More Universal Indult Rumors

141 thoughts on “More Universal Indult Rumors”

1. Let’s get this straight.
   Some blogger says that this priest in London told him that a cardinal in China said that the Pope told him that there’s going to be an indult.
   While there are many reasons to suspect this rumour is true, that chain of telephone tag is not one of them. What’s up with Ruth Gledhill that she can’t find better sources?

2. This is getting way too much attention in the secular press to be just another rumor.
   http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:en&tab=wn&ncl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2006/10/12/wcatholic12.xml&hl=en
   I am overjoyed. The nearest indult mass to Steubenville is in Pittsburgh (40 miles away). Our parish priest here in Steubenville has already said he would be delighted to say the TLM but thus far has been prohibited from doing so.

3. I appologize for how the link above appears, I still haven’t found out how to properly insert hyperlinks.

4. Growing up in the Byzantine Church (and now in the Latin Rite) I’ve never been exposed to the Tridentine Mass. However I’m excited for the possibility.
   Older family members on the other hand aren’t too keen because they felt lost during the Latin Mass not knowing what was happening.
   I guess I’ll wait with the rest of you!

5. There have been rumors in the past, but this seems to have more traction to it.
   I am praying for an indult!

6. I like the spin in the story, that somehow allowing Latin rite Masses in Latin is “conservative”. I prefer to think that Pope is kickin’ it Old School. 🙂
   I’m excited by the possibility of attending an actual Latin Mass!

7. People are all excited over the proposed indult coming from the Holy Father. However, it needs to be fully recognized that in itself, it could be meaningless. The local Bishops still retain authority over their Dioceses and Superiors over their religious orders. Think for a minute…most of these ‘Worship Centers’ either could not be configured to celebrate a Tridentine Mass nor are they conducive to such.
   Many of the older Gothic-style churches are in neighborhoods bubbling over with drugs, shootings, and crime that is off the charts. No one from the suburbs will go there for anything short of an apparition and then, they’d probably watch it on television.
   The Bishops retain full authority over their Priests and if the boss doesn’t want a Tridentine Mass there’s not going to be any…period. So don’t get too excited too soon. I would love the cocktail lounge worship centers to be sold for that purpose and the Lord to once again take up His rightful place dead center of a real Church building complete with a burning red sancturary lamp and total silence due His Presence. I don’t think this will happen. The New Agers are well-entrenched and not likely to give up any ground. [I retired from the Army after 30 years – forgive the military tone if it bothers you].
   I think many of us fully expected Pope Benedict to turn things around and I do believe he is trying. But like big corporations, the Church has her own corporate culture and that culture knows he will not be around forever – no Pope ever is. Delay tactics or other maneuvers will be employed to the hilt and perhaps, a token Tridentine Mass allowed here and there. But for those who know and love that Mass rite, we most likely will have to live on the memories of the past for sometime to come yet.
   It really isn’t an issue of rites, language etc. so much as it is the clear message of for Whom the Mass is being celebrated. It is not for the people; it is a Sacrifice to God the Father of His only begotten Son – the re-presentation of Calvary. Cell phones going off and instant messages (text I think they’re called] being sent back and forth in the pews, people taking Our Lord in the hand and sticking Him in their mouth like they were just given a snack, and dressing as though they were attending a rock concert (not too far from the truth I suppose) are indicative of the mentality which needs to be changed.
   The Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, truly and substantially present (if the Priest uses the correct words and not his own) is such an awesome gift to us as Catholics that if we fully realized it would force us to our knees and on our faces as the Angels present are doing. For now, we must see with the eyes of faith – they see Him as He really is.
   I pray that we can recover that which was so carelessly tossed away or aside over the past forty or so years. As it took time to unravel our Catholic fabric so it will take time to repair it. For the sake of the generations now and in the future, I hope that all things Catholic are restored for we have willingly and unwillingly given into the ways of the world where we would have been better to bring the world to Christ as His Mystical Body on earth.
   Blessings to all.

8. The Bishops retain full authority over their Priests and if the boss doesn’t want a Tridentine Mass there’s not going to be any…period. So don’t get too excited too soon.
   I agree, but must mention (as I did on Shea’s site) that this is a vast improvement if it pans out because as it is now, the bishop can supress the mass without really doing anything and look like he’s not doing anything.
   Priests and Laity: “May we have a TLM mass pretty please?”
   Bishop: “Ask me again in five years.”
   Or any other non-commital delay tactic.
   Now a bishop would have to get his hands dirty and actively supress it.

9. Getting his hands dirty amounts to this Scott…”I authorized the Tridentine Mass in each county for a month…two, six months (whatever) and the numbers simply do not support further continuance. Should greater interest become evident in the future, I will authorize its celebration once again on a trial basis. It appears that the interest is simply not there as I had hoped it would be.” He’s covered.

10. Fr. Lawrence makes a good point, however: having lived in a diocese with a bishop who was vocally opposed to the Tridentine mass, I fear that this Motu Propio will incur little change. These bishops will make up some line about how there are pastoral concerns, and blah, blah, blah, about allowing the old mass.
    Or similarly, they might just issue their own diocesan documents which say: “everyone in my diocese is forbidden from saying this mass unless they ask me for permission and get it in writing.”
    I’ll be very interested in how this plays out. We should all be praying and doing pennance for this…

11. Unfortunately, most of THEIR STORY is presently hidden behind a subscription requirement
    Just go to http://www.bugmenot.com
    Paste the url of Catholic World News into the field, and you’ll receive a user name and password.

12. One fear I have is that some priests who don’t really care for the Tridentine mass might allow it initially for the sake of avoiding conflict, but go about it in such a way that it will be seen as dull, perfunctory and barren compared to the more happy-clappy masses.
    Then, when attendance at the indult mass drops, they could say, “Well, you wanted the Latin mass, and I went along, but as you can see, there is just not enough interest to continue.”.
    Indeed, I think this was part of the problem with the Latin mass pre-Vat.II… priests who just went through the motions in a mechanical way and who managed to convey a lack of reverence, even through the beautiful liturgy of the Tridentine mass.
    “Phoning it in”, is the term, I think.

13. I have heard of celebrating the “ordinary” liturgy (Novus Ordo) in Latin in the US.
    Is this not permissible?

14. I’ve been Catholic for three years now and I have to say that I cannot say with certainty that I would have converted if my parish celebrated the Latin Mass. While I would like to attend one now out of curiosity, I enjoy understanding what is being said. Without understanding the mass, the prayers, etc., I would not have realized the beauty, reverance and process by which the utterly foreign concept of transubstantiation is achieved. And that was a major hurdle for me. I and other protestants were/are under the impression that the priest says “magic” words and the change occurs. Understanding the Mass was key to overcoming my ignorance.

15. “Many of the older Gothic-style churches are in neighborhoods bubbling over with drugs, shootings, and crime that is off the charts. No one from the suburbs will go there for anything short of an apparition and then, they’d probably watch it on television.”
    Don’t bet on it. Many of those who enjoy the indult Mass now will go to great lengths to participate in the Latin Mass, including bad neighborhoods. Holiness attracts.

16. So much of the “news” today consists of “reporting” what other news sources already said. Very few original sources. I’ll wait to see.

17. Kris:
    Of course its permissible; a priest needs no permission whatever to celebrate the current rite in Latin. Of course, he might want to be considerate of the people in doing so; but as to “permission,” none is needed.
    Already, a lot of talk is suggesting that the restoration of the Pian Rite will be the “Latin” Mass; which is so misleading; it’s not Latin v. vernacular, but two rites that are different for other more substantial reasons, one of which is decidely not language, since the Paul VI Rite can and is celebrated . . . in Latin!
    I know many hope this will help the cause of “re-enchanting” the celebration of the Pauline Rite (the one we are all familiar with); and I hope so. But it occurs to me that, in the short-term, it will have the opposite effect. For one thing, this would seem to short-circuit re-introducing Latin into the current rite. People who don’t know better will say, “our priest is mixing the two; is he allowed to do that?”

18. Aside from the question as to whether this motu proprio occurs or not, it should be noted that this would not “bring back” the Latin Mass. The so called Latin Mass has always been allowed since VC2 as an “extraordinary” celebration (the Novus Ordo of Paul VI being the “ordinary” means) and this was confirmed by JP2’s indult in the 80s.
    This will merely expand the opportunity for the celebration of the Latin Mass. To me the practical consideration in this whole matter is the lack of priests who A) know Latin and B)know how to celebrate or have a familiarity with the Tridentine Mass. This would open up an excellent occasion for the priests of the SSPX to enter into the Church and fill that void. The Holy Spirit works in strange ways and does as He will…this could be one of those golden moments of the Church. Let us hope and pray for renewal!

19. ‘This would open up an excellent occasion for the priests of the SSPX to enter into the Church and fill that void.’
    The SSPXers that I know won’t receive communion from a priest that says Mass both in English and Latin – it might render the Latin Mass ‘tainted’, so I’m really doubtful.
    At our parish a Latin Mass would be well attended just because the other masses are so crowded, the time might be more convenient for some, or some might go thinking the parking lot will be less busy. With 7,000 families I think attendence would not be a problem, but Mahoney might find other ‘problems’.

20. I am doubtful also, Hippo, and that is why I used the conditional tense. This would really, as I said, be a potentially grace filled moment that would happen unexpectedly. Thus the need for prayer.

21. CatholicExchange.com usually has the CWNews stories, the article is here, linked on their website.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

22. I haven’t read all the other comments yet.
    But I have always wondered why the Novus Ordo was always so disorganized from parish to parish.
    And why except on rare occasions there is no Latin used in it? We are after all the “Latin Church” Correct?
    I feel ambiguous to the Tridentine rite, being “young” enough to not remember having been to one.
    I just wish Latin was used in both Rites. And no, I do not know Latin but with a good translation in front of me I would be happy to use Latin.
    I have heard about some Novus Ordo masses that use Latin I just feel that would bring back some of the Universality that we should have. If all the responses and the Consecration were in Latin. I wouldn’t feel too uncomfortable going to other countries or non English masses. We know what the readings are supposed to be and I can bring a copy of those along. Using Latin would just allow me to participate in the Worship more fully. And with more and more Spanish masses taking place it would allow a lot of parishes to come back together as a parish.
    Just my random thoughts. 😉

23. Go over to Fr. Z’s website What Does The Prayer Really Say? for a good analysis and commentary on this topic.
    (Hi, Fr. Martin Fox!)

24. Brian:
    I don’t wish to be unpeaceable with you, but your language about “the Latin Mass” seems to me to perpetuate the unfortunate and unhelpful notion that “the Latin Mass” is something other than the Mass we currently celebrate as normative.
    The Rite promulgated by Paul VI is “the Latin Mass” — even though, very regrettably, it isn’t offered in Latin very often.
    I lament that this has become known as a “vernacular Mass,” but this is, in my judgment, a point worth insisting upon; because, after all, if the notion I am faulting (and I merely suggest you are unwittingly giving credence to it) continues, then efforts to celebrate the Paul VI Rite in Latin as intended, and as is entirely normal and proper! will in practice, be seen as something distortive or intrusive! The very fact that people ask, “do you need permission to celebrate the Pauline rite in Latin” is proof of this!
    It seems to me it serves the interests of the wrong people, and the wrong agenda, to do anything to perpetuate this falsehood. And it concerns me that already, in the discussion of a possible universal indult for the Pian Rite, the too-easy contrast between Paul’s “vernacular Mass” and the old “Latin Mass” is starting to gel. This is a replay, it seems to me, of a lot of the misnomers about Vatican II that we are still trying to correct, 40 years later.
    Pope Paul’s Mass, whatever anyone thinks of it, is a Latin Mass — and insofar as it is valid and therefore in union with the mystical, eternal Liturgy, it is properly called “the Mass” (as are all valid, proper rites of the liturgy) and therefore, is is no misnomer to call it, “the Latin Mass” — i.e., according to the Rite of Paul VI, as opposed to that of Pius V (or Vatican II in distinction to Trent, or however else one wants to note the distinctions of the two forms of the Mass).
    Again — not trying to be bellicose, but sometimes subtleties are important, and I think this is one of those times.

25. Er, my comments were directed to “Brian John,” further up the thread, not the recently entered Brian Day. Hi back!

26. Many of the older Gothic-style churches are in neighborhoods bubbling over with drugs, shootings, and crime that is off the charts. No one from the suburbs will go there for anything short of an apparition and then, they’d probably watch it on television.
    A little aside, but are there no Catholics in the ghetto? Maybe if we did start going there, we might be able to reach those drug dealers and criminals. And then they can come to the Tridentine Mass.

