Traditionalists add spice to the Catholic stew

the closing note is correct:

Come to the Spanish Mass

Far from the Franco fascist Opus Dei boys, who tend towards the extraordinary anyway

Far from those frisky Marcialites.

But in the humblest community come to the Spanish Mass

and discover community, for once, and humility, within a Catholic Church.

Come to the Spanish Mass, and find Love, Incarnate.

This is the bit I like from the Q and A with Fellay?
"7. Why is it so difficult for them to admit a contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium?

The answer is rather simple. The moment you recognize the principle that the Church cannot change, if you want to have Vatican II accepted, you are obliged to say that Vatican II did not change anything either. That is why they do not admit that they find any contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium, but they are nevertheless at a loss to explain the nature of the change which quite evidently has taken place."

Someone, somewhere, owes us an explanation of precisely what it means to say that "the Church cannot change," when all the evidence of history contradicts that statement (as John Noonan, among others, has pointed out). Still, as a thoughtful observer has pointed out, the Church has a strong sense of tradition, and vitually no sense of history.

"Universal Catholic Church?" Isn't that expression redundant?

"Even with those stipulations, the climate of opinion represented by the Society of St. Pius X nonetheless remains an important part of the broader Catholic conversation."

John, I strongly disagree that the opinion of anti-Semitic, xenophobes who want to restore the French monarchy is important. If it is important, it is only because journalists keep giving this one tenth of one percent of the Catholic world a podium.

As I am a traditionalist, who has attended Masses at an SSPX church in the past... thanks for publishing this.

Patrick Kempton, Numurkah, Australia.
It is extraordinary to think that the Euharist can be celebrated in a language that people, who are expected to be participating, cannot understand.

Yes, you can have a missal with the latin translated and read it as the Presider at the Eucharist reads the latin. Logically, what is the point to that. Those present are taking no notice of the latin becasue they are reading the translation in their missals. Therefore, why not have the Presider carry out his part in the local language.

It seems to me that those who wish to have the Eucharist celebrated in latin, have this desire because it gives them a better feeling about the celebration. But I wonder if that approach helps in appreciating what the Eucharist is all about. That is, it is a time we as a community come together to support each other, remember and be inspired by the life of Jesus and then re-commit oursleves to live as Jesus did - bodies broken and blood poured out for others wherever we meet them.

Lefebvrists aside, a zeal for celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Latin) is not an enthusiasm that exists separately from a very particular mindset. If it were simply a matter of a priest saying Mass either solo or with a small congregation in the old way and according to the old calendar, that would hardly matter if he also offered the Ordinary Form Mass for his parishioners in a manner similar to that of his fellow clergy.

After 6 months experience of a retro-styled parish priest in a small working class country parish, I have to report that this is a very uncomfortable situation for some of the parishioners. The appearance of the church has been changed with greater emphasis on the old altar, bedecked now with highly ornamented cloths and Mass cards; altar rails have been restored, and if there were room for a pulpit, I guess we’d have that too! The lace on the sacerdotal alb begins at the hip-bone, the maniple has been restored to the sacerdotal arm and there is a choice of birettas for the sacerdotal head. The Holy Spirit is banished and the Holy Ghost has returned; the long Confiteor form of the Penitential rite is always used and the Roman Canon is used some 4 days out of 5. Votive masses abound, dubious myths about early saints are presented in the teaching slot instead of Gospel and gestures are oh! so traditional. The whole presentation is flamboyant in the extreme. The old Tridentine gallop through the text has been foisted upon us, and Special Ministers of the Eucharist are dispensed with on most days. It is a miserable business to attend Mass under these conditions.

The liturgy is not however the sole area of this ortho-toxic regime: understandably the priest has tackled the pastoral functions in the parish. The Parish Pastoral Council, a body strongly recommended by the Bishop, has been abolished and the priest has declared he will consult (if he deem consultation necessary) with such as he chooses. He is gradually aggregating the home Communions for the sick and housebound into his own sole management, is sidelining the Deacon and the MC, and expecting the choir to learn and sing the Missa de Angelis! The deanery clergy meetings are avoided where possible and we are currently being shepherded through Septuagesima! The whole outlook is anti-Vatican II. For those who are glad to have learned to participate in the post Vatican II days, it is painful.

