and that the Holy Mother Church offered the One true faith. As to the Mass I highly recommend that you experience the difference yourself rather than rely on popular opinion. After all, it is really between you and God in regard to your faith. Another thing to consider…... which rite will be here after the next one hundred years? Or, perhaps, one thousand? Any bets?

Eileen Ratigan,
Are you claiming that you don’t bless yourself with holy water as you enter the church?

Eileen, again:
As for Pope Benedict XVI’s opinion of the Roman Missal, he calls the 1992 Missal “the ordinary form of the Roman Missal” and the 1962 Missal “the extraordinary form.”  It’s true that he wants a more accurate translation of the current Missal, but that’s because he wants us to better receive it’s riches.

Dear Don,

I am not sure what you are meaning by the Holy Water question.  Yes, of course I do.  Of course, it would not be possible if I am in a Novus Ordo church who, in error, puts rocks ir sand in the holy water fonts during Lent.  But I certainly do not wash my hands in the font. 

Regarding the EF and OF labels, those are simply labels.  Yes, I understand them.  It is another thing I dislike about VII semantics.  There is nothing “ordinary” about the Holy Sacrifice.  Also, “ordinary time” is another VII “banal, on the spot fabrication” which messed with the ancient liturgical calendar.  Is the ancient mass extraordinary?  Oh yes, in that respect, the label is appropriate.  Have you attended the extraordinary form, Don?

BLESSINGS and PEACE

Don, are you aware that in the old calendar, the Holy Spirit was honored for about six months (Pentecost season) and in the new calendar, the Holy Spirit gets exactly one day???

I came upon this article and thread of comments quite by accident.  But I would like to make comment.

I am a cradle Catholic old enough to have been in college when the changes came, and I will be honest with everyone:  I would have left the Catholic Church had she not changed.  Hearing for the first time the words of the consecration in English hooked me for good.  I cannot explain it.

Those who wax on and on about the beauty and the reverence of the Latin Mass didn’t have to sit through an old priest racing through the Mass at 8 am every day before school.  Yes, every day before school.  It was B-O-R-I-N-G.  He managed to get through it in 20 minutes! 

I prefer “versus populum.”  All this talk about “facing God” or “facing Christ on the crucifix” is hogwash.  Don’t we teach the God is everywhere and no matter where we look, there is God any more?  When my pastor began to say all masses “ad orientum” he gave us all kinds of theological reasons that I could have argued just a vehemently but chose not to because he ended with “Besides, when I face the people I have a hard time concentrating on what I am supposed to be doing.”  I thanked him for his honesty. 

Over the course of history the Mass has been changed often.  The Mass got entrenched after Trent because of the desired to do nothing that was in any way “like the Protestants.”  Well, by the 1960s we knew that we didn’t have to be different from the Protestants anymore in order to be Catholic.  What we needed to do was to be true to ourselves as Catholics and make the changes that would have naturally happened had people not been so anxious to not be Protestant. 

At the time the Mass began to be said in Latin, Latin was the vernacular.  Prior to that the Mass was generally said in Greek, unless a local language was different.  So the change from Latin, which is no longer a vernacular, into the various vernacular languages was a natural progression. 

However, I do understand the desire to unify the church by unifying the language.  Incorporating Latin into the Mass in small quantities at certain times like The Sanctus or The Agnus Dei would be enough to unify.  But please, allow us to say our prayer: the Confeteor, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed in our own language.  And please, leave the reading and the homily in our own language as well. 

One thing I know is different between the two in terms of the Scripture Readings.  The Tridentine Mass rarely used Old Testament readings and sometimes the readings seemed to have no relationship at all.  With the Novus Ordo Mass, the readings are from both the Old and the New Testament, signifying the unity of the two and they seem to be chosen because the “go together.” 

When I was a kid the homilies were rarely preached in conjunction with the readings.  They were usually about something of interest to the priest or about the up-coming fund raiser or the way people park on the parking lot.  The homilies I hear today are true homilies.  (But I would also say that what you remember from your childhood often times isn’t the whole picture.)