27. Thanks, Father Martin, for your comment about the Mass of Paul VI. I did not mean to imply that that Mass cannot be currently celebrated in Latin. Thanks for the opportunity to clear up that misunderstanding. It is unfortunate, as you stated, that there is a general tendency to refer to it as “the Mass of the vernacular” when, in fact, it is perfectly legitimate to refer to it equally as the Latin Mass. That is why I opened my comment with the statement that the motu proprio would not “bring back the Latin Mass”…it has always been with us. Thanks, Brian John

28. I love the Tridentine Mass and, on occasions, I had attended a Church quite aways from where I lived that, at one time, celebrated it but, after the final priest who knew how to actually celebrate it retired, it was no longer done at that Parish.
    Even if the indult was valid, my question is are there enough priests out there to make the celebration of the Tridentine Mass available to Catholics as well as ensure its continuance?
    I mean, how would the Church actually ensure that the Tridentine Mass would be available to all Catholics and be preserved and continued unto the future when, really, there are, at least, to my knowledge, no formal Catholic seminaries and so forth out there that actually teach about the Tridentine Mass and how to properly celebrate it?

29. Nathan,
    There is the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. Their current superior Fr. John Berg was previously the pastor at St. Stephen’s in Sacramento, CA.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

30. Father Lawrence
    God bless your soul-I could not have said it any better

31. Assuming we have the potential for a Latin-language mass revival, is there a network in place for Latin instruction for parishoners? I’d like to put my classics major to use.

32. Inocencio,
    You are a God-send! Thanks!

33. Kevin, I’d sign up!

34. The implementation of the Tridentine Rite (if the rumors are true) would be greatly helped if people with knowledge of Latin would step forward and volunteer to help their local priest with teaching other parishoners.
    I know that the Ecclesia Dei parish in our area, St. Stephen, offered Latin classes.
    Coalition in support of ECCLESIA DEI has lots of information and suggestions.
    J+M+J

35. Kris,
    As another poster said, yes, Latin Novus Ordo is allowed in US.
    If you have access to EWTN you can see daily Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in Latin (aired morning, midday, midnight eastern), except readings and homily (& maybe the Eucharistic prayer). I don’t recall that the Masses were always Latin on EWTN, but since this summer I have rarely seen a vernacular (English) Mass by the priestly order there. I can’t recall their name: Priests of the Eternal Word or something like that…

36. Should we really get our hopes up for more Tridentine Masses when we can’t even seem to get a real Novus Ordo?

37. Nick, above. You said you were raised in the Byzantine Rite. Have you considered continuing to worship in that rite? Is there a Byz Cath congregation near you? The Byzantine Rite churches are declining and this is a shame because their worship is beautiful and reverent and this part of the heritage of the undivided church should be part of Catholicism. For that reason the Church discourages Byzantine Rite Catholics from formally switching rites to the Latin/Roman rite.
    I am considering switching in the other direction and have joined a Byzantine parish.
    Come back and help the Byzantine Catholic Church grow and thrive!
    Susan Peterson

38. Fr. Martin, thank you for your earlier post because you voice so well my concerns whenever the topic of the Tridentine Mass comes up. Mostly because the discussion usually quickly becomes a Tridentine versus Novus Ordo dichotomy.
    Because the terms tend to be confusing, let me get this straight. At the moment,
    the ordinary (normative) Mass is the 1970 missal, the “Novus Ordo,” which can be celebrated completely in the vernacular, completely in Latin or any combination of the two languages.
    the extraordinary Mass, by indult, is the 1962 missal, the “Tridentine Mass” which is entirely in Latin.
    From what I can gather, this new document is expanding the permission for the extraordinary Mass.
    So… are the rumors that both forms (CWN excerpt) will be considered ordinary OR that the Novus Ordo will continue to the the ordinary, normative Mass and the Tridentine the extraordinary?
    If the latter, then I would echo Fr. Martin’s comment that it might “short-circuit re-introducing Latin into the current rite.”

39. The normative form of the Novus Ordo is Latin, and, as far as I know, that form of the Roman rite can be celebrated any time. So, yeah, Mass is available in Latin without recourse to the classical form of the Roman rite.
    Except, the Novus Ordo isn’t available in Latin. Sometimes, in big cities, sure, but in almost all parishes never. Priests who say, “Hey, the NO can be done in Latin; I say it in Latin (privately) every day!” really cheese me off. (I’m not referring to anyone who’s posted here; I’m thinking of a column I once read.) Bully for you, Father. There are major dioceses (100s of thousands of Catholics) with no Mass in Latin. I know priests who asked permission to offer the NO in Latin and were refused. Maybe technically they could co it anyway, but the chancery would find a way to punish them and their flocks. The simple fact of the matter is, for the vast majority of Catholic laymen, a Latin NO just isn’t available.
    Point the second: Here’s the problem. The Roman rite stood in need of some organic reform. Bugnini and co. screwed this up bigtime. (Intentionally, I think.) What needs to happen is the Roman rite, as it existed before the Council (and, I think, before Pius XII’s Bugnini-designed “reforms”), should be organically reformed. But the modrenists won’t give up the truly horrible deformation that is the NO and the trads are understandably gunshy about any reforms. So we are stuck, for prudential and pastorly reasons, with the unreformed classical form of the rite and the deformed NO (which they’re trying to make a bit better) until all the partisans die off. Then, ditch the NO, have a true reform of the Roman rite, and the dhimmis of the 22nd century will have a nice Mass to go to. Sucks for us, living in these times, but I do appreciate the widespread indoor plumbing.
    Oh, and Dom, I think the UK does have a blanket indult, Paul VI’s “Agatha Christie” indult, separate from JPII’s.

40. Boko, where does the 1962 need organic reform and what would you say is deformed about the 1970?

41. Getting his hands dirty amounts to this Scott…”I authorized the Tridentine Mass in each county for a month…two, six months (whatever) and the numbers simply do not support further continuance. Should greater interest become evident in the future, I will authorize its celebration once again on a trial basis. It appears that the interest is simply not there as I had hoped it would be.” He’s covered.
    Ok, but doesn’t authorize it. He has to expressly forbid it. I think it would be a tough sell to say I’m forbidding it based on supposed poor attendance.

42. Mary Kay,
    Actually, I’d like to see the restoration of the pre-1962 Missal. I like the 2nd Confiteor and I despise Bugnini, who engineered the Holy Week revision. I don’t know much about the differences, I just don’t want to worship using anything authored by Bugnini.
    SC seemed to think that the 62 Missal needed to be reformed. What would I change? Maybe more prefaces. That’s about it. I don’t like the 3 year lectionary cycle, I think the Prayers of the Faithful are a waste, at best, and that the Conciliar Fathers’ stated reasons for them have been demonstrated to be historically incorrect. Having the Easter Vigil on the Easter Vigil is good, but that’s not really a reform of the rite.
    As to the NO: The prayer texts (in the Latin, not just translation) have been edited to expunge references to the supernatural, the last things, sin, &c… See Dr. Lauren Pristas’s work. How shameful that we worship according to a missal written by ideologues to promote modrenism. But others (Cdl. Ottaviani & Von Hildebrand come to mind) have offered definitive and damning critiques. Don’t get me wrong, the NO is valid. It’s just sad that it ever got foisted upon us.

43. BOKO, My hat is off to you…a very good summary of the problem. I hope you are not right about the waiting period for the solution!

44. There are several good TLM videos freely available online. Here are some links that work:
    http://www.guba.com/watch/3000002475
    http://depositfiles.com/files/311854
    Those two links are for two different versions of the same video: the first link is to a streaming Flash version (lower quality video; decent audio quality); the second link is to a Windows Media version (higher quality video). The first will start playing as soon as you load the link — make sure to switch the video to “original size” or it will be way too grainy; the second one requires you to wait (and view an advertisement), then enter a verification code (see bottomish left after countdown), then click “download file” (see bottomish right after entering the code).
    Here is a link to a second video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64
    That is one is a black and white video of a TLM celebrated in 1941, with narration by then Msgr. Fulton Sheen.
    Have fun!

45. Boko:
    Your account of what the long-term plan might be is very plausible. As you say, “sucks for us.”
    But it doesn’t conflict with my concern that in the near-term, my efforts to introduce Latin back into the Paul VI rite will be hampered. I readily foresee some ill-informed person saying, of me or any other priest trying this, “Hey, you’re not supposed to mix the two rites!”
    Long-term, it may be a good thing, but short-term, I wouldn’t be surprised if this means the celebration of the Pauline rite gets worse — because folks who have urged improvement may shift over to the newly liberated Pian rite, giving the advocates of goofiness leverage in getting their way.
    I’m not saying I’m against this; only pointing out some negatives that a lot of happy folks may find dismaying when (if) they happen.

46. Mary Kay,
    Go and read SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM from Vatican II. EWTN and other websites have it and it isn’t that long. The need for organic change is outlined in paragraph 23:
    23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
    Cardinal Ratzinger (now B16) has commented more than once that he thinks the Pauline Mass was a break in development, not an organic evolution. I don’t have the quotes handy, but I’ll bet that several will post the quotes within minutes.
    As far as the need for the organic reform, SC calls for a simplification of the liturgy. The 1962 TLM has duplicate prayers that could be eliminated/simlified without “harming” the Mass. The Confiteor is recited twice – the second time just before communion. The “Domine, non sum dignus…” (Lord, I am not worthy) is said three times. Certain gestures are repeated up to five times.
    If you have a chance, read “Spirit of the Liturgy” by Cardinal Ratzinger.

47. hmm, I thought that the Anglican Use was also a valid rite of the Church, along with the Melkite, Marionite, etc. . ..

48. Sorry folks, to use an AA term, I need to triple dip and then leave room for everyone else. I’m 63 and one of the old timers. I can tell you that the newer Priests are not interested for the most part in the Tridentine Mass. There are exceptions of course. They come from a different time and point of reference. Their seminary training is not from the same schools of thought that older Priests came from (Thomas Aquinas, Augustine et al). They are products of their nurturing environments including home, church, social and seminary. They never knew the Tridentine Mass or ‘older’ devotions either. Probably none of them ate Mrs. Paul’s fish sticks and Morton macaroni and cheese with stewed tomatoes for dinner before evening Stations of the Cross on Fridays either.
    From what I have read in the above threads, I get a general and uncomfortable feeling that language is the issue, e.g. Latin versus English. We’re missing the point if the discussion is language-oriented. God understands all of them including Latin and English. But I think what He is looking for is His Son being offered to Him regardless of the language used. The issue is the return of the sacrificical character of the Mass – the actions of the Priest as an alter Christus, offering His Divine Son in reparation for the sins of mankind – all present and those who have gone before us. Using the Tridentine missal and rubrics clearly does that; using the Novus Ordo in English or Martian does not lend itself as readily to that sacred character. There’s too much room for variation although the GIRM allows for very little.
    Keep in mind that while the Second Vatican Council was, if we still believe so, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. However, some of us believe He had a lot of prompting from modernist forces – Bugnini and others. De-emphasis on the centrality of the Mass, the Real Presence, whether intentional as some believe or unintentional, has cost us as Catholics much in terms of belief. Mass attendance is down, way down. Prior to V-II, no one ever heard of some Celebrant, excuse me, Presider, trying (in vain) to consecrate cookies or homemade bread with raisins. Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life were abundant, and devotions to Our Lady and the Holy Rosary were a given. Nothing sent a clearer wrong message to the pews than moving the Tabernacle. As a Psychologist, I know all too well the subliminal messages of outward signs. Many worship centers put a Presider’s Chair where once was the Throne of the Christ. The message – you got it. Special rooms were established for Him Whose house it is in the first place. Jesus was displaced.
    How nice it would be if God would employ the strict tactics He used in regards to worship in the temple. The Jews would tie a rope around the ankle of the High Priest before he entered this sacred place. The reason as some of you know was in case the Priest made a boo boo. He would be struck dead on the spot and have to be pulled outside by way of the rope since no one else could go in and retrieve his body. One little mistake – boom. New Priest needed. Can you see the ‘Vocation Directors’ back then? You think its tough to get prospective seminarians now…wow.
    The Council itself is not to blame. The so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ became a license to implement all manner of nuances into our Church, especially in the United States. Given the times, 1960s, freedom of expression became a clarion call. Everyone came up with all sorts of ideas to enrich Catholicism – to make it more relevant to the times. It backfired and did so terribly.
    If I announced to people that I saw Jesus at such and such a chapel or church, people would fly there in a heartbeat. Afterall, they bid on pancakes and frying pans on eBay because some moron says he sees Our Lady in them. People are thirsting for the truth and they’ll even look at a pancake for it. This speaks volumes of our times. These are times for increased prayer and discernment and mostly, for listening to the Holy Father who will guide the Church through these choppy waters.
    It is not language at all which is the issue with the current Mass or Tridentine Mass either. It is about Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made to His Father on our behalf. I don’t know if any of you, my brothers and sisters, recall a Mass called the Dialog Mass. I see this as an excellent solution to marrying the tenor of the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass. It involved the Tridentine Mass in English with the people responding as well as the altar boys. Thus the name Dialog Mass. It was not around long but was an excellent Mass format. I celebrated it quite successfully with great response. In this way, the people have an active part. The place of the altar boys is an ancient custom from the days when seminarians, called Acolytes, served Mass. There were seven stages or ranks to the Priesthood back then. There were also real gas lamps if I remember.
    I pray with all ernestness that our Church, our living, breathing Body of Christ on earth, comes to the full realization that we are offering, through the Priest Celebrant, the sacrifice of Calvary not anew but actually Calvary, re-presented to the Father. I think the Tridentine Mass in whole or part in Latin and English with the people participating, offers a common denominator for worship of the One, Triune God and one which will be most pleasing to Him.
    Frankly, I really have to question some of the liturgical celebrations I have seen and been to. They are so off-the-wall that I have to look around for a sign that I am in a Catholic Church. Suddenly, I see it – off in the distance – BINGO 7 PM Fridays. Then I know it’s Catholic.
    By virtue of the fact that you all respond to these Blogs tells me that you are caring and concerned Catholics as am I. Among ourselves we can do nothing except pray, but do not underestimate prayer. It has stopped wars, cured people, and even raised the dead. God is still in the miracle business and although I believe it may take a miracle to restore all things Catholic, I also believe the Holy Spirit elected Pope Benedict XVI and probably, given the condition of the Church when his namesake, Benedict the XVth was elected, for much the very same reasons. God always raises up holy men and women at a time when things look bleak. “And the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.”
    Blessings + to you all,
    Lawrence +