He is a good man, devout, personable and thorough. His parishioners simply do not know what makes this 40 year old tick, because we oldies know that the Tridentine reality was not the glorious splendour that this young man imagines it to have been. Yes, our parish is divided – approx 97% to 3%. Just one small parish. I don’t know what we’ve done to deserve him.

Actually, the Catholic Church is already in schism insofar is there is a sizable percentage of priests, religious and laity who disagree with the official teaching on key points of faith and morals -- the nature of the Mass, sexual issues like homosexuality, abortion.

Except in the case of LCWR, where the were forced to back down, the Vatican has not acted to keep up an appearance of Catholic "unity".

Among white Europeans, the Catholic Church is dying out -- all those vocations come from countries in Africa and India.

It's good to remember this fact when confronted with Vatican propaganda that the Church is growing by leaps and bounds.

I doubt the SSPX is worrying about their numbers or canonical status vis-a-vis the Vatican.

Lefbvre stated that he was keeping Catholic Tradition alive while awaiting for it to regain its rights at Rome which he predicted would happen -- the implication being that Lefebvre was giving a witness to the Catholic Tradition.

THIS TOPIC(S) OUGHT TO stimulate some discussion. First of all, mainstream Catholics notice how fast the church excommunicates nuns for the slightest infraction and how much the Vatican embraces the separatist Lefebvrites. Most of us are sick of that.

Secondly, I don't know who Allen is talking about when he writes that there were "dire predictions” about the motu proprio. There were predictions among mainstream Catholics that few American Catholics would flock to the Latin rite. And, there were predictions among the traditionalists that there would be a huge demand for the Latin Mass. The only predictors that I see who were wrong were the traditionalists.

Too, critics were right in their denunciation of the divisiveness of creating two competing liturgies in the some parish church that could morphed into different Catholic communities. That has happened in some large parishes. Also, some conservative priests, especially imported ones, have tried to impose aspects of the Latin Mass on everyone in a parish. One Indian priest in a large parish in my big city was trying to force communion on the tongue until complaints stopped that. Such incidents repeatedly occur around the country. A bishop in Oklahoma will only celebrate the Latin Mass.

I don't, and most Catholics probably don't, have any quarrel about a small bunch of traditionalists, charismatic or cultic Catholics like the Legionaries or Mater Dei groups doing their own little thing when it doesn't bother anyone else. It is imposing any of their stuff off on mainstream Catholics that is worrisome. Liberal Catholics, who get not a bone thrown their way by the Vatican, have justified complaints about inequities in church politics.

The Latin movement is going nowhere but that is not to say the church is not moving backwards at alarming speed in many other ways.

I am a faithful reader of John Allen's articles and his blog. With all due respect, however, John Allen's piece "Traditionalists Add Spice to the Catholic Stew" suffers from too much respect to the Society of St. Pius X.
I do not enjoy hearing members of the laity or of the clergy, especially bishops, as they denounce or excommunicate Catholics whom they disapprove or whom they disagree with. Many and varied are the Church's liturgies, languages, and pastoral interpretations of our truths. Charity, as so often emphasized by Jesus Himself in the four Gospels, is the constant and ultimate force at the center of our liturgies, and in our dialogues on catechetical and theological issues, and on the issue of authority itself.
The St. Pius X Society, however, lies outside the large charity-centered stew pot of Catholicism.
John Allen's piece bears an inconsistent title, linking St. Pius X Society traditionalists with those of us who in charity often disagree with one another, but who enjoy praying and kneeling together.
John does (also) devote attention to how certain traditionalist interests, especially regarding the Tridentine Mass, are being handled by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), as he reviews what Fr. Hilgartner, Director of the USCCB's Secretariat for Divine Worship, says in a recent dialogue with NCR. But John's article does not explore the range of the Catholic Stew. John's article simply sets some remarks about the St. Pius X Society against what the USCCB has to say about the Tridentine Mass.
The long and the short, here: I have no time for cappa magna clergy, or for the St. Pius X Society types, whose brand of charity is poisoning the stew of Catholicism.

Vincent of Valley Forge

Liberation theologians add the most substantial and wholesome and abundant meat and bones and potatoes and vegetables to this Eucharistic stew, overwhelming, overflowing, all cast out by the dark deeds of wojtyla and ratzinger to open room only for these unrepentant Lefebvrites, and marcialites and Opus Deites, leaving us only an obstinately thin and watery gruel.