As for Gregorian Chant.  I have always found Gregorian chant to be both uplifting and dull.  I greatly prefer some of the more up-beat music that came out of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  But I also know that a lot of people have trouble with this type of music being used in church. 

And the Sign of Peace?  I think it would be better at the beginning of the Mass, before the Mass itself is fully going.  I might be best after the Confeteor, after we have asked for their forgiveness, to receive it in a handshake. 

And reception of communion.  After living a longish life, I find kneeling, especially the getting up and getting down part to be cumbersome and hard.  I therefore would prefer to have to option to stand, thank you.  And I have no problem with receiving in the hand.  The cleansing of the priest’s hands is purely symbolic.  And I am not passing any germs onto anyone else. 

But I do understand why some would prefer to receive kneeling and on the tongue. 

Which do I prefer?  I prefer the Novus Ordo.  But I do understand why others would prefer the Tridentine Mass.  Since how the Mass is said is practice, it is not doctrinal, and therefore it can, and has over the centuries, change. 

A final thought:  My husband was French Canadian.  Whenever we went to Mass when we visited his family, the mass was in French.  The first time I went it was very disconcerting and difficult for me, since I spoke no French.  But I would not skip Mass.  Over the years I began to realize that even though it was in a different language, it was the same mass.  I started to say the prayer silently in English and this made it much easier to participate. 

This might lead some to say: then it shouldn’t hurt to go to Latin only, and others to say:  then it doesn’t matter what language it is in, it is the same mass.  And I would tend to agree with both. 

That all said:  I would prefer if my funeral mass were said “versus populum” in English.  But will it be allowed?

+
M

Pax Christi Pat,

I must say that I disagree on certain points of view that you have expressed.  This is to say that it is my opinion and does not count much when it comes to the Teachings of Holy Mother Church.  This is also to say that when it comes to the teachings of Holy Mother Church and all that had been established, your opinion does not count either because it is the Church Militant on Earth established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Our Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and our Lord’s Eternal Truth is expressed by Holy Mother Church.  This is why none of our opinions count when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and all that was instituted by Holy Mother Church (guided by the Holy Ghost) and not by man.

My first point deals with Man’s opinion and creation implemented within the bosom of Holy Mother Church which obscures the truth.  Here is a prime example of this according to Obssservatore Romano in which the Rev. Carlo Braga, assistant to Mgr. Annibale Bugnini - author of the Novus Ordo Missae had quoted back in 1969:

“Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods… Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives” (These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to “overwrite” Catholicism with Modernism. The “content” of the Mass has been “updated” to reflect the new “doctrinal reality” of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to “new human values”. No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or “which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions” have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced “an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!” 

Therefore - Your opinion about the Traditional Latin Mass being BORING has no bearing in the eternal truth that Jesus Christ himself instituted and guided by the Holy Ghost through his Apostles.  This would mean that you have not fully understood what is taking place at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass even if it was said in Latin.  What should be understood is that Christ sacrifices himself in an un-bloody manner again for us through the consecrated hands of the Priest and that we honor such an act with our Adoration, our Petitions, our own Sacrifices, and our Penances.  The Priest acts in “Persona Christi” and therefore has the power and authority to absolve us of our sins with a contrite heart on our part.

You also stated - “All this talk about “facing God” or “facing Christ on the crucifix” is hogwash.  Don’t we teach the God is everywhere and no matter where we look, there is God any more?”

“I prefer the Novus Ordo.  But I do understand why others would prefer the Tridentine Mass.  Since how the Mass is said is practice, it is not doctrinal, and therefore it can, and has over the centuries, change.

Your opinion shows that your Lex Credendi has changed over the course of time with your attendance of the Novus Ordo Missae.  This is an awful phenomena that has occurred within Holy Mother Church.  The Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi is a maxim that has existed since the beginning of the Church militant on Earth began.  The way the Church Prays is how she believes. Therefore, the doctrine of the church has changed over the period of time.  It is an error to express that the mass is not part of the Church’s doctrinal teaching.  Even Mgr. Bugnini’s assistant expresses this in his quote above.  If we pray in a certain way, it will also dictate how we believe.  The prayers and rites that have changed over the course of these past 40 to 50 years has literally changed how the church prays and believes.  Therefore, if one was familiar with the rites and prayers that were said in the Mass prior to Vatican II, one can obviously see that these prayers were changed after Vatican II and therefore the Law of Belief has changed into a more watered down or obscured version of our faith.