49. Brian D, although I’m far from an expert in this area, I have done some reading. (thanks for the suggestions, but I’ve already read Sacrosanctum Councilium and a good part of The Spirit of the Liturgy)
    There’s such a broad spectrum of views about both forms of Mass that I like to hear others’ perspectives.
    For instance, I would ask Boko what he dislikes about the 3 year lectionary cycle.

50. Fr. Fox,
    I’m so used to real horror stories about the laity getting no adequate response when they speak to their priests and bishops about liturgical abuse. Thanks for reminding me that sometimes the priest is the good guy trying to do what’s right for his flock and sometimes the lay complainers interfere and make the good guys lives difficult.
    Also, I hear so many b-s excuses why a reverent NO or TLM can’t be offered that I want to say, “Just shut up and do it!” Thanks for reminding me of the hard work that goes into making reverent worship available to the people.
    I’ll remember to keep you and your brother priests in my prayers during what I hope will be the upcoming time of transition.
    Yours in Christ,
    Boko

51. Boko, I hit Post too soon, but maybe it was just as well. My computer has been haywire all day and I wasn’t sure that last post would go through. Since my patience with this computer is getting a bit thin, I’ll come back, but there does seem to be food for discussion.

52. Puzzled,
    Anglican Use is a valid rite of the Church. I came to the Catholic Church by way of the Anglican Use and continue to worship in an Anglican Use parish whenever possible. All sacraments are both valid and licit. See http://www.pastoralprovision.org/.
    “hmm, I thought that the Anglican Use was also a valid rite of the Church, along with the Melkite, Marionite, etc. . ..”

53. Re: parishes not being set up for Tridentine Mass
    I seem to recall watching WWII Masses where priests said the Tridentine Mass on boards in the middle of fields. We’ve all heard about young Fr. Wojtyla saying it on a flippin’ kayak. So how is it that a pulled-out-from-the-wall parish altar would not be suitable as an altar for the Tridentine Mass?
    Most parishes still have steps up to the altar, so there’s nothing preventing the priest from standing up there to give Communion. If you really needed to, you could have him stand on the regular floor, since you have folks kneeling on the floor to receive anyway. If you wanted a pseudo-rail, get a long kneeler, or a bunch of those little prie dieus. Nothing’s stopping you from setting them up before Mass, or leaving them in position all the time.
    Equipment is the much more serious impediment, but the vast majority of parishes don’t seem to have thrown everything out. (Your region may vary. Our region has cupboards and attics.) But E-Bay and donations are a wonderful thing. Heck, there may be craftspeople in your own parish who could make the stuff you need, or antiquers who know where to find it.
    Anyway, my point is that any Mass is essentially simple, and there’s no point moaning that a parish isn’t equipped to hold one. Heck, you could hold the Mass of Mara and Addai or the Ambrosian Rite in a bombed out parking lot, if you could get the permissions and learn the Mass parts. Equipment and architectural niceties are the least essential bits.

54. Okay, maybe this will work better.
    Boko, thanks for your post. I asked about the lectionary cycle because I’ve heard a few others say that they don’t like it, but I know what about it that is so disliked.
    I’m curious now as to the changes to Holy Week.
    Actually, what I need is to look at the two side by side. I think there’s a website that does that, just have to remember where I saw it.

55. Not having the time nor the wherewithal to go back and research some basic facts about this story myself, please answer this – and I am fully aware my premises may be wrong, which would invalidate my questions:
    1. How exactly was the new Mass imposed Churchwide in 1969?
    [The change came at a time in my life when I was not a regular Mass-goer, so when I was first exposed to the new Mass, I was appalled and could not get over how the Mass had been reduced to the most soul-stifling banality! I grew up in a Catholic school in the 50s-early 60s and I attended a High Mass (sung) every Sunday. After that, how could I sit through something that seemed like a bad copy of Protestant services I had had occasion to observe?]
    2. Did the document or instrument that imposed the new Mass specifically say the old Mass was no longer valid and should no longer be celebrated at all?
    [Cardinal Ratzinger had very pointed words to say about a community that suddenly does away with a practice that had been followed for centuries, in effect considering it ‘wrong’, because then, what next about our practice of the faith could be declared ‘wrong’ overnight?]
    3. Why was it necesary for John Paul II to issue an indult or whatever in 1984 (?) spelling out what needed to be done if anyone wanted the old Mass celebrated in his diocese?
    [Because if the old Mass was never ‘invalidated’, then why should the individual bishops have any say about it? They had no individual say when the new Mass was imposed, did they?]

56. Not having the time nor the wherewithal to go back and research some basic facts about this story myself, please answer this – and I am fully aware my premises may be wrong, which would invalidate my questions:
    1. How exactly was the new Mass imposed Churchwide in 1969?
    [The change came at a time in my life when I was not a regular Mass-goer, so when I was first exposed to the new Mass, I was appalled and could not get over how the Mass had been reduced to the most soul-stifling banality! I grew up in a Catholic school in the 50s-early 60s and I attended a High Mass (sung) every Sunday. After that, how could I sit through something that seemed like a bad copy of Protestant services I had had occasion to observe?]
    2. Did the document or instrument that imposed the new Mass specifically say the old Mass was no longer valid and should no longer be celebrated at all?
    [Cardinal Ratzinger had very pointed words to say about a community that suddenly does away with a practice that had been followed for centuries, in effect considering it ‘wrong’, because then, what next about our practice of the faith could be declared ‘wrong’ overnight?]
    3. Why was it necesary for John Paul II to issue an indult or whatever in 1984 (?) spelling out what needed to be done if anyone wanted the old Mass celebrated in his diocese?
    [Because if the old Mass was never ‘invalidated’, then why should the individual bishops have any say about it? They had no individual say when the new Mass was imposed, did they?]

57. I am confused by what Jimmy wrote about the expected Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist: “There are likely to be changes to the celebration of ordinary, vernacular Masses announced (i.e., changes to what the Missal of 2001 says to do)”.
    There is no “Missal of 2001”. A GIRM was published in 2000. Then a new Roman Missal (with a different GIRM) was published in 2002.
    A change to what the 2002 Roman Missal has is not a change. The 2002 Roman Missal is already published in Latin, so what it has is what should be followed. I would be surprised if there were changes from what the 2002 Roman Missal has. My expectation would be encouragement to follow the 2002 Roman Missal, perhaps highlighting particular parts of it.

58. Fr. Lawrence,
    Thanks for that post. I still believe in miracles and will pray.
    Stu

59. Stupid question,
    In the Latin Mass, do the congregation say anything? Like the Our Father, Gloria, etc.?
    Plus, can we hear the words of consecration?

60. The Canon is silent (including words of consecration, although they are said in such a tone that you can hear them if you are close to the altar). They are to be said in a distinct yet soft tone of voice in the old rite. The silent Canon has been a Western tradition since the 8th century, changing only in the post-V2 liturgical reform. In the Tridentine Mass, the choir (and anyone else who wants to) chants/sings the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus (Holy Holy Holy), but the priest alone intones the Our Father, which also is an ancient tradition of the Roman rite. In dialogue forms of the Tridentine mass (spoken, not sung), the congregation gives all the many responses that the altar servers do.

61. AnnoyMouse – Not a stupid question. I am not an expert, but from my experience it seems that according to the Pian rite the rubrics apply primarily to the priest, not the people. I know that most of the Tridentine Masses I have been to, the people’s (visible) participation varies – some do recite the prayers/responses along with the server (in the format of the “Dialog Masses” as are mentioned in some of the other comments), others quietly (and actively!!) participate by simply “hearing Mass” (sidenote – does anyone else hear that once-common saying anymore? I do once in ahwilie, I have even said to people on occasion that “I heard Mass today at such-and-such parish”). Other people, as some have critized, do indeed finger the Rosary beads while Mass is being celebrated (but, I dare you to say to me that meditating upon the 5th Sorrowful Mystery is not joining oneself actively to the Mass! Don’t limit yourself to judging merely visible participation!).
    The Latin Mass celebrated in the modern rite, the “Novus Ordo” (or, techincally, Missa Normativa – according to the normative missal) certainly allows for the congregation to say all the parts designated for the people, in whatever language the Mass is celebrated in, including Latin. When I lived in Rome last year, I loved to go to the Sunday Mass at St. Mary Major – Novus Ordo High Mass, sung in Latin, with the congregation very loudly singing their responses too. I fondly remember looking around me, at the Italians, Germans, Spanish, Mexicans, Australians, Nigerians, British, Chileans, Poles, etc etc etc all COMPLETELY ABLE TO PARTICIPATE by our universal language of Latin. Talk about your diversity – I’ll match that up any day of the week against the plethera of “cultural Masses” that only serve to divide our culturally-diverse parishes into two – the English-speaking and the Other.
    In regards to the issue at hand, I hope and pray that the rumor is true… I understand the potential (unforseen) problems, but long-term – this kind of “freeing” is, I believe, necessary in order to help the “reform of the reform” move forward. It can be hoped that eventually, after so many wrong turns and devilish trickery to recreate a “new” Mass, there can be a real organic development of the liturgy. Viva il Papa!

62. Mary Kay (if you’re still here),
    This will be my last post on this thread, busy day, but I did want to respond to you. The liturgical year is a year long: Advent, Christmas, Ordinary (ordered, not “mundane”)Time, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, more Ordinary Time, Repeat… (using the NO’s method of naming the seasons of the liturgical year). I like the one year cycle of readings that matches the one year cycle of liturgical seasons. More frequent, consistent repetition. I don’t think Mass is a “read the whole bible in one, three, whatever year plan”.
    I encourage everyone to give the classical form of the rite a try. Go several times and see if it takes. It worked for me!

63. Boko, thanks for your response. It’s always good to read a different perspective.
    TGIF!

64. The same beautiful color video of a Solemn High Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal is available on Google Video — none of the sleezy ads like the other links, yuck:
    Sancta Missa — Holy Mass

65. I’ve asked this question in many different places on line, and so far I don’t think anybody has ever actually answered it.
    Why was the canon of the Mass said inaudibly? That, to me, is such an odd idea, that we shouldn’t be able to even hear what is going on, that I assume there must have been a specific reason for doing so. Someone, somewhere, must have thought this was a good idea… Personally, I don’t get it.

66. Father Lawrence wrote: “They come from a different time and point of reference. Their seminary training is not from the same schools of thought that older Priests came from (Thomas Aquinas, Augustine et al). They are products of their nurturing environments including home, church, social and seminary. They never knew the Tridentine Mass or ‘older’ devotions either. Probably none of them ate Mrs. Paul’s fish sticks and Morton macaroni and cheese with stewed tomatoes for dinner before evening Stations of the Cross on Fridays either.”
    An apt description of us Novus Ordo Priests–although I do remember the fish sticks, etc.
    What an innovative idea, Fr. Lawrence, to celebrate the 1962 Missal in English with all its glorious rubrics! Many Novus Ordo priests do not speak Latin but to celebrate the Old Rite in English would make it an easier transition. I would do it.