One man's spice is another's cockroach. If this be spice, make mine liberation.

As one who celebrates the EF monthly as a High Mass on Sunday and at a special time and on Tuesdays as a low Mass, what Fr. Richard Hilgartner says is very true and insightful and in every way. The gravitational pull on me has been to be more reverent with the OF Mass which is what I primarily celebrate and what my parishioners prefer. But it is nice having the EF as an option for extraordinary times and events. I often wonder though, what impact the EF would have if it were allowed to be in English or if we could use the 1965 Roman Missal and have the OF's lectionary and style of proclamation. That might change the playing field. Fr. Allan McDonald, Macon, GA

"the extraordinary form can help shape the regular liturgical experience -- not by taking on its trappings or externals, but by calling attention to the importance of celebrating faithfully, with a sense of reverence, understanding that the rite itself has a beauty built into it. The Tridentine form is maybe hyper-sensitive to the rubrics and performing the prescriptions of the rite accurately, but it can help us be more attuned to those things in the ordinary form".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the experience I've had talking to a large number of clergy with a broad range of tastes from eclectic Romano-Byzantine to ultra Tridentine. They doubt the old pre-Vatican II Mass rite will have the long-lasting appeal traditionalists think it will have. Yet, it is a bridge to tradition and an awareness to what has been lost. The old mass does inject a dignity and a sense of decorum--with a strong emphasis on mystery--many have come to expect and feel has been lost.

Benedict XVI has made some first class blunders since becoming pope. To have lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops sent the message, you can defy Rome and do as bishop Fellay has continued to do and get first class treatment from the pope himself. Diocesan bishops will be encouraged to do the same.As the Vatican has argued in it's legal defense, the bishops are not considered "employees". So, what obligation do they have to Benedict?

Canon law and other directives from Rome, in other words can be completely ignored with impunity. The local bishop becomes a free agent. These are signs that the Roman pyramid with it's pope on top ruling through it's top down model of governance to the bishops below is crumbling. If Fellay can set himself up as his own pope, is unanswerable to nobody, other bishops will be encouraged to do likewise. The rise of the autonomous or self-governing Church is an inevitablity. This is long over due and the direction in which the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have wanted the Catholic Church to move. Benedict by jettisoning Fellay and the other SSPX heretics has given the Orthodox churches encouragement to believe autocephalous churches will become the norm in the future.

Bishop Fellay's objections to the beatification of John Paul II aren't just the special concern of the far right. Many moderates share his objections, if for different reasons. Benedict XVI never realized and still may not, that the aging Vatican II crowd of Novus Ordo-loving Catholics may be the only friends he has left.

The crypto-fascist Catholic gropus, the SSPX, the "sedevacantist" heretics and schismatics were lost decades ago. They're going down the same road as the Polish National Catholics, the break-away churches of Brazil, the Independent Church of the Philippines, and the Church of Utrecht have gone.

With them out of the way, Benedict will be free to move to the center and make the liturgical changes to the Tridentine rite and the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI he will need to make to reconcile the two camps at war in the Church today and who are draining it of so much of it's energy. He can never hope to placate the supreme loonies on the right or the left. So, why even try?

"I think that’s very safe to say. The motu proprio is serving a niche, a need felt by a small number of the faithful."

Right on. It isn't going to overwhelm the new liturgy or undo Vatican II. Everyone on the left can calm down now, and not have to worry about the latin mass programming medievalist storm troopers. They can grow more balanced like Anglican and Episcopal progressives, who routinely blend Latin and the high Mass into their devotions, because they aren't terrified of their own history. Gay marriage and women priests can co-exist with high liturgy, no matter what Eugene Cullen Kennedy says.

Some people will like the Latin Mass all the time. Others will like to have a Latin Mass on special occasions. Some will like the Latin Mass at certain times of their life. Others will want to sprinkle elements of the Tridentine mass into Norvus Ordo. The rest will probably be bored stiff about it, or don't really jive with it culturally. All of that will be okay.

The first part of this article is entirely about Fellay's side of the story. Where is Benedict's? When is he going to re-excommunicate them?

Allen write: "On Assisi there’s no surprise ... Their objection is the risk of syncretism, or the combining of different religious beliefs."
Not so simple; Lefebvrites consider all other religions pagan and that their adherents worship idols/false gods. We Catholics acknowledge that at heart we all worship the same God. Indeed, theo-centrism is at the heart of mission (Ad gentes Ch. 1).