Again, we cannot change Holy Mother Church to suit our will.  However, we must change ourselves to the Will and eternal truths that God set out for us through Holy Mother Church.

Ad Iesum per Mariam!

“To Jesus through Mary!”

I was a cradle Catholic that turned away from the Church for a period (going through agnostic, evangelical, and mainline phases)and attending a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin at St. John Cantius in Chicago was pivotal in my returning to Mother Church. I came in its doors as a moderate Methodist and walked out a committed Traditionalist Catholic. A lot bothered my then Protestant sensibilities, the fact that the homily was short and far too preachy, that the Scripture and hymns were in another language, and the fact that everyone seemed to be doing the same thing from root and there was little instruction in what to do. But by the time Communion came around my Catholic friend reminded me I was still a communicant and it could never do harm, so I knelt at an altar rail and received the soft host on the tongue and suddenly realized what the Sacrifice of the Mass was all about and how everything I had believed the Eucharist to be as a Protestant was wrong. Believing that the Eucharist was truly Body and Blood of Christ was essential to my swimming back across the Tiber.

I attended a few more times and picked up on most of the Latin, it was quite easy as I remembered the vernacular Novus Ordo quite well and the responses in Latin were similar to the ones in English. Going to a Tridentine Mass at Shrine of Christ the King was yet another step to an even more ancient and beautiful mass. I have to admit I am not sure if I could handle that on a day to day basis since it is quite unfamiliar and again I still like to hear good preaching (a bad or perhaps a good habit left over from my days attending Protestant churches). Overtime I began to attend the Gregorian Chant Mass at my regular campus parish which was a fantastic liturgy that seemed to combine the best elements of a good Novus Ordo post-Vatican II mass: an accessible priest, laity participation, good preaching, communal singing through hymns- with the best elements of a traditional Mass-the chanting responses were in Latin (hearing the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater Noster, the Agnus Dei-as they were meant to be heard in Latin-and the Kyrie in Greek you truly feel part of an Apostolic church re-enacting the apostolic prayers)  but the hymns, psalms, and verbal responses (for the Communion prayers, “and also with you”, etc.) were all still in English, as were the Scripture readings and the Homily. The priest wore a stole and more traditional vestments, there was a procession with a cross and incense. No biretta though. My only complaints were the Westward orientation of the priest and the lack of an altar rail (due to time and space constraints mostly as the space was used by several churches). This was a fantastic liturgy and I’ve been told its been used at several campus parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago though it should spread across the country. Similarly I am curious to attend an Anglican Use liturgy as it uses traditional English prayers and is a good example of the Tridentine Rite in English, sadly there are only heretical Anglo-Catholic parishes in Chicago, which have great traditional but heterodox liberal theologies. And the Eastern rite is a whole nother ball game entirely. The new missal should preserve the integrity of Vatican II and restore the Mass and protect it from abuses and hopefully reinvigorate the Church

“Which is Better: Latin Mass or Novus Ordo?”

The 1969 *editio typica* of the revised Missal is in Latin - if one of the vernacular translations is intended, that should be made clear.

No form of the Mass is better than another. This question treats the Mass as though it were a form of entertainment; it’s a completely inappropriate question, like “which Pope is best ?” or something like that. Catholics with a stronger sense of the sacred would not ask such questions, because they would not think like that.

I grew up with the Latin Mass, and I felt that our Mass was sacred and special, especially with the latin hymns as sung during High Mass.  I feel now with the changes in the new Roman Missal, with the Kyrie,
the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater Noster, the Agnus Dei, with the option to be said in latin will bring us back to the way they were ment to be prayed.