67. Margaret, I’ve never got an answer to that question either – and for me it is a recipe for a wandering mind.

68. As noted on Dr. Blosser’s blog:
    Hmmm, four dioceses have now gone bankrupt but the “Latin Lovers” continue their pitter patter about returning to the “glory days” of Glorias and chanting ala Gregory. We have bigger issues which if not solved will bankrupt the Vatican financially and morally

69. hippo354 and Margaret, you might find the following article helpful: Canon of the Mass.
    The first paragraph under the heading “III. THE TEXT AND RUBRICS OF THE CANON” (scroll down a bit more than half way) has details as to how it came about that the canon was prayed silently.

70. The Canon was said inaudibly in both East and West from the 8th century onward, with increasing universality. This was because at this point in the Mass the priests speaks not as the representative of the people, but rather Christ Himself is to speak through the priest. The priest is wholly subordinated to Christ. Hence he speaks softly, signalling that he hardly dares to speak these words of Christ for the consecration. This is the reason given in many expositions of the Mass in both the Latin and the Eastern traditions from about 800 onwards.

71. I am soooooo excited!!! It will be soo cool if we could have the Triditine mass back. The only thing is, providing the bishops do not explicitly forbid the Indult, how many priests actually know how to say the mass anymore? I have doubts as to how many priests are willing to learn the Indult. I hope there are many, many, many though! Let’s keep a prayin’! Hey thanks George and Whosebob for your comments!

72. Realix
    IT is because of the desire for a liberal priesthood and a turn away from tradition not to mention the change in form and matter of many of the sacraments including the rite of ordination for priests as of 1968 that we have these issues that you describe. The church for centuries were attacked from without but her unwavering faith, morals, tradition, art, music and clergy kept these modernists at bay who were lambasting her for not being “with it”. Well they got their wish in 1958 with John XXIII who decided to “open the windows” and “modernize”. Well the windows flew open and in flew all kinds of germs and disease and the church was slowly dismantled, with perverts and child molesters actually ordained as priests and clergy who harmed our innocent children
    The Universal Indult is a sham as the Bishops would never allow it as my Bishop proclaimed at a speech I attended that the best thing that ever happened was Vatican II as before he had to do everything including setting up chairs before mass and now the lay people do most of everything so he can “rest”.
    Let us pray for the real mass, the real sacraments and the true church to return to her glory once again with Christ as Our King and Mary in her rightful place as Queen of Heaven and Earth and do away with this horrible experiment

73. “That, to me, is such an odd idea, that we shouldn’t be able to even hear what is going on, that I assume there must have been a specific reason for doing so.”
    It might be easier to understand why the words of the Anaphora were said silently if we remember that that the Mass does not belong to us, that it is not directed to us but to God. The priest offers the Mass to God, and there in fact is no need that anyone else be present for the Mass to be valid and effective. However, it is good for the Church that the laity usually are present to assist the priest as he offers the Sacrifice. When we gather to offer the Sacrifice at the hands of God’s minister, we are in the presence of the Divine Majesty, and it is entirely fitting that the priest lower his voice as he speaks the dreadful and glorious words of the Canon.

74. “. . . the change in form and matter of many of the sacraments including the rite of ordination for priests as of 1968 . . . Let us pray for the real mass, the real sacraments and the true church to return to her glory once again . . .”
    Obviously you don’t believe the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. According to you, in 1968 the Church defected and died, and the gates of hell prevailed. That’s what it means when you claim that the Church lost apostolic succession in 1968, and when you deny that the Pauline Missal is “the real mass,” when you deny that the Church had “real sacraments.” John, you’re not a Catholic at all.

75. Comments by Father Thomas Doyle about the problems within the Catholic Church: http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/article.php?id=3515&IssueNum=23z and http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/15757875.htm
    Has the church leadership always known about the molestation?
    “When I was a seminarian in the ’60s, I knew it was going on. Everyone described it as priests who had problems with altar boys. Clerics claimed they never knew priests who broke their vow of celibacy until 1986. If I knew, they knew. This stuff has been GOING ON FOR CENTURIES. It got out of hand when the bishops, rather than deal with it up front and remove known abusers and treat the victims with care, stonewalled and moved the abusers. They were more concerned about image, money and power.
    What’s the biggest problem in the Catholic Church?
    Within the Catholic Church there is a big misunderstanding. The people see the church as the hierarchy of the bishops and the clerics, but the people are the majority and what’s most important is their spiritual welfare. Most people in the Catholic Church, I think, attend Mass out of fear. They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it. They’re led to believe since the time they are infants that God is angry and just and almost vindictive, which is a distorted vision of a higher power.”
    “Doyle also poured his knowledge of the extensive coverup of the sex crimes into a book, “Sex, Priests and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000-year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse,” which he co-authored with A.W. Richard Sipe”

76. Whenever I hear the terms “Traditionalist Catholic”, “Modern Catholic,” or other “Catholic”, I shudder because the very word catholic means universal. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth until He comes again in glory to judge the living and dead at the end of time. One cannot be a this and that Catholic in reality. One cannot be pro-abortion/choice, pro gay marriage, pro this and that if it is against the teachings of the Church. “You cannot serve God and mammon.” We all have preferences as to liturgies, Priest-celebrants, confessors and so on. No real problem there. But, when we define ourselves as Catholic outside of the Magisterium and are not loyal to the Holy Father regardless of what we like and don’t like, then we have crossed the line. We have an excellent Catechism which spells out what the Church teaches. But one, read it and read it again. It is not a book of opinions.
    I came up in the era when the Tridentine Mass was the norm. Then came the changes and they were myriad but in reviewing the 16 Documents of V-II, I was surprised by their intent. It was a confusing time, yes, but the Church did not cause the confusion; man did. This so-called “spirit of Vatican II” ran amok and still does in many areas. But the teachings of the Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and the Lord Himself gave to Peter and his successors the power of the keys.
    Even if a Bishop or Cardinal comes out with some off-the-wall teaching or writing, it does not negate the official teachings of the Church. The same holds true in the trenches where the Parish Priests are. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic by foundation and nature. The Holy Father is the Supreme Authority for Catholics period. He was appointed by God Himself from Peter to Benedict XVI. He is also responsible to Almighty God for the sheep and that is a heavy burden to bear. He needs our daily prayers and support as do other members of the clergy. All have a tough job in a world so hostile especially to Catholicism. It is easy for all of us to sit back and be a critic. We don’t know nor deal with all that the leadership does. We have to trust in the Church as a Divine Institution.
    Criticizing the Church is the in-thing today. Hollywood, the media and Catholics as well chime in and seem to enjoy putting the Body of Christ down. Should we be surprised though? Christ tells us that the world hated Him and so, we too will be hated. It is time to stand up for our faith, our Holy Father and the Church. Let no one slip by you some criticism or snide remark. Stand your ground, forgive them but do not stand silently by and allow her to be attacked. NBC is preparing to run (ofh do I hate to use this name) Madonna and her Crucifixion concert or whatever she calls it. What are YOU doing about that? It is blasphemy of the worst kind. Rosie O’Donnell is preparig a show for around November to bash the Church. What are YOU going to do about it? Boycott the sponsors and hit them in their pocketbooks. Let them know you are offended. Imagine NBC or Rosie running a special on Mohammed…no way would they ever. But because it is about Catholicism, it’s okay. Bash away.
    Whether we may like the way the Mass is celebrated or not is really a non-issue. If the Celebrant has the right intention and the form and matter are there, the Eucharist is confected. The average Catholic attending Mass may not realize this. Remember folks, the Priests are accountable to Almighty God for the souls entrusted to their care and so is the Holy Father, Cardinals, Bishops and anyone else in a position of leadership and management of others within the Church. It is they who will be accountable but let us not sit back and relax believing that we have no role to play. Certainly we do and we are responsible for our own spiritual state.
    The Church, being a good Mother, offers us the sacraments and sacramentals to aid in our spiritual journey. If we fail to take advantage of them, it is our own fault, not that of the clergy. If one is not happy in a particular parish, go somewhere else and find one that satisfies. But never cut yourself off from the channels of grace for the sake of the human elements that constitute the leadership of the Church at some level.
    I too have wrestled over many years with issues like the Tridentine Mass versus the Novus Ordo, the diminuation of the devotions to Mary, the Rosary, the Saints, and other issues. But the Church has survived rougher roads than she is now experiencing and she will survive because Christ said so. His WORD is good enough for me.

77. “Most people in the Catholic Church, I think, attend Mass out of fear.”
    Wrong. Your mind reading powers are obviously in need of a tune-up.
    “They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it.”
    Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends.
    “They’re led to believe since the time they are infants that God is angry and just and almost vindictive, which is a distorted vision of a higher power.”
    Yes, it is. Forunately, I don’t know of ANYONE who thinks this way. You are hallucinating. Visions of straw men dance in your head.
    Realist, your continual Catholic bashing should earn you permanent eviction from JA.O.
    The sedevacantists and protestants can at least maintain their faith in Christ in the midst of their misguided arguments.
    You are far from the truth. I will continue to pray that you become a Christian.

78. I agree with Father Lawrence
    What I do have an issue is what to do when what is described by Father Lawrence takes place-does one stay and worship in a mass one feels in their heart is incorrect (not invalid-just plain old wrong), not to mention the catechesis which watered down by JPII has my friends and family who are in marriages that are a bit bumpy already thinking about grounds for annulments which after meeting with their “priest” have told them they most likely will get. One of my co-workers in New Jersey was told (he was previously married for 18 years with 2 children) that a good “donation” to the parish may help his cause. He eventually decided against the $10k dontation because he felt that having 3 relatives sign documents that his marriage was invalid before would cause major harm to his children from that marriage-it took his reason to decide against something the church and canon law of JPII “the great??” with its 60k annulments a year in the US alone would have allowed.
    This is the same dilemna faced by those who want their children taught correctly not incorrectly

79. They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it.”
    Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends.
    
    Hmmm… “current catechetical trends”? Is this code language for changing the Church’s perennial teaching that it is a grave sin to skip Sunday mass without a serious reason, that mortal sin attaches if full knowledge and consent is present, and that an unrepented mortal sin leads to damnation? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but the Catechism is quite clear on this matter:
    From the CCC:
    
    2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
    
    From the Compendium:
    
    212. In what does hell consist?
    1033-1035
    1056-1057
    Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice. The principal suffering of hell is eternal separation from God in whom alone we can have the life and happiness for which we were created and for which we long. Christ proclaimed this reality with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41).
    

80. I’m guessing that Realist WAS a Christian, maybe even a Catholic.

81. Blank,
    It is not Church teaching that, without the sacrament of confession, it is impossible to be saved when one is in grave sin. An act of perfect contrition will be enough if one cannot posssibly receive the sacrament before dying.

82. John, since I agreed with Fr. Lawrence’s post, I started reading your post in hope of a discussion with you. However, you lost that opportunity with your comment about John Paul II “watering down catechesis” and completely misplaced further attack on John Paul II.
    Have you read anything written by John Paul II? Not an excerpt, I mean an entire document or chapter of one of his books.

83. But the Church has survived rougher roads than she is now experiencing and she will survive because Christ said so.
    Really? Is this true, because it seems that once the dust has settled we will have seen a worldwide collapse of the Catholic faith? If you do not believe me find a traditionally Catholic country that you believe will still be Catholic in 10 or 20 years. Granted the Church will still exist but likely in much smaller form.

84. Michael,
    since you ended up agreeing with the other person’s comment you posted, why did you ask “really”?

85. ince you ended up agreeing with the other person’s comment you posted, why did you ask “really”?
    Because, I did not agree that the Church has survived rougher roads. This crisis is quite unprecedented as it has been a route, or rather a full scale retreat, from the forces of Protestantism and secularism. I question whether the Church has ever faced a rougher road than this.

86. Mary Kay,
    I also agree with many of the people that John purports to agree with. But dialogue with him is useless, because his overriding mission is to attack Pope John Paul II. And he has made it clear in previous posts that he is incapable of reading anything the great pontiff wrote.
    If, for example, he’d bother to read anything that he had to say about annulments — the source of John’s latest rant — he’d see that he was completely off the mark. If he is capable of seeing, that is.

87. The Church may not have been down a road quite like this before, but She has survived many other trials, from bloody Roman persecution to rampant Arian heresy even among the episcopacy, to Islamic and Nordic threats, to Medieval and Renaissance corruption, to the Protestant Revolution, to the age of atheistic revolutions (French, socialist, etc.). Even if this is the worst situation yet in some ways, we know the Church will survive and ultimately will be victorious.

88. Tim J. et al,
    Please note that my previous post was commentary from Father Thomas Doyle, an expert on the current pedophilic crisis in the Church. I posted it to show that the crisis existed long before 1968. A summary, “””””””This stuff has been GOING ON FOR CENTURIES. It got out of hand when the bishops, rather than deal with it up front and remove known abusers and treat the victims with care, stonewalled and moved the abusers. They were more concerned about image, money and power.”””””””
    You might want to read the previously listed references pertaining to Father Doyle and his views that also covered other problems with our Church.
    You might also find Father Doyle’s e-mail address via a Google search. Once found, you can complain to him about not being a Catholic.