Allen writes: "Yet the number and influence of Catholics who may feel some sympathy for the positions taken by the society should not be under-estimated ... The traditionalist perspective is thus something church leaders have to consider as they survey the Catholic landscape."

What about the hundreds of millions of us Catholics who have moved beyond Vatican II in its Spirit-thrusted wake? Is the vast majority of the Catholic community to be hamstrung by a few schematic heretics, nostalgic for the European monarchies of old? Although not a Vatican correspondent, I know where the key sympathises of the triumphalistic, pyramidal church live; they are the ones trying to run the institution. No wonder Mark has the 12 getting it wrong every time, and John pretty well ignores them. Good old Matthew props the 12 up, while Luke (with Mark) is more interested in passing over to the others. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-centric world, that's where we should surely be.

What a waste of time and space.
Let these mal- contents do what they want.... but please don't look for any kind of meaning it.... there is none.

Oh, the wonderful "Old mass" which could be mumbled in 20 minutes and no one knew what was happening, including, a lot of times, the priests, who couldn't understand Latin any better than the people in the pews, praying thier rosaries.

The "spice" of which you speak that ersatz "Traditionalists" add to Catholic stew is poison. That includes a good portion of the powers in Rome ever since Paul VI and most of today's American hierarchy. Their betrayal of the Second Vatican Council continues to be nefarious. I also find myself agreeing with Fellay that JP2 is no saint - but for just the opposite reason.

This "struggling to offer the Mass in Spanish" or any other language (including English in my Hispanic parish) is exactly the problem. The Latin Mass unites us all no matter what our language, it's the secular language masses that divide us.

Born in the late 1940's, an altar boy in the 1960's, virtually every Mass at which I served was a Latin Mass. Now, if the time should come when I accidentally find myself in a Latin Mass, the chances that I would leave are at least 98 percent. I see no merit in attending a service when I don't understand a large part of what is said. We would do better to let the Latin Mass go away . . . .

Since when is hemlock considered a spice?

All I can say if the likes of Fellay can have their Tridentine mass, by God, as of Advent 2011, I want access to the one English mass that will not cause me to break out in laughter during the prayers offered from the missal. Or has the heresy that Jesus died only for the many instead of for all.

MUCH ADO ABOUT ARCANE OBTUSE MISSALS

According to the learned Fr. Hilgartner, the Pope has "extended olive branches", issued a motu proprio, and is making every effort to heal the schism which seems to be so very trivial and minor to our Ace Vatican reporter, Mr. Allen. If only such scraps, olive branches, and motu propriae were extended to Women who want to be ordained, or to Gays who wish to be taken off the "hate" list of gravely disordered sinners, or divorcees who wish to share the Eucharist within their own community, or all the victims of pedophilia who could miraculously heal their past. THE NERVE of the Vatican to give such "pastoral care" to a minority of ex-communicants who insist on destroying some of the greatest work (i.e. the Vatican II council) that the Church can be proud of. While the Vatican "fiddles" with the minutae of an insignificant and irrelevant fringe group, other Catholics like me sadly watch Rome burn, but we clearly have bigger fish to fry. As my dear departed Irish father used to tell us kids: "If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas".

400 year old STALE SPICE.
As moldy as the mothballs guarding their fiddlebacks!

A mischievous, unthinking article. The pseudo-Tridentinist trend, pseudo because the Tridentine rite was not faith- and life-nourishing, in the confines of a typical up-to-date parish generate rhapsodical enthusiasm among a tiny minority and dismay, discomfort and distress from the bemused majority.

97–3 would not be categorised as disunity, but since the sole priest in the parish promotes his own agenda, which is that of the 3%, the result is a parish starved of meaningful Christianity in its own church. I know, as I have to live this grim, splendiferous unChristian spectacle.

Spicy? No, pernicious.

