D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Catholic Church has a precept to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. If you choose to violate that precept, that’s a problem.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
This is off topic, but just a quick help here. You have to be careful in how you use language and what you say. Otherwise, you’re in conflict with the pope, not the liberals.
First: The Ordinary Form as it is prescribed in the GIRM is the Ordinary form for the universal Church. It is not to be the exception, but the rule.
Second: The Holy Father has explicitly said that there are no deficiencies in the Ordinary Form. Now you’re syaing that there are. Both of you cannot be right. He outranks you; therefore, you have to assent and beleive that there are no deficiencies.
Third: The Holy Father says that mass ad-orientem is Extraordinary, not the norm any longer. You are calling for it to return. You and I can’t call for the return of something that has been told to us by the Pontif is extraordinary, no longer the norm.
Fourth: Whether you call them alter boys or altar servers, it is the same thing. That term is only used in the United States. No other country in the world calls them that. They are called servers in Canon law and acolytes in liturgical law. Each country has a different word for them.
Fifth: You have a preference for classical Catholic music. I assume that you mean Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant still has the pre-eminent place in liturgical music. However, pre-eminent does not mean that it is the only form of liturgical music. There is such thing as classical liturgical music that is not Gregorian chant. Remember such hymns as the ones that we sing at Christmas. They are ot Gregorian chant. Some of oldies but goodies sung during Lent, are not gregorian chant. All Creatures of Our Goid and King, written by St. Francis, was not meant to be sung as Gregorian chant and was meant to be played with a stringed instrument, not an organ. Silent night was written for the guitar, not the organ and it’s not Gregorian chant. A Mighty Fortress, is meant to be played with an organ, but it’s not Gregorian chant. When we say that Gregorian chant has a pre-eminent place in liturgical music it means that it must not be allowed to die and it should serve as a model for future composers of liturgical music. But obviously ever future artist is not going to writ it exactly the same. Also, Gregorian chant in its truest form, as it is done in scholas in monasteries has never been done on a grand scale in parishes, not even in the Middle Ages.
Sixth: The extraordinary minister of the Eucharist is new and it’s not new. It is the revival of a very ancient custom where lay people would take communion from the altar to the home of the sick and shut-ins. Originally, this was done by the deacons. But as the Church grew there were more lay people doing it. It eventually grew out of control and the practice was stopped. In many monastic communities the practice was never stopped. For example, in my order, the friars and the nuns have always brought communion to the sick members of the community. They did not have to be deacons. We have had this practice for 800 years. Remember the famous portrait of St. Clare holding the monstrance? Our Poor Clare nuns have always exposed the Blessed Sacrament themselves, when there is no deacon or priest to do it for them. This practice remaind in many enclosed and mendicant communities for many centuries. Now it has returned outside of the cloister again. It is true that there is no need to have 25 EMHC at mass. We can certainly fix that.
Seventh: The Lutherans and the Anglicans cannot put on a better mass than Catholics. They do not have apostolic succession. Therefore, they can only put on a theatrical performance that looks like a traditional mass. Without apostolic succession, you cannot have a valid Eucharistic liturgy.
We have to be very careful what we say and how we say it, because our passion can pit us against Church authority and Church history. That’s not where we want to go here.
I apologize to everyone, because my response is off topic. I’m only doing this for the benefit of visitors who may read the cited post.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
This is not the teaching of the Church or Canon Law. One is never required to attend a heretical Call to Action Mass to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. If there is no truly Catholic Mass available the obligation is waived and Canon Law suggests private or family prayer.
This first sentence is wrong and the following sentences are ironic. “The Church” through her Canon Law never says the Orthodox liturgy is “only allowed to fill one’s Sunday obligation when there is no other Mass to attend.”
Again I quote Canon 844.2:
This means if it is morally impossible for you to attend an OF Mass in your area, you are allowed under Church law to go to an Orthodox liturgy. It doesn’t say you HAVE to go, but that you are ALLOWED to go.
The Church nowhere demands we fulfill our Sunday obligation at a spiritually dangerous Mass. This advice could actually lead someone to a heretical or schismatic Mass out of some warped sense of scruple to fulfill an obligation meant to be law to encourage a minimum means of grace to us every week. This advice is like your doctor telling you you need to eat an apple every week for your health. A week goes by and you have no access to any good apples. So do you eat a rotten one to obey the doctor? This line of thinking is madness. The point of the doctor’s advice is your health. Not to mindlessly obey his words at all costs.