89. The disciples came to Him and said, ‘Master, the multitudes are hungry, send them away so that they might buy food for themselves.’
    He replied, ‘You give them to eat.’
    They said to Him, ‘We have only three Mrs. Paul’s Fishsticks and one box of Mac & Cheese!’
    Then he taught them saying, ‘Be not like the Rotestantspay, who raypay in their own anguagelay, for you are Atholicscay. That is the difference between you and them. And, if you see your brother doing his best to respect his pastors, and if you see him worshipping me the best way he knows, make sure you heap derision on him, calling his efforts ‘happy-clappy’, for you are superior to him.’

90. Where there is a proximate danger to the Faith, prelates must be rebuked,even publicly, by their subjects. Thus St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. –St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14
    All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.
    Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after V2 the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected under the designation of “Modernism.” Having created a “robber” Council that raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church’s “Unity” and Religious Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar “Church” proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. What other purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church – the Church of All Times – of all her defenses? And what followed? The turning of altars into tables, the changing of priests into “presiders,” the invalidating of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of the Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the destruction of the Mass – “humanist” changes of the most serious nature. Cardinal Suenens was correct when he described this as “the French Revolution in the Catholic Church.”
    Consider Religious Liberty – the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very human dignity resides in just this license. Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church – “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” and to confide to it those truths necessary for our salvation. He continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to Him. – that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices! Incredible! And now, some two thousand years later, we find Christ’s representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught us, assuring us that, as a result of Christ’s incarnation, all men, even those who reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ’s Church, through her own fault, has lost her “unity,” and that the Crucifixion is but a “witness to man’s human dignity” – his ability to determine for himself what is true and false. Madness reigns supreme!
    Some would accuse traditional Catholics – those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in “schism.” The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth. But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. But let is be both clear and honest. In similar manner traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not “pick and choose” what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done. Nor are they disobeying the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ’s vicar on earth and “one hierarchical person” with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when Peter speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name. To obey modernist and heretical “popes” is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely – quod absit!

91. John,
    Let’s start with indisputable facts.
    1. I asked if you read anything that John Paul II wrote.
    2. You have not answered that question.

92. “what is abundantly clear is, that after V2 the Catholic religion has been changed.”
    Funny how most Catholics don’t think this is clear, much less abundantly so.
    Sounds like most Protestant scritural exegesis which starts with “Clearly the Roman Catholic Church is wrong because Scripture clearly states that… (praying to Mary is idolatry/call no man Father/Jesus had brothers/the Vatican is the whore of Babylon, etc).
    The gates have held. The Church is still the Church, the Pope still Pope, Truth still Truth. Maybe a little humility is in order, instead of thinking one person (or a group of persons) knows better than the Church, led by the Holy Spirit.

93. “You might want to read the previously listed references pertaining to Father Doyle and his views that also covered other problems with our Church.”
    Catholic is as Catholic does, Realist.
    The views you continually push in your comments are neither Catholic nor Christian.
    Missing mass without sufficient reason is a mortal sin, but Fr. Doyle postulated specifically that THIS is why most Catholics go to mass, which is complete conjecture and fantasy, not to mention condescending in the extreme. Fr. Doyle sounds like an elitist.
    What a surprise.
    I won’t comment further on this, because it is far off topic. This WAS about the universal indult, remember? Please stop the sniping about priest abuse unless there is a relevant thread.

94. Realist said:
    They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it
    Tim J responded:
    Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends.
    Matt (aka blank, oops) responded with clarifying citations from the catechism itself.
    David B interjects:
    It is not Church teaching that, without the sacrament of confession, it is impossible to be saved when one is in grave sin. An act of perfect contrition will be enough if one cannot posssibly receive the sacrament before dying.
    Now, if we understand the word “confess” used by Realist to mean “repent”, the his statement is true, if we understand “confess” to mean sacramental confession, then it is wrong. In neither case does Tim’s response “out of touch with current catechetical trends” address the ambiguity, but only adds dangerous levels of additional ambiguity. Which is why, I responded from the catechism.
    Mary Kay, Cadfael:
    John Paul II “watering down catechesis”
    While it may not be a fair accusation to say that JPII watered down catechesis, it is fair to say that catechesis was extensively watered down during his pontificate, perhaps less so after the promulgation of the CCC, but nonetheless there have been huge problems that were not resolved. The bottom line is that discipline has not yet been restored to any level consistent with a universal Catholic faith. It seems Pope Benedict XVI is quickening this restoration, the confusion about “trends in catechesis” has already been clarified by the Compendium issued by Benedict XVI, which is much more precise than the CCC issued by JPII.. I think the universal indult, and whatever else we might find in the upcoming “Motu Proprio” may be another step in that direction.
    John,
    To obey modernist and heretical “popes” is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely – quod absit!
    Can you tell me where in Unam Sanctum it says only be subject to popes that aren’t modernist or heretical?
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
    I just can’t find this exception.
    Having said that, a pope is not immune from heretical beliefs, heretical writings, and even immoral instructions to the faithful (so long as it is not an “ex cathedra” declaration). If the pope gives an instruction to the faithful that is contrary to the faith, they are obliged to not obey, but they still must be subject to that pope, and if he subsequently issues instructions which are not contrary to the faith, they are bound to obey. The point here is that we must love the pope despite any failings he may have.
    God Bless,
    Matt

95. “They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it.”
    “An act of perfect contrition will be enough if one cannot posssibly receive the sacrament before dying.”
    What Theologians call an ‘Act of Perfect Contrition’ is a turning away from sin based on the love of God, where one recognizes that God is infinitely good, and, therefore, his will is infinitely good, and that one needs to repent of what one has done and bring one’s will into line with God’s, and fulfill it. If a person does that, then that person is reconciled with God, even before they’re able to go to the Sacrament of Confession.

96. Interesting articles.
    Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon
    Lefebvrists ready to seek reconciliation?
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

97. “Having said that, a pope is not immune from heretical beliefs, heretical writings, and even immoral instructions to the faithful (so long as it is not an “ex cathedra” declaration).”
    The Catholic Church has never claimed that every word of Catechesis or Theology that comes from the Pope’s mouth is infallible. It just hadn’t. If anyone is trying to force that standard on us, then that person is creating what in logic is known as a straw man. He’s changing the Church’s actual position, which is that Popes are protected from speaking error in very limited circumstances. The fact that it has to do with Faith and Morals is only one of them.
    There are multiple other circumstances that have to be fulfilled and so merely the fact that a pope at some time in history says something about theology that is wrong does not violate the idea of Papal Infallibility in the slightest because the Church’s claim regarding Papal Infallibility is not that Popes can’t do that. They can – at least, as far as the Church is concerned. The Church has not said otherwise. And you look back in history and there are some popes who have said things that were wrong. But so what? If someone is trying to force a card on us so that we must accept the premise that in order for papal infallibility to be true, it must be true that every pope has never said anything about theology that was wrong; then he is creating a straw man and we should not buy that premise. That is not what the Church teaches and, consequently, it is simply erroneous of people to attempt to hold the Church to a standard that the Church does not claim for itself.

98. John,
    “In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name.”
    Very convenient to be able to pick and choose who speaks falsely.
    Does the pope’s authority come from you or God?
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

99. Inocencio
    I am not picking and chosing what to believe, as that is what Luther, Calvin and Bucer did-Traditional Catholics just adhere to what was Catholic for centuries BEFORE the Vatican II Reformation
    As far as the church not changing after Vatican II-what planet are you living on?
    And Mary-you asked me if I have read anything from JPII and yes I have read some of his most proclaimed “Theology of the Body” and I still chuckle about it that the Pope actually needed to write this to Catholics as he once again was “Modernizing” past church teachings and leaving those little loopholes as he did with his new code of canon law and new catchism.
    Here is the explanation and summary of “Theology of the Body” right from its very website as the Pope is talking about “Love” and “sexuality”.
    “The ‘Theology of the Body’ is Pope John Paul II’s integrated vision of the human person – body, soul, and spirit. As he explains, the physical human body has a specific meaning and is capable of revealing answers regarding fundamental questions about us and our lives:
    Is there a real purpose to life and if so, what is it?
    Why were we created male and female? Does it really matter if we are one sex or another?
    Why were man and woman called to communion from the beginning? What does the marital union of a man and woman say to us about God and his plan for our lives?
    What is the purpose of the married and celibate vocations?
    What exactly is “Love”?
    Is it truly possible to be pure of heart?
    All of these questions and many more are answered in Pope John Paul II’s 129 Wednesday audiences, which were given between the years 1979 and 1984. His reflections are based on Scripture (especially the Gospels, St. Paul and the Book of Genesis), and contain a vision of the human person truly worthy of man. John Paul II discusses who man was in the beginning, who he is now (after original sin), and who he will be in the age to come. He then applies this message to the vocations of marriage and celibacy, in preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven.
    Lastly, this website is dedicated to the promotion of the Pope’s revolutionary and life-transforming message of hope that counteracts societal trends which urge us to view the body as an object of pleasure or as a machine for manipulation. John Paul II portrays a beautiful vision of sexuality in his Theology of the Body and other earlier works including Love and Responsibility. He encourages a true reverence for the gift of our sexuality and challenges us to live it in a way worthy of our great dignity as human persons. His theology is not only for young adults or married couples, but for all ages and vocations since it sums up the true meaning of the human person.”
    The Popes “Beautiful vision of Sexuality”-It sounds perverse as JPII was a humanist which was denounced by Pope after Pope
    And the former asks-If the church DID not change after Vatican II, then why did it need :
    -A new mass
    -(4) New retranslations of the New American Bible
    -All new sacraments,-changing both mater and form in many and all
    -New Canon Law
    -New Catechism
    -New forms of dress, fasting, receiving our Lord, worship, etc
    It is essentially a new church that itself has changed-It has more in common with Luther in picking and chosing what was “Catholic” than Lefebvre or any Traditionalist ever did
    As far as the gates of hell-It is clear Our Lord that the faithful would be few and there would be many false prophets and that heresy would reign supreme-but those that strictly adhere to the faith would be the ones saved. A false pope would emerge leading many into sin and the fires of hell
    The safe road is always to follow the tried and true teachings of the church-if St Anathasius had followed the Pope and Bishops of the 4th century we would not be a church today
    Archibishop Lefebvre will be found to be along with Cardinal Ottavani in the same light as the great Saint who saved the church from heresy. This of course will never take place in our lifetime as the world and the church itself are to compromised at this point “A Pope proclaiming hold Moslems in high esteem???”. We can only pray for the church

100. Any reintroduction of the Mass of the Saints, the Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven, will bring incredible graces.
     By simply having it available, as a viable alternative for the faithful, the modern rite would probably gain more of a sense of beauty and silence.
     I dare say Traditionalists kept out in the woods for so long will be SHOCKED and HORRIFIED at the state of the liturgical Church today.
     May Almighty God call back His faithful, charging them with taking out the garbage.
     Pax tecum,
     +Craig Kelso

101. John,
     Let’s get one thing straight. You may be a lot of things, but one of them is most certainly not a traditional Catholic.