I find it hard to believe that in these times, you can so easily marginalize traditional Catholics. What was acceptable WORSHIP of God for 2,000 years is simple called "niche' now. We have gone from the Sacrifice of the Mass to the Celebration of the Mass, where most people don't even believe in the Consecration, including Priests. How can that be deemed Faithful? We have robbed future generations of the true veneration of the Holy Trinity, and replaced it with public participation; we change words to prayers that water down their meaning, i.e. "I confess to Almighty God...and you my brothers and sisters". When did our brothers and sisters gain the right to hear confessions public or private? In the consecration, we change the words to be all inclusive instead of Catholics in good standing. What happened to the words "And Peace to men of good will"? No, I feel that all the massive responsibility of being a true Catholic, has been watered down to a lesser version of Protestant (should be pronounced Protest-ant). Remember our Lord's words "Many will be called, but few will be chosen". Betting your eternal Soul on that?

I'd like to point out that among the warmest reception of Summorum Pontificum (and the following dialogue with the SSPX, and Anglicanorum Coetibus) was that of the Orthodox. In paving the way for full reconciliation with the SSPX (which never was going to be a quick and easy process), Pope Benedict has brought a new hope to true ecumenical efforts. Even Bishop Fellay is looking forward to the next round of the theological discussion, no small feat when a vocal minority of his followers have been opposed to any reconciliation.

While there are many Catholics (not just traditionalists) apprehensive of another Assisi gathering with good cause, it is a very different Pope who is going, with a very different view of Catholic relations with other religions (remember Dominus Iesus, anyone?).

Fr. Hilgartner touches on "participating by devotion" in the old liturgy. This devotion, this reverence, is not so much for the liturgy itself, but reverence for Jesus' presence in the tabernacle, in the Blessed Sacrament, in His house that He wanted to be a house of prayer.
For many catholics like myself this devotion, this reverence is largely missing in the NO. Keep the english, but bring back the externals that show reverence, like alter rails, genuflecting, and prayerful silence upon entering His house, in-
stead of the indifference He is currently given.
Who knows, maybe by doing these things, the number that doubt His presence may drop to only 50%.

99% of Catholics who experienced the pre-Vatican II medieval version of the liturgies, are of retirement age or are dead. The neo-traditionalist apologists couldn't have a clue about the real experience versus the myth. Each parish only had one "high" Mass on the Sunday schedule. Voice lessons weren't part of seminary education apparently and pastors, who were the most typical clerical celebrants and required to "sing" everything, weren't chosen based on whether they were tone deaf or had decent, if not perfect, pitch. Choirs weren't routinely trained or directed to sing in Gregorian chant. As it is now, there were melodic versions of the responses, Gloria, Creed, etc., of questionable musical quality that were mostly used instead. Even at that, the pastor could usually get through the service in less than an hour. The most popular Masses under the old rite were the low Masses because they were much shorter. Homilies weren't required, so unless the associate pastor celebrant needed to ask for money, comments about the Epistle and Gospel, or anything, weren't usually expected. Nuptial bands could be published in the bulletin. A "good" celebrant and the altar boys could get through the entire ceremony in 20 minutes, gavel to gavel. Of course we Catholics were expected to spend Saturday afternoon going to Confession (at least as kids) and had a lot of extra Holy Days of Obligation, so I guess that partly made up for easier Sundays than the Protestants we knew. Easier Sundays, though, can't make up for the experience we have had after Vatican II of real participatory liturgies, especially during Holy Week. Just as many other neo-conservative "Catholic" positions, on the part of clergy, hierarchy, and "laity" alike) smacks of an unwillingness to accept co-responsibility for our communal witness as Christians.

The situation in France with respect to the Latin Mass seems to be much better than in North America. In Paris alone, there are four churches - Saint Germain l'Auxerrois near the Louvre, Sainte Odile, Saint Eugène, and Notre-Dame du Lys - that celebrate it regularly, and not only on Sundays but also on some weekdays. There is also, of course, the "Lefebvrite" church of Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet where the Latin Mass is celebrated several times in a row on Sundays (it seems, however, that this particular congregation is still excommunicated for the violent takeover of the church and the eviction of its parish priest in 1977).
On the other hand, very large North American dioceses (for example, Vancouver, BC, Canada or Seattle, WA) have only one traditional parish. The majesty and beauty of the Tridentine Mass is incomparably greater than the Novus Ordo rite, and it is a real pity that this magnificent ceremony meets with so much ignorant opposition.