I came back to the Church after a twenty year crooked line. I went on my diocese website and looked up every parish in my county, and staring in the A’s, attended a different one each Sunday, if I liked one, and a HDO occurred during the week, I went again to that parish. I was up to the S’s, when I walked into a place I instantly loved. 800 families with 60-70 altar boys. No apologizing, we walk right through our entire town with Mary on Mothers day. We even take over the local Catholic radio station, for one our priests to pray all 15 decades of the Rosary. We have Confession before every mass, every mass, EVERY mass. We have a schola that is simply beyond description. We have homilies that discuss hell, and how to avoid checking in. It is a parish that is alive with bible study, devotions of some sort every day, including Benedictions twice a week. Full Vespers on Sunday, followed by Benediction. Compline during the week, and Matins too. I had no idea what was going on for two weeks, in the Mass, yes I went every day. All the devotions took another month or so. All I knew was that the graces pouring down on this parish were so thick you could see them! My only complaint, it is too crowded. I never made it to the T’s either. My guess is that the TLM will hit critical mass in less than 10 years, within 20, the majority of Catholics will be attending TLM Mass on a regular basis. Just my humble opinion. BTW, if you do attend, remember just as the NO Mass, which is 100% valid, has some old liberal folks who say really weird things. The same is true with the TLM, we have some old conservative folks who say really weird things. Whatever form you like, thank God we have it.

I have been regularly attending the TLM in Seattle for the past three years run by the FSSP.  It took me three weeks to sign up officially after my first visit.  In short I found that for the first time after converting to Catholicism 30 years ago via the Novus Ordo (NO), I found that the TLM so inspired me that I looked forward to attending the Mass for the Graces therein, versus just going to Mass for the sake of fulfilling the requirement to attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of obligation.

Being positively motivated to attend Mass vs. just to attend in order to fulfill the attendence requirement is a big deal.  I thought, and so did my non-Catholic co-workers, that I was a fairly religious person in my NO days.  But since attending the TLM I found out in reality that I was a “minimalist” and didn’t have the Faith truly in my heart.  So, I don’t think I’m any better than those who still attend the NO, but simply more blessed attending the TLM.

And yes, it takes effort to get used to the Latin.  But by reciting the Latin as you read the adjacent English passages, the richness of the Liturgy becomes abundantly clear.  Trust me, the effort is worth it!  You know—be not afraid.

I don’t really understand how we can discuss the two masses as if they are on equal footing, the NO mass seems to be absolutely fabricated for todays catholic, ie: people who would like to “think” they can worship however they want, standing, kneeling, smiling, laughing, grabbin the wafer and poppin it in their mouth, one big happy party, a con celebration of I’m ok, you’re ok, God doesn’t make junk…..this is what I saw as a young person who went to NO masses with my Mom, the reverence for the body and blood was never heir apparent, now I go to the Mass, (tridentine only), I happily drive past ten catholic churches and their aging baby boomer half blown out hippy priests to get to a real one…thank you God, thank you for the truth.

I love the Latin Mass, but there is a beautiful option between the Tridentine and Novos Ordo. The Anglican use parishes (mine in San Antonio) offer a Mass as beautiful and reverent as the Tridentine Mass yet in eloquent formal English. Pray for the flowering of the Anglican Ordinariate, for of offers traditionalists, like me, a wonderful alternative.

What I can’t understand is why people continue to use locutions such as “the NO Mass” to refer to what Pope Benedict XVI calls “the ordinary form of the Roman Missal,” and to ignore the fact that you can say the ordinary form in a way that most 1962 Missal enthusiasts would think was one of their own Masses—in Latin, facing the altar, etc.
I sing in a cathedral choir and am a fan of classical music.  Back in college I learned about how composers like William Byrd and Palestrina (who composed in the late 16th century) composed in conformity to what was then the new Missal, the Tridentine one.  (In fact, after Byrd Mary Tudor brought England back to the old Missal, the Sarum rite.)