102. John,
     What you are doing is worse than picking and chosing what YOU believe.
     You are telling others that the Church that was Divinely instituted to authoritatively teach, preach and interpret is doing so falsely.
     I repeat my simple question.
     Does the pope’s authority come from you or God?
     St. Gerard Majella pray for us!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

103. This was a great help to me in understanding the Mass with all the variations that have come along. In no way should the Mass divide; man divides, not God. So, we have break-away groups, in-house fighting and all the rest, some of which has gone on for centuries. I decided to find out how Christ ‘said the first Mass.’ To do so, I simply went to the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich who was beatified by Pope John Paul II the Great on October 3, 2004. Sister Anne Catherine stated: “If the Church is true, all in her is true; he, who admits not the one, believes not the other.”
     Institution of the Holy Eucharist
     “By command of our Lord, the major-domo [Head Waiter/Butler] had again laid out the table, which he had raised a little; then, having placed it once more in the middle of the room, he stood one urn filled with wine, and another with water underneath it. Peter and John went into the part of the room near the hearth, to get the chalice which they had brought from Seraphia’s house, and which was still wrapped up in its covering. They carried it between them as if they had been carrying a tabernacle, and placed it on the table before Jesus. An oval plate stood there, with three fine white azymous [unleavened] loaves, placed on a piece of linen, by the side of the half loaf which Jesus had set aside during the Paschal meal, also a jar containing wine and water, and three boxes, one filled with thick oil, a second with liquid oil, and the third empty.
     In earlier times, it had been the practice for all at table to eat of the same loaf and drink of the same cup at the end of the meal, thereby to express their friendship and brotherly love, and to welcome and bid farewell to each other. I think Scripture must contain something upon this subject.
     On the day of the Last Supper, Jesus raised this custom (which had hitherto been no more than a symbolical and figurative rite) to the dignity of the holiest of sacraments. One of the charges brought before Caiphas, on occasion of the treason of Judas, was, that Jesus had introduced a novelty into the Paschal ceremonies, but Nicodemus proved from Scripture that it was an ancient practice.
     Jesus was seated between Peter and John, the doors were closed, and everything was done in the most mysterious and imposing manner. When the chalice was taken out of its covering, Jesus prayed, and spoke to his Apostles with the utmost solemnity. I saw him giving them an explanation of the Supper, and of the entire ceremony, and I was forcibly reminded of a priest teaching others to say Mass.
     He then drew a species of shelf with grooves from the board on which the jars stood, and taking a piece of white linen with which the chalice was covered, spread it over the board and shelf. I then saw him lift a round plate, which he placed on this same shelf, off the top of the chalice. He next took the azymous loaves from beneath the linen with which they were covered, and placed them before him on the board; then he took out of the chalice a smaller vase, and arranged the six little glasses on each side of it. Then he blessed the bread and also the oil, to the best of my belief, after which he lifted up the paten with the loaves upon it, in his two hands, raised his eyes, prayed offered, and replaced the paten on the table, covering it up again. He then took the chalice, had some wine poured into it by Peter, and some water, which he first blessed, by John, adding to it a little more water, which he poured into a small spoon, and after this he blessed the chalice, raised it up with a prayer, made the oblation, and replaced it on the table. John and Peter poured some water on his hands, which he held over the plate on which the azymous loaves had been placed; then he took a little of the water which had been poured on his hands, in the spoon that he had taken out of the lower part of the chalice, and poured it on theirs. After this, the vase was passed round the table, and all the Apostles washed their hands in it. I do not remember whether this was the precise order in which these ceremonies were performed; all I know is that they reminded me in a striking manner of the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
     Meanwhile, our Divine Lord became more and more tender and loving in his demeanor; he told his Apostles that he was about to give them all that he had, namely, his entire self, and he looked as though perfectly transformed by love. I saw him becoming transparent, until he resembled a luminous shadow. He broke the bread into several pieces, which he laid together on the paten, and then took a corner of the first piece and dropped it into the chalice. At the moment when he was doing this, I seemed to see the Blessed Virgin receiving the Holy Sacrament in a spiritual manner, although she was not present in the supper-room. I do not know how it was done, but I thought I saw her enter without touching the ground, and come before our Lord to receive the Holy Eucharist; after which I saw her no more. Jesus had told her in the morning, at Bethania, that he would keep the Pasch with her spiritually, and he had named the hour at which she was to betake herself to prayer, in order to receive it in spirit.
     Again he prayed and taught; his words came forth from his lips like fire and light, and entered into each of the Apostles, with the exception of Judas. He took the paten with the pieces of bread (I do not know whether he had placed it on the chalice) and said: ‘Take and eat; this is my Body which is given for you.’ He stretched forth his right hand as if to bless, and, whilst he did so, a brilliant light came from him, his words were luminous, the bread entered the mouths of the Apostles as a brilliant substance, and light seemed to penetrate and surround them all, Judas alone remaining dark. Jesus presented the bread first to Peter, next to John and then he made a sign to Judas to approach. Judas was thus the third who received the Adorable Sacrament, but the words of our Lord appeared to turn aside from the mouth of the traitor, and come back to their Divine Author. So perturbed was I in spirit at this sight, that my feelings cannot be described. Jesus said to him: ‘That which thou dost, do quick1y.’ He then administered the Blessed Sacrament to the other Apostles, who approached two and two.
     Jesus raised the chalice by its two handles to a level with his face, and pronounced the words of consecration. Whilst doing so, he appeared wholly transfigured, as it were transparent, and as though entirely passing into what he was going to give his Apostles. He made Peter and John drink from the chalice which he held in his hand, and then placed it again on the table. John poured the Divine Blood from the chalice into the smaller glasses, and Peter presented them to the Apostles, two of whom drank together out of the same cup. I think, but am not quite certain, that Judas also partook of the chalice; he did not return to his place, but immediately left the supper-room, and the other Apostles thought that Jesus had given him some commission to do. He left without praying or making any thanksgiving, and hence you may perceive how sinful it is to neglect returning thanks either after receiving our daily food, or after partaking of the Life-Giving Bread of Angels. During the entire meal, I had seen a frightful little figure, with one foot like a dried bone, remaining close to Judas, but when he had reached the door, I beheld three devils pressing round him; one entered into his mouth, the second urged him on, and the third preceded him. It was night, and they seemed to be lighting him, whilst he hurried onward like a madman.
     She was not certain that the Blessed Sacrament was administered in the order given above, for on another occasion she had seen John the last to receive.
     Our Lord poured a few drops of the Precious Blood remaining in the chalice into the little vase of which I have already spoken, and then placed his fingers over the chalice, while Peter and John poured water and wine upon them. This done, he caused them to drink again from the chalice, and what remained of its contents was poured into the smaller glasses, and distributed to the other Apostles. Then Jesus wiped the chalice, put into it the little vase containing the remainder of the Divine Blood, and placed over it the paten with the fragments of the consecrated bread, after which he again put on the cover, wrapped up the chalice, and stood it in the midst of the six small cups. I saw the Apostles receive in communion these remains of the Adorable Sacrament, after the Resurrection. I do not remember seeing our Lord himself eat and drink of the consecrated elements; neither did I see Melchisedech, when offering the bread and wine, taste of them himself. It was made known to me why priests partake of them, although Jesus did not.”
     Here Sister Emmerich looked suddenly up, and appeared to be listening. Some explanation was given her on this subject, but the following words were all that she could repeat to us: ‘If the office of distributing it had been given to angels, they would not have partaken, but if priests did not partake, the Blessed Eucharist would be lost—it is through their participation that it is preserved.’
     “There was an indescribable solemnity and order in all the actions of Jesus during the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and his every movement was most majestic. I saw the Apostles noting things down in the little rolls of parchment which they carried on their persons. Several times during the ceremonies I remarked that they bowed to each other, in the same way that our priests do.
     Jesus gave his Apostles some private instructions; he told them how they were to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in memory of him, even to the end of the world; he taught them the necessary forms for making use of and communicating it, and in what manner they were, by degrees, to teach and publish this mystery; finally he told them when they were to receive what remained of the consecrated Elements, when to give some to the Blessed Virgin, and how to consecrate, themselves, after he should have sent them the Divine Comforter. He then spoke concerning the priesthood, the sacred unction, and the preparation of the Chrism and Holy Oils.* He had there three boxes, two of which contained a mixture of oil and balm. He taught them how to make this mixture, what parts of the body were to be anointed with them, and upon what occasions. I remember, among other things, that he mentioned a case in which the Holy Eucharist could not be administered; perhaps what he said had reference to Extreme Unction, for my recollections on this point are not very clear. He spoke of different kinds of anointing, and in particular of that of kings, and he said that even wicked kings who were anointed, derived from it especial powers. He put ointment and oil in the empty box, and mixed them together, but I cannot say for certain whether it was at this moment, or at the time of the consecration of the bread, that he blessed the oil.
     I then saw Jesus anoint Peter and John, on whose hands he had already poured the water which had flowed on his own, and to whom he had given to drink out of the chalice. Then he laid his hands on their shoulders and heads, while they, on their part, joined their hands and crossed their thumbs, bowing down profoundly before him—I am not sure whether they did not even kneel. He anointed the thumb and fore-finger of each of their hands, and marked across on their heads with Chrism. He said also that this would remain with them unto the end of the world.
     James the Less, Andrew, James the Greater, and Bartholomew, were also consecrated. I saw likewise that on Peter’s bosom he crossed a sort of stole worn round the neck, whilst on the others he simply placed it crosswise, from the right shoulder to the left side. I do not know whether this was done at the time of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, or only for the anointing.
     I understood that Jesus communicated to them by this unction something essential and supernatural, beyond my power to describe. He told them that when they should have received the Holy Spirit they were to consecrate the bread and wine, and anoint the other Apostles. It was made known to me then that, on the day of Pentecost, Peter and John imposed their hands upon the other Apostles, and a week later upon several of the disciples. After the Resurrection, John gave the Adorable Sacrament for the first time to the Blessed Virgin. This event was solemnized as a festival among the Apostles. It is a festival no longer kept in the Church on earth, but I see it celebrated in the Church triumphant. For the first few days after Pentecost I saw only Peter and John consecrate the Blessed Eucharist, but after that the others also consecrated. Our Lord next proceeded to bless fire in a brass vessel and care was taken that it should not go out, but it was kept near the spot where the Blessed Sacrament had been deposited, in one division of the ancient Paschal hearth, and fire was always taken from it when needed for spiritual purposes.
     All that Jesus did upon this occasion was done in private, and taught equally in private. The Church has retained all that was essential of these secret instructions and, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, developed and adapted them to all her requirements. Whether Peter and John were both consecrated bishops, or Peter alone as bishop and John as priest, or to what dignity the other four Apostles were raised, I cannot pretend to say. But the different ways in which our Lord arranged the Apostles’ stoles appear to indicate different degrees of consecration.
     When these holy ceremonies were concluded, the chalice (near which the blessed Chrism also stood) was recovered, and the Adorable Sacrament carried by Peter and John into the back part of the room, which was divided off by a curtain, and from thenceforth became the Sanctuary. The spot where the Blessed Sacrament was deposited was not very far above the Paschal stove. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took care of the Sanctuary and of the supper-room during the absence of the Apostles.
     Jesus again instructed his Apostles for a considerable length of time, and also prayed several times. He frequently appeared to be conversing with his Heavenly Father, and to be over flowing with enthusiasm and love. The Apostles also were full of joy and zeal, and asked him various questions which he forthwith answered. The scriptures must contain much of this last discourse and conversation. He told Peter and John different things to be made known later to the other Apostles, who in their turn were to communicate them to the disciples and holy women, according to the capacity of each for such knowledge. He had a private conversation with John, whom he told that his life would be longer than the lives of the others. He spoke to him also concerning seven Churches, some crowns and angels, and instructed him in the meaning of certain mysterious figures, which signified, to the best of my belief, different epochs. The other Apostles were slightly jealous of this confidential communication being made to John.

104. “Realist said:
     They are taught that the Almighty will send them to hell if they don’t attend Mass and they die before they can confess it
     Tim J responded:
     Wrong again. For a Catholic, your ignorance of the Faith is breathtaking. You are also, apparently, way out of touch with current catechetical trends.”
     Okay, I see I need to clarify.
     Realist’s post concerned what Catholics “are taught”. How many current parish Catechetical programs do you know of that stress the fact that missing mass is a mortal sin requiring confession? They should, but they don’t.
     This is what I meant by current trends in catechesis. It does not mean that I *approve* of these trends. This fellow was arguing that Catholics go to mass BECAUSE they are afraid of going to hell if they miss it, which I certainly believe is bunk. I go to mass because Christ is there, and I expect and hope that this is why most other Catholics go, as well.
     Realist’s post also failed to point out that missing mass for good reason is NOT a sin. Others have mentioned that he failed to take into account the possibility of true repentance afterward.
     In other words, this Fr. Doyle was making a ham fisted attempt to imply that all Catholics are frightened little sheep, scared to death by the tall tales told by the clergy, running out to weekly mass because of their fear of a vindictive God.
     My point was that one could hardly accuse the clergy (nowadays) of trying to scare Catholics into attending mass, or into anything. More the opposite… God is your buddy, Jesus is your pal.
     Also, IMHO, one who chooses mortal sin chooses hell over God’s kingdom, and can’t blame The Almighty for going there.

105. Craig
     God bless you
     Inocencio
     As far as what God wants or how one should worship him let me pose a simple question to all here to think that the so called “Traditionalists” think they are God
     If tomorrow Pope Benedict told all Catholics worldwide that after his meetings with these Moslem clerics he has decided in a gesture of “Ecumenism” to introduce worship to “Allah” and Mohammed into our Mass and we are to pray 6 times a day, etc etc
     What would you as the so called “Vatican II” Catholics do? Would you follow this order (Note that the liturgy is NOT infallible). You know that it is wrong to worship as a Moslem and though there is a bit of Catholicism here and there-it seems Ok-but should you do it????
     This is the dilemna those that are Traditional and those that were brought up in the church after Vatican II, started to read a bit, learn, investigate, see all kinds of crazy things taking place at Mass and worse yet the catechism-and you KNEW something was wrong. We are being told to be Protestants with a bit of Catholicism mixed in but many are holding fast to Tradition as St Paul told us to. We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed

106. John,
     It is a simple question? Why won’t you answer.
     St. Ignatius of Antioch pray for us!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

107. “We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed”
     Okay.
     I’d rather stay and try to help fix it.