Maybe Fr Hilgartner hasn't noticed but the church is fractured and it seems to me that the bishops cant be bothered to try and import the MP into the central life of the church. In effect if we ignore it it will wither on the vine or that is what it appears they hope will happen. How are people going to develop a liking for the latin mass if it is treated as a third class business. The clergy are meant to lead by example and thus far given all the scandal in the church over abuse and the like strikes me that the US and UK bishops should be humbly obeying what Benedict xvi is trying to achieve instead of body swerving it by suggesting nobody really cares. Benedict is the Pope and he should simply lay down the law to the bishops by demanding that the bishops gather statistics and more to the point report to Rome about what efforts they are making to actively encourage the mass under both tlm/no.

I made a comment previously about the interview with Fr. Hilgartner where has it gone?

Martin Luther had legitimate accusations against The Church. Maybe these members of Pius X do too, maybe not. Martin Luther let his pride get the best of him, will Pride get the best of Pius X members also? We all know the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. And Jesus said, the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I know if there is some teaching of The Church I disagree with, it is because there is something I do not understand, no matter how contrary I think it is. When St. Padre Pio was informed by The Church that his stigmata and etc were not of supernatural origin, he accepted their word and grieved that he had deluded himself in spite of all the grace given him. He obeyed his superiors in spite of their wickedness. Jesus told St Faustina that if He told her to do something and her Confessor told her to do something different, He wanted her to do what her Confessor told her to do. God holds obedience in high regard. Many religious are tested this way. The Bible says; "... lean not on your own understanding..." I wish the Pius X members would be guided by The Church and not their own will, no matter how right they may be. If it be the case, God will make good come from evil for those who love Him. Easy to say, hard to do, as Father Corapi said.

John - where can I find your articles published online besides NCR, which posts so infrequently, it is becoming the worst site imaginable? Maybe that's because its writers are so old and tired. It's like the Nostalgia Network for people who don't realize it's not the 60s anymore.

I’ve heard stories on both ends. I’ve talked to people who had never before experienced the older Mass, especially young people, who go out of curiosity and find beauty in it, something uplifting and moving. I’ve also talked to people who really thought we should go back to this, who then actually attended a Tridentine Mass and felt differently.

Recently on EWTN, I heard the teaching Director who has been working in Chicago, relate that the Extraordinary form of the Mass is attracting much greater number of young people than they had expected. Now four or so years after the "motu proprio," it would seem that Pope Benedict XVI is far more right than wrong, and the "Chicken Little, sky is falling predication's," are all wet.

In any case we have a new generation who is willing and able to buttress our 2,000 year tradition by not using lip-service, but real live action to show their support for tradition.

Bravo, Charlie

I suspect that in five years time we will see a similar pattern with regard to the dire predictions for the impact of the new translation of the Mass. There seems to be so much overhyped commentary about turning away from Vatican II, Catholics leaving churches in droves alienated by the language, priests refusing to use it etc but the reality may be very different.

It seems that sometimes suspicion of hidden motives, political agendas and polarisation of opinions disturbs the peace and unity of the local Church both globally and locally. People on the "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" poles all seem to be wedded to the same perception of the Church as essentially and institution and as a primarily sociological reality rather than a theological/sacramental reality. They each expect too much from, and blame too much, the bishops, as if they alone are the church.

Vatican II, in both spirit and letter, is much more nuanced that such simple divides. Lumen gentium 8 provides that beautiful mix of images, which reveal the Church as human and divine, as a more complex body than simple reduction to an institution. No serious theologian (or pope) would ever suggest that Vatican II can be rolled back or ever should be. We still have so much richness to receive from it.

When I hear the shrill and overhyped predictions from all sides of the Catholic spectrum and calls for disobediance or challenges to unity I always feel that some other spirit is at work among us and not the Holy Spirit. But then again we have been here before, we only need read Corinthians or the letters of John to get a sense of this.

Lets hope the wisdom of Vatican II will prevail and that we will think, act and pray through Jesus, in Jesus and with Jesus in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God the Father.

Thanks John for the update. I may not always agree with SSPX, but I think that their hearts are in the right place. Pray for all concerned...

Another area, where legitimate diversity is being ignored is Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholics and those interested in this area are frequently described as anchronistic oddballs,set on turning the clock back,except when the topic of married clergy comes up. Eastern Catholicism has more to offer the whole body of the Catholic Church than aethestically appealing liturgies and married priests.