Similarly Holy Mother Church tells us to go to Mass every week for our Spiritual health. If you have no healthy Masses around you, do you go to a heretical or schismatic liturgy to obey the letter of the law? Certainly not! The whole purpose of the law is to get your spiritually healthy, not to put your soul in danger! These errors completely flip the purpose of the law upside down and negate the law by following its letter and not its spirit. This is the exact same sort of Pharisaic legalism that Our Lord railed against.
Here is the pertinent Canon:
Canon 1248.2:
“Grave cause” certainly entails “moral impossibility” mentioned in the previous Canon which means if you, in good conscience cannot attend an NO Mass, and there are no TLM’s around then you are excused from the obligation.
In addition, Canon 1323 states that a Catholic cannot be penalized for violating a law or
precept out of serious inconvenience. Indeed it would be a serious inconvenience (to say the least) for a Traditional Catholic who truly believes the NO Mass is Protestantized and not Catholic, to attend it. And if they refused to do so for such reason then any penalty placed upon them for non-attendance would be null.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
With all due respect to the poster, the fact that a 60 yr. old Brother in the Catholic Church with theological training can’t recognize that a seminarian’s “liturgical dance” with the Sacramentary, at the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary, is an “abuse” or in any way wrong, simply serves to illustrate the depth of the Crisis to which we’ve sunk.
It also shows the absolute chasm between the Catholic and moral sensibilities of the Traditional Catholic and the modern Catholic. Where a modern Catholic would see absolutely nothing wrong with this, a Traditional Catholic would be horrified and scandalized, as would any Catholic in the West before the introduction of such novelty.
With this in mind it is a bit easier to see why some Traditional Catholics in good conscience cannot attend any NO Masses. To them, authorized practices previously condemned (girl altar boys, CITH, EM’s) are sacrileges and the moral law obliges one to never assist at a sacrilegious Mass.
I understand not all Catholics hold this view, in fact the majority don’t. However, I feel it necessary to explain the mindset of Traditional Catholics towards these practices so one can better understand why they in good conscience cannot attend. Due to the Canon Law provisions I’ve already pointed out, I think that if they do not attend the NO when no TLM is present they are excused due to moral impossibility and/or grave inconvenience.
J
JReducation
Guest
Your opening paragraph is offensive. Second, grave inconvenience does not apply when something is approved by the Church. In such a case, this is a case of an imporoperly formed conscience. A conscience cannot be properly formed when it finds sin, what the Church does not consider to be a sin, much less a sacrilege. Therefore, the person has the moral duty to correct his conscience in conformity to the mind of the Church.
The so called scandal in Sydney was approved by the Vatican and the Hloy Father himself. The entire preparation of the liturgy is presented to his secretary and his liturgical team before it is implemented. That was already discussed on theses threads at the time of WYD and it was clarified. It was also discussed on EWTN and it was clarified there too by competent Church authorities.
You’ll have to look back to old posts of last year or go back into EWTN files and find it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
This statement is an example of positivism and relativism. Traditionalists believe there is an objective right and wrong regardless of whether a Bishop “approves” it or not. It is the classical Thomistic explanation of truth. Truth is the mind conforming to reality. Not reality conforming to the changing will of ecclesiastical authority.
The Bishop should approve a practice because it is right, but the Bishop approving a practice does not therefore MAKE it right. I personally witnessed a Cardinal swing the incense, singing to the beat of rock music playing at his Mass. He obviously, fully approved of the music. I fully believe that he was wrong to do so and it was sacrilegious to play that music at the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary. It is my right as a Catholic to think so.
Also, as a practical matter, because a Bishop approves instruments in Latin America doesn’t mean they are “approved” out of his diocese.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Where?
Pre-eminent place means “not be allowed to die”?
What modern composers of liturgical music for the NO use Gregorian Chant?
bkovacs, out of curiosity, were you criticizing singing Christmas carols or any Traditional English hymns at Mass? That’s not what I got from your post.
Never in the Roman Rite was Holy Communion routinely distributed by laypersons at Holy Mass. The touching of the host had been reserved to the Priest for 1,000 years before Vatican II.
St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] writes:
Before VCII the priest was only allowed to touch the Host and it was considered a sacrilege for a layman to touch it without a necessary reason. Extraordinary Ministers did not develop out of the practice of giving communion to the sick. It was rather to encourage lay participation in the Mass via usurping various roles of the Priest.
But yet it seems we cannot. It’s been 40 years since the NO was introduced and still the practice continues quite unabated.
Nevertheless, the law of prayer is the law of belief. And we see what belief most Catholics have after 40 years of NO liturgies…
Most important is whether what we say is in conformity with the Catholic Faith.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
I am sorry you took offense, but it is my opinion.