108. We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed.
     Rather than try to help fix it? That seems a very un-Catholic attitude, rather like the servant who chose to bury his talents.

109. “We do not think we know more than the pope, but we do know something is very wrong and will stay away until it is fixed”
     Why did you write this statement as if you’re a member of the Borg Collective?

110. Stay away? Right. I fail to see how you don’t perceive it as schismatic to “stay away” from the Catholic Church.

111. John,
     May I also ask your opinion of Dietrich von Hildebrand?
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

112. “If tomorrow Pope Benedict told all Catholics worldwide that after his meetings with these Moslem clerics he has decided in a gesture of “Ecumenism” to introduce worship to “Allah” and Mohammed into our Mass and we are to pray 6 times a day, etc etc”
     John,
     You are posing a question here that in no way reflects reality. This scenario you pose above is just as ridiculous as suggesting a scenario where ‘what if the Pope asked us to worship Satan’? Obviously, of course not.
     In the history of the Catholic Church, even in the pontificates of some of the most unscrupulous popes, did we ever accomodate such radical divergence from the True Faith in the Catholic Church.
     Further, you say “many are holding fast to Tradition as St Paul told us to”. Yet, keep in mind that, if anything, the majority of these then were Greek Christians. Most likely, their Liturgy was in Greek rather than Latin.
     Don’t get me wrong. I, myself, have the highest respect for the Tridentine Mass (although I have not attended it for so long due to its rarity here in our parts) since in that Liturgy, one can truly experience and exhibit a reverence for God that some may find incredibly lacking in the Novus Ordo Mass — my opinion here becomes more pronounced especially in the case when the music played in Mass becomes not so much for the worship of God but, more so, for entertainment it seems.
     However, I believe, most importantly, that you may be neglecting your own ‘faithfulness’ to the Catholic Church that you seem to profess so dearly your actual allegiance to but, in fact, may be rendering harm to Christ’s own Church.

113. Traditionalists only worship in the way the church has done for centuries, if it is wrong now then it was wrong then-And we know the church cant be wrong-Correct?
     As far as my hypothetical question you compare this analogy to the Pope worshiping satan-Now that is a stretch-Just as millions felt when the Protestants and Bugnini (a KNOWN mason) formulated a new Mass and a POPE in Paul VI took away the staple of the church in her form of worship of God and replaced it with a mass that was formulated by a Mason, Protestants, and liberal theologians (can the ICEL ever get even a translation correct???).
     The question I posed is exactly that-we introduced Protesantism into our Mass in the name of ECUMANIA-why not start to worship Mecca? We already allow Hindu and Moslem worship to take place in our church’s in Europe as a sign of good will to these faiths, putting pagan idols right next to the blessed sacrament. You need to do a little bit of reading and learn what is happening to our beloved church

114. “You need to do a little bit of reading and learn what is happening to our beloved church.”
     John, you need to take your own advice.
     You’ve given no indication of what you find so amusing that you “still chuckle about it that the Pope actually needed to write this to Catholics.” I mean, other than convey that you deem yourself so highly exalted, so above the fray, that you don’t have to deal with what the rest of us mere mortals contend with.
     Please give a specific example of “those little loopholes” that you claim. Ten to one, you won’t. You can’t – because specific examples will disprove your allegations.
     In one sense, your posts remind me very much of discussions with Protestants. They always made me very glad to be in the Catholic Church, in a church as true today as it was in Jesus’ day.

115. John,
     Again, my question:
     Does the authority of the pope come from you or God?
     Answer:
     The Pope
     Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church..-The Catechism of Trent
     Are we called to honor and obey the pope, bishops and priest?
     Answer:
     The Honour Due To Bishops And Priests
     The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls. Nay, more. Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.-The Catechism of Trent
     As Mary Kay suggested you have some reading to do.
     St. Luke the Apostle pray for us!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

116. Inocencio
     The answer is simple. Yes the Pope is but he is still human (impeccable means able to sin).
     As Catholics, though, we know that the Church’s infallibility is not limited merely to ex cathedra pronouncements, but also extends to universal laws, specifically, to her rites. It is impossible for the Church to give a law or approve a rite which promotes error or harms souls.
     The problem then is on one hand, it is self-evident to us that the New Mass does promote error and harm souls. On the other, because of infallibility, a law or rite approved by the authority of Church cannot promote error or harm souls.
     Therefore, one must face a choice. Either: the Church authority no longer enjoys infallibility — impossible, due to Christ’s promise; or The men who promulgated the laws or rites which promote error and harm souls, did not truly possess authority of the Church.
     This is possible because Heresy or public defection from faith means automatic loss of office, because heresy puts you outside the Church.
     This principle applies to anyone who holds authority or an office in church — a diocesan bishop, archbishop, pastor of parish, even a pope. Now I am not saying the pope is a heretic, but by past definitions and standards, such as a public proclamation that Moslems should be revered and the kissing of the Koran-that could lead you out of the church into the border of heresy or apostasy at the least
     When elected to the papacy, you don’t lose your free will. You can choose to do evil things. You can also lose the faith, and embrace error as private person. When your defection from faith becomes publicly manifest, you automatically lose your office.
     This is not just something invented by traditionalists. It is the teaching of major theologians and canonists. Even a pope (Paul IV) said such a situation was possible.
     A Catholic, therefore, would owe no obedience to someone who does not truly possess the Church’s authority or teaches error. Condemnations from the V-2 hierarchy shouldn’t worry those that hold fast tothe faith anymore than one would worry about being condemned by local Anglican or Lutheran bishop
     At the same time, I’m not the pope, and I don’t require that someone who feels as traditionalists do try and figure all of these things out, as we dont even discuss such things, but we know what is being sold as “Catholic” is not.
     It’s just that, having heard many explanations for the post-Vatican II mess, this seems to be the only one which makes sense in terms of the Church’s problems of today that the Pope is not a good Pope and if one promotes error one not need to follow it

117. John, it’s not self-evident that the New Mass “promotes error and harms souls.”
     I know some very pious young people who have only known the “New Mass,” so you can’t say that the 1970 Missal “promotes error and harms souls.”

118. John,
     impeccable means able to sin
     Sorry, you got that backwards impeccalbe means: Incapable of sin or wrongdoing
     The pope does has a fallen nature just like you but his authority comes directly from God as the Catechism of Trent makes clear or do you chose not to accept that.
     We are called to be subject to that authority, again, as the Catechism of Trent makes clear. Unless of course you chose to know better.
     When you claim the pope is in heresy you seek an authority you do not have. That is the issue it always comes down to authority.
     The fact is that you have convinced yourself that you know the pope is wrong and therefore chose to be no longer subject to him. You are placing yourself in a postition to judge the pope. You have no authority to do so. Questions and complain all you want (in charity of course), but the moment you chose to pretend you have an authority above the pope and lead others to believe they are not subject to him you commit grave error.
     Unam Sanctam His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII
     November 18, 1302
     This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
     What doesn’t make sense to me is if you think you can chose if you are subject to the pope why would anyone decided that they were?
     If you think that you have the authority to chose what is true then why would our Blessed Lord even need to establish His Church?
     If you don’t accept the God-given authority of the Church you are acting just like Luther and making the same choice he did.
     Heresy Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

119. John, as had been mentioned in a previous post —
     Please take a look at Matthew 18:17 in the Bible:
     17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
     In order to communicate the severity of disobedience to the Church, Christ used the strongest language possible:
     The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo. This means to “disobey”; it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam’s disobedience in Rom 5:19. This is quite significant since there’s another word which could have been used instead for disobedience and this is the Greek word: apeitheia.
     Furthermore, Jesus compares those who disobey the Church with two worst groups of people that the Jews despised at the time. He says he who rejects the Church is to be treated as a heathen or a publican (other translations say a gentile or a tax collector). Hence, “Excommunication”. This means that if one does not accept the teaching or the proclamation of the Church, this person ought to be ‘excommunicated’.
     Choice of these terms suggests a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by Church leaders (cf 1 Cor 5: 9-13, 2 Cor 6:14-15 in reference to the man guilty of incense).
     The consequences mean that if one does not accept the teachings or the proclamation of the Church, he is to be excommunicated (i.e., separated from communion with the Church and the Sacraments); if one is excommunicated, there is a “spiritual death” since one is outside the divine life flow that comes through the sacraments and the Church.
     How then could you justify that your actions are in accordance with the mind of the universal Church when they conflict with it at its very core?
     As had been pointed out to you, you seem to hold your own authority above that of even the Pope’s when, in fact, his authority can be traced back through a long line of succession, all the way back to St. Peter, to whom Christ had established his authority in Matthew 16:18.

120. Esau,
     The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo. This means to “disobey”; it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam’s disobedience in Rom 5:19.
     Wow. Powerful stuff, thank you for pointing out the word used and the link to the other passage in Sacred Scriptures. Off to add these notes to my Holy Bible!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

121. Inocencio
     You are incorrect as Papal infallibility was not even defined until Vatican I
     You still do not follow the logic

122. Esau
     You are incorrect as when Jesus roamed the earth-there was no Catholic church as he was a Jew
     Please go back and read your Bible unless you are reading from the NAB 4th translation after VaticanII which basically took the Bible and translated as it felt it should to install the premise of Vatican II and political correctness

123. Inocencio
     You once again miss what Vatican II has done-it has reinvented past church teachings and redefined them to suit the liberal modernist and even masonic influence of the church (ecumenism is a form of secularism which masons teach)
     St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers.

124. Papal infallibility existed from the beginning of the Church. It was solemnly defined at Vatican I. Doctrines are not solemnly defined until they are challenged.

125. Incorrect Bill
     To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the church having promoted error would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain.
     Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
     “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
     Can we say the same today?

126. “Incorrect, Bill”. All you are doing is parading your ignorance. I leave you to your version of reality. Good-bye.

127. Can we say the same today?
     Absolutely. This is part of what it means to be Catholic.

128. In the decades prior to Vatican I, the popes repeatedly condemned liberal Catholicism and parallel efforts aimed at bringing the Church’s thinking into line with the modern world – Pope Pius IX summarized these censures in his Syllabus of Errors. Those who came under such strictures attempted to defend themselves by claiming that their attitudes had never been formerly condemned by the teaching magisterium and that such documents only represented the private opinion of the Pontiffs.
     Such a claim placed the infallibility of the Pope in doubt. During Vatican I furious debates were waged on the subject. The liberals were perfectly aware of the fact that if they voted for the definition of infallibility they would condemn themselves, but that if they voted against it, they would be denying a doctrine of the Church. Every conceivable objection capable of preventing, or of at least postponing the definition, was put forth and strongly supported by those who labeled themselves as ‘inopportunists’. One orthodox bishop, Anthony Claret – later canonized – was so distressed by these attempts that he died of a heart attack during the Conciliar debate.
     The cases of Popes Liberius, Honorius I, Paschal II, Sixtus V and others were brought forth in an attempt to influence the Fathers against defining something the liberals claimed was both unnecessary and insane. Needless to say, they were supported in this by the secular press, by world leaders, and even by governments.
     It is of interest to note that the Freemasons held a simultaneous ‘anti-Council’ in Naples which proclaimed several principles as essential to the dignity of man – principles which later were incorporated into the documents of Vatican II.
     So actually Vatican I and papal infallibility later worked against those who were trying in stablize the church and ward off the modernists , secularists and freemasons who later got their wish at Vatican II
     Novus Ordo worship service was written in the 1960s by a Freemason (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini ) and six Protestant ministers. In 1970 a photograph was published showing Paul VI posing with the Protestant ministers that had worked with Anibale Bugnini, head of the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia [Council to Carry out the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], to draft the Novus Ordo worship service.
     Not only were these six individuals heretics personally, but they were there acting in their official capacity as such. The six were Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian, representing respectively the World Council of Churches, the Anglican and Lutheran communions, and the French Protestant Taize community.
     After the Consilium had met and finished its work of suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass and replacing it with the New Order worship service, Dr. Smith, the Lutheran representative, publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”
     Brother Thurian had been the subprior at Taize from its foundation in the late 1940s. In 1969 he expressed his satisfaction with the Novus Ordo Missae by stating that Protestants could now celebrate the “Lord’s Supper” with the same prayers as Catholics. On May 12, 1988, the French daily Le Monde announced that Max Thurian had not only become a Catholic, but had been ordained to the Catholic priesthood by Cardinal Ursi of Naples, without being received into the Church, without the Profession of Faith, etc., a known scandal in Rome at the time.
     On July 24, 1996, Fr. Thurian, now a member of the International Theological Commission, published in L’Osservatore Romano an article highly critical of the Novus Ordo, including the statement that “the great problem of contemporary liturgical life (apathy towards worship, boredom, lack of vitality and participation) stems from the fact that the celebration has sometimes lost its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of adoration.”
     Anibale Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo, was Secretary of the Consilium (1964-1970). Bugnini stated publicly that his aim in designing the “New Mass” was “to create a worship service that any Hindu, Buddhist, or Protestant could attend and feel perfectly at home with.”
     Tito Casini, Italy’s leading Catholic writer, made public in April 1976 that “the reform (of the liturgy) has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we have long suspected a Freemason
     Rome’s Grand Mason wrote a public letter praising Bugnini’s work. At a meeting on June 19, 1975, Cardinal Seper and eighteen other cardinals called for Bugnini’s dismissal, which occurred on July 9, 1975, on the grounds that he had been responsible for the proliferation of messes sauvages [wild masses], that is, of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers. By 1971, only one year after the Novus Ordo became mandatory, there were two hundred of these published and in use.
     Because of the scandal Bugnini was banished from Rome by Paul VI in January 1976 to be pro-Nuncio in Iran, where in 1980 he betrayed American hostage secrets to the Iranian ayatollahs. Bugnini died at the age of 70 in 1982.
     What the Freemason Bugnini and the six Protestants wrote is the Novus Ordo that is still in force in the post conciliar Church. Paul VI made no change in it, except a small change in the introduction, when Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani pointed to the heretical nature of the new definition of the Mass.
     Indeed, many Cardinals, Archbishops, etc., both in the Vatican itself and elsewhere, are known to be so. (There is said to have been a bishop in Minnesota who wore his Masonic ring publicly.) A sensation was caused when a list of Masonic Italian Cardinals was published in the 1970’s.
     One must look at the church today and pray for her clergy and hold fast to the faith as handed down by the Apostles and the great martyrs of yesterday