I wonder if Mr. Warner knew what he was starting with his original post Feb. 26? It seems he stirred up a hornet’s nest and a lot of pent-up feelings.
Reading some of these — there are a lot, aren’t there? — has gotten me to thinking why Pope Benedict XVI has continued to take the steps he has with the new translation of the Missal and the increasing accessibility of the Tridentine Mass. I think he instinctively knows what many people have written about here and he shares their sentiments; many are sick and tired of priests that don’t follow the rules and think the Mass is “theirs” to do with what they want or that the Mass is the worship of ourselves — and oh, by the way, we can kind of worship this “God-thing” in whatever way we want to or imagine! What I can’t figure out is why there was such a poor translation done in the beginning. ... From what I gather, Benedict is only doing what Blessed John Paul II was originally going to do after he was elected pope; restore wide-spread access to the TLM. Apparently — I remember this from listening to a cassette by Fr. John Emerson of the FSSP — he had a document prepared to authorize use of the Old Rite by any priest who so desired but was talked out of signing it by some, who argued he shouldn’t want to seem like he was repudiating Paul VI so shortly after his death. The rest, as they say, is history but he knew something was not working; he just didn’t follow up. ... I agree with Andrew; within the next 20 years — preferably sooner — the TLM will be celebrated far more regularly in every parish. Part of this is a skepticism I sense that there will be a “schism” — we can all see it forming even more now, though it has been going on for a long time — between traditional/orthodox and the “It’s Our Church” feminazi/abortionist/witchcraft/New Age crowd. They are dying off — they are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence — so they need “recruitment” to keep their numbers. And, of course, they will have the lying media and academe on their side. In other words, stay strong!!!

I wonder if Mr. Warner knew what he was starting with his original post Feb. 26? It seems he stirred up a hornet’s nest and a lot of pent-up feelings. ... Reading some of these — there are a lot, aren’t there? — has gotten me to thinking why Pope Benedict XVI has continued to take the steps he has with the new translation of the Missal and the increasing accessibility of the Tridentine Mass. I think he instinctively knows what many people have written about here and he shares their sentiments; many are sick and tired of priests that don’t follow the rules and think the Mass is “theirs” to do with what they want or that the Mass is the worship of ourselves — and oh, by the way, we can kind of worship this “God-thing” in whatever way we want to or imagine! What I can’t figure out is why there was such a poor translation done in the beginning. ... From what I gather, Benedict is only doing what Blessed John Paul II was originally going to do after he was elected pope; restore wide-spread access to the TLM. Apparently — I remember this from listening to a cassette by Fr. John Emerson of the FSSP — he had a document prepared to authorize use of the Old Rite by any priest who so desired but was talked out of signing it by some, who argued he shouldn’t want to seem like he was repudiating Paul VI so shortly after his death. The rest, as they say, is history but he knew something was not working; he just didn’t follow up. ... I agree with Andrew; within the next 20 years — preferably sooner — the TLM will be celebrated far more regularly in every parish. Part of this is a skepticism I sense that there will be a “schism” — we can all see it forming even more now, though it has been going on for a long time — between traditional/orthodox and the “It’s Our Church” feminazi/abortionist/witchcraft/New Age crowd. They are dying off — they are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence — so they need “recruitment” to keep their numbers. And, of course, they will have the lying media and academe on their side. In other words, stay strong!!!