Canon law allows for the “moral impossibility” of approaching a Catholic priest for the Eucharist. It also allows for “grave cause”. Acting against one’s formed Catholic conscience is always a moral impossibility. A formed Catholic conscience can certainly find that which was considered to be sinful Pre-VCII to still be sinful. The mind of the Church must take into account Her Tradition practices and immemorial customs. The “spirit of VCII” and the later allowed NO liturgical practices are not obligatory nor are they infallible. We can, in fact see through the great loss of vocations, vastly diminished Mass attendance and lack of belief in the Real Presence where these liturgical innovations have gotten us. As such, the proof is evident, in my opinion that they serve as a danger to the Faith. Whether the Pope recognizes this now or later is not my concern. My concern right now, is the salvation of my soul, and whether attending a Mass with practices previously considered abuses and sacrileges, as well as the Rite itself called a “banal on the spot product” by our current Pope as Cardinal, will help to this end.
Then we must dearly pray for the Pope. Approval of bad liturgical practices, even by a Pope does not make them correct. We have the right as Catholics to respectfully disagree and petition the Pope for the removal of these practices.
Very disheartening if true. However the Pope “fired” the liturgical director who oversaw this WYD and replaced him with one who is much more Traditional. So I think the Holy Father does recognize that these practices are bad and is moving the Papal Masses in the right direction.
P
pnewton
Guest
Perhaps instead of offensive, it is better described as personal. It was a personal attack, since it was directed at a specific person, even though it was your opinion.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Quote " bkovacs, out of curiosity, were you criticizing singing Christmas carols or any Traditional English hymns at Mass? That’s not what I got from your post."
I was criticizing the fact that I don’t consider a 12 string guitar a liturgical instrument to be used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And it was never used in Masses in Latin America until after the new OF was introduced. I prefer traditional Roman Catholic music, like what is used in a TLM or EF Mass. I totally agree with allot of what you are saying stevusmagnus. I would also like to mention that if you look at the Anglican Use Mass, I find that particular Mass very beautiful. Probably what the post Vatican 2 Mass was meant to be.
walsingham-church.org/200812advent/Photos.htm
I was criticizing the fact that I don’t consider a 12 string guitar a liturgical instrument to be used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And it was never used in Masses in Latin America until after the new OF was introduced. I prefer traditional Roman Catholic music, like what is used in a TLM or EF Mass. I totally agree with allot of what you are saying stevusmagnus. I would also like to mention that if you look at the Anglican Use Mass, I find that particular Mass very beautiful. Probably what the post Vatican 2 Mass was meant to be.
walsingham-church.org/200812advent/Photos.htm
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
It was not a personal attack. It was a statement of fact and an opinion/ observation based on that fact. He sees nothing wrong with said behavior, I think this is a representative sign of the crisis we are in.
I believe he is sincere and cast no judgment on him personally. Nevertheless I sincerely disagree with him.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
kovacs,
I can’t find the document right now but I’m almost positive that St. Pius X wrote an encyclical on liturgical instruments condemning profane and secular instruments and even condemned the use of piano at Holy Mass. He said chant should be used and he tolerated the pipe organ. Your Catholic instincts are right.
Can one really retain a Catholic spirit and true Catholic faith when every Sunday one is subjected to “approved” heretical liturgical hymns such as “You and I are the Bread of Life”, holding hands, DNC talking point homily, cheap vestments, cheap vessels, congregation in t-shirt and shorts, wooden table for the “Eucharistic Meal”, girl altar boys in pony tails and sneakers, a risifix or bare cross, “presider’s chair” as the primary focus, tabernacle in the corner, space ship architecture, banners instead of statues, grotesque modern art, laypersons handling the Body of Christ, women lectors in violation of St. Paul, rock music including drums, cymbals and electric guitar coupled with tambourines and follow-along musical hand gestures at charismatic and teen Masses? Does ANY of this tend towards any semblance of building a true Catholic faith?
Consider this. St. Robert Bellarmine when referring to the churches of the heretical sects of his time stated that: “when we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars, and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But, on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a wooden table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the house of God” (Octava Controversia Generalis, liber II, Controversia Quinta, caput XXXI).
Similarly the King’s council during the protestant reformation in England in order to destroy the belief of the faithful in the Catholic notion of the Mass declared, " All altars are to be destroyed. A wooden table is to be used. The form of a table shall move the simple from superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass into the right use of the Lord’s supper; for the use of an Altar is to make sacrifice; the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon" (Works of Thomas Cranmer. Vol, 2. p 524).