129. “Wow. Powerful stuff, thank you for pointing out the word used and the link to the other passage in Sacred Scriptures. Off to add these notes to my Holy Bible!”
     Thanks Inocencio!
     Actually, please note a correction here — when I say:
     The Greek word used for the word “hearing” in Mt 18:17 is parakouo.
     The “hearing” I’m referring to is in reference to the ‘not hear’ in the passage: if he will ‘not hear’ the church…
     Again, it seems very significant, at least to me, that the Greek word used here is one and the same that was used for Adam’s disobedience, which caused the Fall of Man. That just goes to show all the more just how severe it is to disobey the Church for the Gospel writer to have specifically selected this particular word instead of the other Greek word that could have been used just as well.

130. “You are incorrect as when Jesus roamed the earth-there was no Catholic church as he was a Jew”
     John, what Church do you think Jesus established?
     When Jesus said in Matthew 18:17 “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”, what Church was this that he was referring to?
     When Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, what Church was this that he was referring to?
     But, most importantly, when do you think the Catholic Church was born?
     Certainly, the Greek word Katholikos (which later became the Latin ‘Caholicus’) was not used originally to refer to the Church Christ had established until we see in Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans in 107 AD, where he states in Paragraph 8, “Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”; but, rest assured, it is the same Church Christ established!
     The paradigm of 1st Cen. Christianity was a Visible & Authoratative Church established as a Gift by Jesus Christ, Commisioned with Divine Authority: To Preach, Teach & Guard the Truth of Scripture. It is seen both from Scripture and Tradition (from the Earliest Christians, in fact; see the Writings of the Early Fathers) that all Christians were bound to adhere to this Visible & Authoratative Church with the consequences of condemnation for refusal to submit.
     St. Iraneaus, Against Heresies, Bk 3, Par 4 150 AD
     “What if there should be a dispute amongst some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches where the Apostles themselves were known and found out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the Apostles had not left their writings to us, are we not to follow the rule of Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? “
     Further, as previously mentioned in another post, take notice of the typology:
     In Matthew 18:16-17
     Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
     Mt:18:17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
     This has parallels with the Old Israel living authority in Dt 17:6, 8-12 and, in fact, the same language in Mt 18:16-17 is used Dt 17:6, 8-12:
     6 By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain. Let no man be
     put to death, when only one beareth witness against him.
     7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands
     of the rest of the people: that thou mayst take away the evil out of the midst of thee.
     8 ¶ If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment
     between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy: and thou see that the
     words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the
     Lord thy God shall choose.
     9 And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge, that shall be
     at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the
     judgment.
     10 And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord
     shall choose, and what they shall teach thee,
     11 According to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline
     to the right hand nor to the left hand.
     12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who
     ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall
     die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel:
     Notice the Parallel:
     If there’s a dispute, you must take 2 or 3 witness with you; that on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, every word may stand; and you must take it to that appointed priest or judge that God has appointed for that time and if the individuals refuse to hear and obey the judgment of the priest and judge, they are to be put to death.
     Hence, the Church is the New Israel, and, accordingly, it becomes truly fitting that the New Testament fulfillment has a living authority here on earth for the people of God, which is the Church, ‘the pillar and ground of the Truth’ (1 Tm 3:15) just as in the old testament “type”, there was a living authority to guide the Old Testament people of God.
     By the way, concerning bible translations, one thing I learned from good Protestant friends who truly study the bible, is not always to trust the English translation.
     I tend to rely on the original text as much as possible with the help of folks who know the original Greek and Hebrew.
     If you’d like, I can submit to you the original texts of the passages that I’ve mentioned for your review, would that suffice?

131. John,
     “You are incorrect as Papal infallibility was not even defined until Vatican I”
     So you are choosing to ignore Unam Sanctum?
     Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
     Pope Boniface XIII was quoting, you better sit down, St. Thomas Aquinas!
     Contra Errores
     Graecorum: Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano Pontifici sit de
     necessitate salutis [23] (“It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”)-St. Thomas Aquinas
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

132. John,
     “St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia).
     Here is some more suggested reading for you;St. Vincent of Lerins from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
     St. Isaac Jogues , St. John de Brebeuf & North American Martyrs pray for us!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

133. UNIVERSAL INDULT dahhh humbug, the ancient liturgy has a pedigree going back to the time of the Apostles,This liturgy commonly referred to as the Tridentine or “latin Mass” was codified in the 16th century by the council of Trent and eternally protected by the Bull “Quo Primum”.So whats with this universal indult baloney. Pope Paul 6 said “the smoke of Satan has entered the church” after the disaster called vatican 2 and did he do anything about it,he sure did, he introducted a venacular service concocted by a freemason called Archbishop Bugnini and to salt the insult used at least six known protestant clerics to give the Catholic Church a heretical protestant mass called the mass of paul 6 aka novus ordo missae. This banal irreverant service diminished belief in the Real Presence making the Sacred Mass into a protestant meal. Thanks to the revisionism of Vatican 2 and it’s aftermath as millions left the church and prelates systematically FORBID the Ancient Latin Mass to please “our protestant brethren”.Even the Orthodox churches look at the so-called new mass with suspicion and see it as a protestant service, and this was one more wedge in the division of East and West.When the Tabernacle is front and center and the sanctuary lamp burning in every Roman Catholic Church,When the Ancient Liturgy is available in every Catholic church worldwide, when pedophilic/embezzeling.homosexual cardinals, bishops and priests, nuns and monks are excorcized from the Catholic church, when the oath against the heresy of modernity is taken again by every priest including the Pope, when the syllibus of errors is again respected, when the triple crown again rests on the head of the Supreme Pontiff, then just maybe the restoration of Christs Church will commence and the 40 post vatican 2 years in the wilderness will be but a memory.

134. …the ancient liturgy has a pedigree going back to the time of the Apostles…
     …this was one more wedge in the division of East and West…
     etc. etc. etc.
     John (jtnova),
     The Commission formed by Pope Paul VI was headed up by the brilliant and utterly Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini. Vagaggini was a Commodelese Monk who had taught at Sant’Anselmo for decades. Not just an intellectual, but a real mystic and a great historian. He was also the one who delved into the traditions of the early church and not just the East and the West but looking at the Liturgy of St. Mark and other things too, showing how the Church can be enriched by this legitimate plurality of options (e.g., the Eucharistic Prayers). Furthermore, there were actually other canons which existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Catholic Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentin rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
     About your claim that the Novus Ordo missae has created a greater division between East and West, you do know that there were serious defects even in the Roman canon used in the Tridentine mass, don’t you, and had greatly differed with the ancient canons? I shall list them for your convenience so that you may see for yourself. Although, as I’ve mentioned, I wouldn’t hesitate attending the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, you, again, have presented matters with such gloss and prejudice, these need to be addressed:
     1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
     This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]
     2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
     This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt…Benedictus… Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona… For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies…. In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who…” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]
     3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
     The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition….
     It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;…
     Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.
     As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition….
     The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]
     4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
     In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]
     5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
     a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;… After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]
     6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
     This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting. [8]
     If you should like more information:
     http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

135. Esau,
     Thank you very much the information and for providing a link.
     I wonder if this will be posted before or after my earlier comment?
     Have a blessed All Hallows’s Eve!
     St. Wolfgang pray for us!
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

136. John,
     If only you had the authority and power you want so badly.
     I hope you at least finally looked up the definition of impeccable.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

137. Esau,
     Thank you very much the information and for providing a link.
     I wonder if this will be posted before or after my earlier comment?
     Have a blessed All Hallows’s Eve!
     No problem! ;^)
     I suggest that folks study in greater detail elements in the Synaxis, the Trisagion, the Anaphora, the epiklesis, etc. of the ancient canons before they assault our Catholic Church.
     In fact, I believe Vagaggini was attempting to do a “reform of the reform” to try and restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.
     As I’ve mentioned, Vaggagini was sort of like what GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE was for the Dominicans, Vagaggini was for the Benedictines, who was their senior patriarchal leader.
     God bless!

138. Anyone who wants to know more about the Tridentine Mass can find out at the Latin Mass Society of Ireland, where they can download an audio version of the Mass for free.

139. Vis a vis the Orthodox church not in union with the Holy Father, the appointed successor and sole representative of and by Jesus Christ. Although the sacraments and priesthood of eastern orthodoxy are valid each and every orthodox priest, metropolitan & Patriarch is in schism and has been for well nigh 1000 years.The issues . the pope is the supreme head of and final word in the Christian world–Orthodox attitude is he but one (first) amoung equals. Filioque the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. These are but a few of the mindsets of the Orthodox that keep them in Schism, please bear in mind it was and is the words of Sacred Scriture itself that says, Unto you Peter are given the Keys of Heaven, what you loost on Earth will be loost in Heaven and what is loost in heaven will also be on Earth. So to this writer there is but one head of Christ’s Church and that is the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope in Rome. In the first 300 yrs of Christianity Greek primarily was the language of the liturgy after that Latin predominated right up to the disaster called Vatican 2. So agaIN TO OUR SCHISMATIC EASTERN ORTHODOX FRIENDS GET OVER IT, THE PREDOMINANCE OF LATIN THAT IS. The Tridentine Liturgy (the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven)is the Mass of All Ages the Bugnini service called the Novus ordo missae of Paul 6 is a pale travesty by comparison So to our schismatic Eastern Orthodox friends get over the liturgical linguistics, filioque and your multitude of popes aka Patriarch’s and really become Orthodox and return to union with the Church established for eternity, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Holy Father who at this time is Pope Benedict 16 and adjure youe schisms. Shalom

140. O tried and true, O Latin Mass, I will always be beside You.
     O Christmas Tree, O Christ’s Mass, I never take away my eyes from you.
     My Latin Mass, My Latin True, O how Very Extraordinary art You!
     O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, make me happy any day Low or High too.
     From More’s Bridge, to Campion’s Tower – to Iona and up to Crocanaffrin. O Latin MASS, Yes Latin Mass, how Gregorian art you.
     I am never nervous near you, no novus disorder turns me round,
     For O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, it’s because I trust your Tridentine Smile.
     And so now I promise you, O Latin Mass, O My Sweetest Latin Mass, I will always be faithful.
     Learn Thy Mass!
     http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010

141. O tried and true, O Latin Mass, I will always be beside You.
     O Christmas Tree, O Christ’s Mass, I never take away my eyes from you.
     My Latin Mass, My Latin True, O how Very Extraordinary art You!
     O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, make me happy any day Low or High too.
     From More’s Bridge, to Campion’s Tower – to Iona and up to Crocanaffrin. O Latin MASS, Yes Latin Mass, how Gregorian art you.
     I am never nervous near you, no novus disorder turns me round,
     For O Latin Mass, O Latin Mass, it’s because I trust your Tridentine Smile.
     And so now I promise you, O Latin Mass, O My Sweetest Latin Mass, I will always be faithful.
     Learn Thy Mass!
     http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010

Comments are closed.