I am very saddened to hear so many misinformed persons glamorizing the Latin mass as if it somehow better than THE christian tradition of having mass in the language of the people.  When I was an altar boy in the early 60s, I was actually pretty shocked at how disrepectful the priests were in saying the latin mass.  One priest could rattle off a mass in 10 minutes.  Everyone was just parroting the language.  Most people prayed the rosary during mass.  The English mass was like an infusion of the Holy Spirit.  God actually cared enough about us to speak to us in our own language.  For the first time, I understood the holiness and vertical nature of the mass.  I was standing at the foot of Calvary as a human being who could now take communion as Jesus wanted us to in both his body and blood.  It is clear from all sources especially the Bible that mass in the language of people is THE tradition of the church.  Vatican II never said it was changing the church.  It was about maintaining the real traditions of the church, such as mass in vernacular language, communion under both species and a collegial apostolic leadership.  I am always offended by people claiming that they are traditionalists because they want to go back to the Latin mass.  Actually they are innovationalists.  We all know that at the end of classical era, a very destructive innovation occured.  When the Latin language split off into French, Spanish, Romanian, Portugese, et al. and the Germanic peoples moved into Europe, the power structure pushed having mass only in what was now the language of the elite, Latin. This was a departure from the tradition of the church of having mass in the language of the people.  In the early middle ages (860 AD) a real attempt was made in the mission of Sts Cyril and Methodius to bring the Roman rite to the Slavic peoples in their own language.  To this end, Cyril and Methodius (really cool dudes in my opinion) developed the forerunner to the Cyrillic alphabet.  In spite of the fact that Cyril and Methodius’ Slavic language Roman rite mass was approved by two popes, the “Latinists” fought then tooth and nail.  Latin mass was being used to subjugate the Slavs to the Germanic empire at the time.  It was far too potent of a tool to allow the lower class people to hear mass in their own language, in spite of what any mere pope might say.  Methodius now the archbishop of the area was actually put in jail for two years by the “Latinists” in spite of repeated orders from the pope to release him.  When Methodius died, his disciples were driven out of Great Moravia (more or less modern Slovakia and the Czech Republic).  They ended up helping to convert Kiev, Bulgaria, Russia and other Slavic people.  But get this.  They now no longer used the Roman Rite but used the Byzantine liturgy.  These new Christian countries became under the control of the patriarch of Constantiople and left with him in the Great Schism of 1054.  One can’t help but wonder what the history of the world and the church would have been like, if Cyril and Methodius would have been allowed to finish their papal approved mission of bringing the western liturgy to the Slavs in their own language.  Imagine what it would have meant to have had Russia under the pope.  I sometimes muse that maybe the protestant “reformation” would not have gathered any steam.  Why should it? The mass was already in the language of the people.  I am sorry, I have only seen bitter fruits from the latin mass.  These bitter fruits seem to be coming back again.

Well, obviously I’m coming VERY late to this article, but my two cents are . . .

I grew up with something called “the Latin Novus Ordo.”  (See Don Schenk’s post above.)  Basically, it was a Novus Ordo Mass with all the constant parts (penitential rite, cannon, etc.) said in Latin.  Oftentimes, though not always, it was celebrated ad orientem.  People usually received communion on the tongue.  Priests encouraged people who were able to do so to kneel for communion (even though none of the churches I attended growing up had communion rails).  Music was a mixture of Latin Gregorian chant (for the Mass parts), traditional hymns, and polyphony.

I LOVE the Mass done this way!  I think it’s really sad that nowadays people talk about “the Latin Mass” and seem to mean the Tridentine celebrated in its strictest, most inaccessible way.  What about the cross-pollination that Pope Benedict has said he hopes to see between the two liturgies?  Those Latin Novus Ordo Masses I attended seem like just the sort of hybrid he has in mind.

One anecdote.  The parish I now attend doesn’t have a LNO Mass.  There’s the Tridentine every Sunday, and several English Masses.  A couple people have tentatively asked the pastor about having an LNO, but his attitude is that anyone who likes Latin would want the Tridentine.  Au contraire!  (To me, that’s like saying any girl who wants to dress modestly should wear ankle and wrist-length clothes.  Oh, wait, there ARE some people who think that . . .)

Some months after this back-and-forth with the pastor, I sang at a Tridentine wedding at the parish.  Also in attendance was a lower-echelon Vatican liturgist.  After the Mass he came over to the music director and began congratulating him on the music, etc.  He asked what the usual Masses at the parish were like.  The music director gave him the “one Tridentine, and the rest are English Novus Ordo” answer.

The liturgist gave the music director a curious look, and said “So you mean you do Mass the old-fashioned way, and modern way, but you don’t do the official Mass of the Church?”

“What’s that?” asked the music director.

“The Latin Novus Ordo . . .”

I am responding to Sophia Mason and I am quoting her, speaking about the “hybrid” mass the “latin NO”.