“But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device…one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform…” - Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
P
pnewton
Guest
Since a piano is not a matter of faith of morals, a past pope has no authority over such things. "Of course, one cannot expect timeless recipes in these conciliar texts." Besides, of all things liturgical music has been shown to be on of the most fluid. I found an interesting article as to why this is so. I also started a split thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5489163#post5489163
Here is the document:
musicasacra.com/theological-problems/
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
So indeed we can carelessly brush off and dismiss the directives of a Saint and Pope of the Catholic Church who restored the liturgy, but yet the modern day music directives which allow rock music at Calvary we are to treat as sacrosanct? No thanks.
The directives of St. Pius X are even more relevant today than they were then. Then St. Pius was concerned that profane music that was played in theaters and opera houses would make their way into the Mass. This he strictly forbade. Why? Because he was some curmudgeon? No, because he had Catholic sense and knew that these cultural novelties, far from lifting our hearts and minds to God during Mass, simply served to bring the spirit of the world into Mass and profane it.
In my opinion, any liturgical music directive today that allows electric guitars, tambourines, drums, cymbals, etc at the Holy Sacrifice isn’t worth the paper it is printed on and should be readily ignored. I’m certainly free to disagree with it, especially since I have all of the 20th century Popes before John XXIII on my side, and maybe even him! The fruits of these masses are empty seminaries, decreased Mass attendance, decreased belief in the Real Presence, and emotion-based worship.
For me this is very much a matter of faith and morals. A lot of these songs are heterodox if not outright heretical like “You and I are the bread of life”. Almost all of them could be sung in any Protestant Church, thus all Catholicity is stripped from modern day hymns. Also, just like the baby boomers who wrote them, they are self indulgent as they constantly sing about themselves in a sort of glorification. In other modern hyms we end up singing God’s part.
The music that accompanies these “hymns” is secular and profane. In the case of the folk guitar Mass, it is associated and developed out of the Woodstock era which rebelled against all authority including the Church. In the case of the rock mass, it developed from from the same anti-authoritarian self-indulgent origins except with an even more aggressive style. Tell me how well a youth is going to meditate, pray, and reflect with drum and cymbals banging in his ear and a guitar riff whizzing by? The whole thing is madness upon madness. Until the Vatican stops compromising with the world in this fashion the crisis is going to continue. In many places we’ve sold our Catholic birthright for cheap, barren, emotion based, and heretical Pentecostal worship
P
pnewton
Guest
Nothing about the liturgy should be done carelessly. Everything else you said was not relevant and misrepresnts both what I said and the Holy Father wrote.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
So the perennial advice of the past 200 years of Popes should be dismissed “carefully”?
No matter how you slice it, what Catholic Tradition has to say on liturgical music, 1960 years worth, gets brushed under the rug and whatever novelty the Vatican deems to allow in said music in the year 2009 is, ipso facto “good”. All previous declarations by all previous Popes (even canonized Saints) gets put down the memory hole, though it gets put there “with care”.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Padre Pio and the Novus Ordo Missae
He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger: “For pity sake, end the Council quickly.”
The same year, during the conciliar euphoria that was promising a new springtime to the Church, he confided to one of his spiritual sons: “In this time of darkness, let us pray. Let us do penance for the elect”; and especially for the one who has to be their shepherd here below: All his life, he immolated himself for the reigning pope, whose photograph was among the rare images that decorated his cell.
He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger: “For pity sake, end the Council quickly.”
The same year, during the conciliar euphoria that was promising a new springtime to the Church, he confided to one of his spiritual sons: “In this time of darkness, let us pray. Let us do penance for the elect”; and especially for the one who has to be their shepherd here below: All his life, he immolated himself for the reigning pope, whose photograph was among the rare images that decorated his cell.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Very beautiful website on Padre Pio and his devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
catholictradition.org/Saints/padre-pio7b.htm
catholictradition.org/Saints/padre-pio7b.htm
P
pnewton
Guest
Again, not what I said.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Off topic but…
Padre Pio did not have to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass because he was exempted due to his age. Priests over a certain age at the time the Ordinary Form was being implemented were exempt from having to celebrate it.
The ad experimentum Mass was not the Ordinary Form but was a hybrid form of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the vernacular.
I find it funny how uninformed most ultra-traditionalists are. They just follow what they are told by those who chose to oppose the Church and the hierarchy in charge.
Padre Pio did not have to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass because he was exempted due to his age. Priests over a certain age at the time the Ordinary Form was being implemented were exempt from having to celebrate it.
The ad experimentum Mass was not the Ordinary Form but was a hybrid form of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the vernacular.
I find it funny how uninformed most ultra-traditionalists are. They just follow what they are told by those who chose to oppose the Church and the hierarchy in charge.
- Status