The irony here is that the people on the left can come up with any kind of position which is at variance with Catholic orthodoxy such as the abomination of priestesses or joining the political clamor for the oxymorn of "gay marriage", etc.& still be considered Catholic. Whereas the schimastics who would never hold to such positions are not considered Catholic.

I don't defend the schismatics in their disobedience to legitimate Church authority but they are actually closer to the true Church of Christ than those on the left who hold heretical positions. Schismatics, heretics, apostates & excommunicati are all outside the Mystical Body of Christ according to Pius XII (of fond memory) in his encyclical, "The Mystical Body of Christ."

It seems to be a question of pouring new wine into old wineskins, isn't it? As the Gospel states (Luke 5:39)"once you drink of the old wine, you would say, "the old is better". But at the same time, Vatican ll did open a lot of doors normally closed to the faithful.

Another cutsie John Allen attempt to ingratiate himself with the far right.

I AM SICK OF THIS KIND OF REPORTING being funded by the NCR.

Just plain fed up.

I am happy that some like to pray in Latin. It brings back a dead language. Myself I pray in English.

I am amazed at the theological arguments when no one really can explain the extensions added by theologians. The mystery of Christ's death and resurrection is sufficient for me. The Sermon on the Mount gives the guidance needed to live a Christian life.

I am bothered by the super judgmental attitudes of others. I try to avoid that in myself.

With English Mass I find the homilies make more sense since the priest brings together the readings and develops a thought that makes sense and is helpful. I tried the Latin Mass recently but will go back to the simple modern Mass.

If we had married priests, we probably would be able to offer various types of Masses in more languages. It will not be long before our Sunday service will be a Mass one weekend and The Liturgy of the Hours with a communion service the rest of the month. Our priests are getting very old without younger ones to replace them. With the ban on priests with a gay orientation we will have probably a third less priests than we would have had before the ban.

Assisi is a good place for the interfaith conference. St. Francis advocated things like that. He was a peace advocate who opposed crusades against Muslims. I think we need more of this kind of activity in more places.

When I hear of priests like Fellay, I feel good because more Catholics are forced to really think and to realize that one does not have to accept everything a priest says as true. One must formulate one's own conscience.

If I want to attend a EF Mass I am forced to attend a SSPX Chapel, as our Bishop refuses to allow one in the Diocese. I am not happy with the situation, but have no choice.

Do the traditionalists pronounce their Latin authentically? It's not Italian.

If you read carefully the Vatican II documents there is really no contradiction in terms of Catholic teaching ... however where the problem lies is in the delegation of the central authority of the Pope to the Bishops who have then chosen on their own to "interpret" the "spirit " of Vatican II to serve their own agenda and introduce their own "innovations"... and once Pandora's box was opened it could not be re-closed. I attend the Tridentine Mass as often as I can if for no other reason that it remains the same day in day out and I am not subjected to constant innovations which irritate me to no end and which IMO serve only to undermine the supernatural essence of the Mass ...

The one argument that keeps coming up in favor of the Latin Mass is the suggestion that travelers would be able to understand the Mass just as well in foreign countries as in their own parishes. I have participated at Mass in Germany and Brazil. While I understand only a few words in either language, I had no problem at all following the Mass.

Ours must be the mind of Christ. Jesus condemns hypocrisy and commands those among His listeners for whom the shoe fits to first pull the plank from their own eye before attempting to pull the splinter from their neighbor’s eye. In that regard, I have to say (at the risk of condemning myself by my own judgment) that I have been particularly troubled of late by encounters (both through the media and directly) with the intolerance of any number of prelates within the Church: intolerance not directed toward wicked people, but intolerance toward those who are attempting as best they can to be faithful, especially in matters concerning Divine Worship and the education of children and youth.

Why, even three years after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum (just to name one example), are well-meaning lay folk still treated with such great disdain by no less than bishops, bishops in communion (of heart, soul, mind and strength?) with the Successor of St. Peter when they ask for Mass in Latin? Is this anything other than blind hypocrisy (the plank!)? You tolerate no small amount of bad taste, bad music and caprice, while begrudging some few a port in the storm of liturgical abuse which seems not to want to subside? Can we be after His own Heart and not just claim to be members of Christ’s Body while still acting so at odds with the example set by the Holy One of God, meek and humble of heart? Such prelates are at counter or cross purposes to the sense in which the Church wants to go; they are ignoring what the Spirit is saying to the Churches and doing so with a backhand to some who are branded common and contemptible, but certainly not in the eyes of Christ... Let me say it more clearly! My issue is with the contempt shown for an outstretched hand, contempt such as would not be shown toward someone asking for some other benefit.

~ Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, Apostolic Nuncio to the Antilles Island (Jan. 30, 2011)

This tells me all I need to know:

Quo Primum [Apostolic Constitution]
of Pope St. Pius V
Pius Bishop Servant of the Servants of God

For a Perpetual Memorial of the Matter Upon Our elevation to the Apostolic throne, We gladly
turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt
the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God's help, by every means in Our
power to achieve that purpose.

Whereas amongst other decrees of the holy Council of Trent, We were charged with revision and
re-issue of the sacred books, to wit, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We
have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful and thoroughly
revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that the Missal
and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether
fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite
of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to
be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at
every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican
Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the
writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said
sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers.

When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature
consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all
may enjoy the fruit of this labor; that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and
ceremonies they are to observe henceforward in the celebration of Masses.

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them
by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful
henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any
formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and
chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or
belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in
which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the
rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in
any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath
or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way
whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over
200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the Church,
and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not
less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.

Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We
hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or
Prelate, and of their General Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and
entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity.
We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published
Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of
whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed
of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read
the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to
discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which
they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any
ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in
perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be
followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or
censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.

Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of
whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law.

Notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years.

Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live
beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.

Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for non-observance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a
fine of 100 gold ducats payable by that very fact to the Apostolic Treasury.

In the case of those resident in other parts of the world, it shall be automatic excommunication and other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents, We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by Us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in
Rome.

But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the
world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual,
posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of Apostles, at those of the Apostolic
Chancery, and at the end of the Campo dei Fiori; moreover, We direct that printed copies of the
same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall
possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would
attend the display there of Our present text.

Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and
prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of
Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and
seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year [14 VII 1570 A.D.] of Our Pontificate.

And this too, tells me all I need to know:

Translation of the
DE DEFECTIBUS DECREE
of St. Pius V
in the Roman Missal

"V.I. Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows:

For this is My Body

and:

For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change in meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin."

*****
DE DEFECTIBUS DECREE

"V.I. Defectus ex parte formae possunt contingere, si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsa consecratione requiruntur. Verba autem consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec:

Hoc est enim Corpus Meum

Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi et aeterni Testamenti; Mysterium Fidei, Qui pro vobis et pro multis Effendetus in remissionem peccatorum.

Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa significarent, non conficeret sacramentum. Si verbo aliquid adderet, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret."

*****

Since the De Defectibus Decree concerns a matter of faith — the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist — it is universal, immutable, and infallible. This decree has appeared in all Altar Missals since issued by St. Pius V, until the recent changes by the liturgy commission.

NOTE: All the above is taken directly from the decrees. Nowhere did I interject any personal opinion or analysis. However, make note that the words of consecration clearly read "for many" and not "for all" as is used in the New Mass. The words "many" and "all" have very different meanings, thus the words of consecrations have been seriously altered.

@ Kevin Kenney,

So, you wish the Pius X members would be guided by The Church and not their own will? How about the SSPX simply following the Quo Primum and De Defectibus Decrees of Pope St. Pius V? Seems to me that they are obeying the Church right down to the letter.

As you know I am sure, that the National Catholic Distorter is a very, very liberal magazine that has frequently printed heterodox works.

This piece is so full of false journalism.

These people never get their facts straight.

I do not know where to begin, so I will just cite the biggest blunder they made:

"Yet the number and influence of Catholics who may feel some sympathy for the positions taken by the society should not be under-estimated, and any Vatican regime would feel obligated to try to heal what they regard as the lone formal schism to follow Vatican II."

The last part of the statement is what I am referring to:

"the lone formal schism to follow Vatican II."

What a nonsensical canard this is based on false hearsay!

The Vatican does NOT regard this as a formal schism!

Pope Benedict XVI and the former president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, have stated that the SSPX are Not in schism, and this matter remains an internal church matter [anyone who is schism is outside of the Church and is not an internal Church matter].

This is really sinful of the NCR to say and does nothing to foster unity between Christians.

I wish the National "Catholic" fishwrap would do their homework before spewing nonsense.