Sophia said of her mass of upbringing,“Oftentimes, though not always, it was celebrated ad orientem.”  Oftentimes, but not always?  Well, why bother?  This is a curious case of NO disorientation.  Obviously, some churches are not set up properly ad orientem.  That is another discussion entirely.  The question remains after one assists the exquisite, ancient TLM, why change the language in the first place?  Is it a great idea to mold the mass to the culture instead of Christ’s tradition of molding the culture to the mass?  Please, modernists, study the ancient church.  The mass was the core of the worship.  The mass was a sacrifice on an altar, of the most worthy, pure and divine Lord for our salvation.  The NO, in any form, contains too many distractions.  It pulls the church towards the culture, which is exactly opposite of the way Christ himself and the ancient church worked so hard to pull the culture into the church.  Diabolical disorientation is often exactly backwards.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/which-is-better-latin-mass-or-novus-ordo/#ixzz1Q3vmRW7i

Is this blog topic still going on?  I thought it had died a slow death.  I haven’t seen so much wasted commentary since one of Mark Shea’s usual rants.  People are singing the praises of the Latin mass which most people could not even understand without a missal (that is, for the few who even brought a missal to mass) and are treating the Novus Ordo as if it’s on par with trailer park trash.  Regardless of which mass style you prefer, it is how we honor the Lord.  It is time to stop placing the experiential above “whom” is being honored.  It is also time to stop placing church ritual above personal righteousness.  As certain as we take our last breath, the Lord will surely not inquire which mass style was our preference.  Move on.  The Bishop’s do what they want regardless of what those in pew say anyway.

In response to Eileen, the Mass started as the Lord’s Supper, the remembrance of the death of our Lord.  It was held around a table not some cold stone non human altar which for some strange reason is supposed to be facing east.  Remember the first mass was at a table.  The second mass was also said at a table in Emmaus and it was Jesus who said it.  I don’t think Jesus cared about which way the table was facing or how fancy the altar was.  The important thing was that his friends were gathered around him in love.  Remember, the disciples who walked with Jesus recognized him in the breaking of the bread, not in a fancy altar, not in the direction he was facing and certainly not in a language they couldn’t understand (i.e. Latin).  No their hearts recogized him in joy.  Vatican II did a pretty good job of bringing that joy back considering how far the mass had slip from what it is supposed to be.  Now unfortunately it seems to slipping back to some pagan ritual that has to be minutely followed using rules that make no sense and speak not in any way to our hearts.  The mass is a sacrificial meal.  God wants our hearts as a sacrifice as Jesus gave his.  God does not want minutely followed rubrics.  This clearly is one of the main messages of the Good News.  Thank goodness, God left us the Gospels to show us His Way.

I have been attending the Tridentine Rite for about 12 years. It’s true that there is a breed of folks who are more Catholic than the Pope when it comes to the Tridentine Mass, but its still a tiny fraction of people compared to the post Vatican II hordes who trampled upon anything that even smelled of the old Church. That Pope Benedict had to declare the old Mass as “never abrogated” 40 years hence in his Moto Proprio, is some indication as to how quickly and viciously the old Mass was put to death and buried. I’m sad to say that I was part of that revolution, guitar in hand. But after 20 plus years of trying to make the Mass ever more groovy I had to admit that I was at a dead end. I put the guitar away and went in search of a Mass at which I could experience something greater than myself. I didn’t even know about the Tridentine at the time. For whatever reason, the Novus Ordo, or the way it is done, just simply lends itself to “an all about us” feel.  Just my personal opinion. I eventually stumbled upon a Tridentine Mass. I’m not sure if it was the amount of silence within the Mass or the fact that the priest faced the altar, but there was just an “otherness” that seemed built into the Mass that attracted me. So I stayed.

In response to Eileen Ratigan—my “oftentimes, though not always” was not intended as an approval—merely an accurate description of what I experienced.  I’m pro ad orientem, for all the reasons you can imagine.

Distractions in the LNO?  I think it depends very much how it is celebrated.  For many people, like myself, a Mass that is reverent but participatory (as the best NO Masses are) is a better experience than a Mass that is so “other”.  With or without a missal or prayer book, my mind tends to wander much more easily at a Tridentine Mass than it does at an LNO one.  This may very well be a flaw IN ME, but I know o