Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[catharina]

DustinsDad, IMO you posted some good sites here, with the exception of the last one, “Tradition in Action” They give “Traditionalist” a bad name.

Tradition in Action claims to be “committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances.”

However, TIA’s members attempt to do this by ridiculing the Roman clergy, the Pope, and many prominent Catholic leaders and religious. Their manner of presenting pictures and commentary completely aside from any context is both a misrepresentation of facts and disgraceful to the Church and Her hierarchy. While ostensibly seeking to reinstate traditions in the Church, this site ridicules the living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and therefore, it cannot validly claim a right to defense of Holy Mother Church. We recommend avoiding this site altogether.
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=210891

I agree. Citing a link for one article provides the link to many grave errors. TIA exists to “uplift” the Church by assaulting (insulting) the Church and so it is without merit. One might think such a link could provide an occasion of sin for readers. Proving one’s point by leading others into a barrel of pollution, with no disclaimer/warning, is a dangerous practice despite any clever intent.

 

[DustinsDad]

I’ve asked the moderator to change the souce link for it to another hopefully less offensive site. Venarri’s article is posted more than one website. I was googling St. Francis and the Sultan to find info on this historical interaction - the TIA posting of the article in question just happened to be closer to the top of the results page.

I’d rather discuss the historical interaction than this other website…that’s a rabbit hole we don’t need to waste time exploring.

In fact, to get even more closer to Venarri’s source (in case someone wants to attack him rather than his article), he’s citing in his relation of the Sultan / St. Francis interaction, St. Francis of Assisi’s biorgrapher, Fr. Cuthbert, OCFC. See Life of Saint Francis of Assisi (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916),

DD

 

[catharina]

I’ve asked the moderator to change the souce link for it to another hopefully less offensive site. Venarri’s article is posted more than one website. I was googling St. Francis and the Sultan to find info on this historical interaction - the TIA posting of the article in question just happened to be closer to the top of the results page.

I’d rather discuss the historical interaction than this other website…that’s a rabbit hole we don’t need to waste time exploring.

DD

Since the site was presented via link, without commentary, the statements regarding the site served as a very necessary precaution. IMO, as in,

A spiritual work of mercy: Instruct the ignorant

 

[catharina]

(This is in response to post #469)

Hi Jeanette,

I agree with the principle that we should hope and pray that the liturgy ought to help draw people to the Church, and is one of the prime means of evangelism. I would also note, however, that conversions to Catholicism have definitely dropped since the changes after Vatican II were implemented. I have posted this a number of times, so forgive me if you’ve already seen it, but I think it bears repeating

…

I am always a bit skeptical when someone says something to the effect that they would not have converted if they had at first come in contact with the TLM rather than the NO. It is hard to imagine that someone could attend a TLM, particularly in a beautiful church with Gregorian chant being sung, and not be deeply touched and attracted even if at first it was unfamiliar to them. And there was really not a big problem with people converting to the Catholic Faith with the TLM in place.

Regarding ecumenism, if we are talking about converting people to the Catholic faith, then well and good (but then, why don’t we just call it evangelism?). We may disagree on some of the methods, but at least in principle we would be in agreement that we should be seeking the best means possible to help people become Catholic with the help of God’s grace. The problem with ecumenism as it has been practiced the past 40 years, is it seems to have given the impression that one does not really need to convert to the Catholic faith. That at these ecumenical gatherings there is not going to be any intention to call people to become Catholic. Perhaps this is one reason why there seems to be quite a bit of indifferentism in the Church today.

And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.

God bless.

Brennan, I think I understand your points. Regarding one point, your skepticism regarding another’s lack of affinity for the Latin Mass, please review your skepticism - maybe in the manner of can one miss having a left arm if one was born without a left arm? In this country where Protestant sects always referred to the Catholic Church as “foreign” it does make sense to me that some converts can’t imagine having converted if the Mass had remained only in the Latin. (Call it human nature.) Also, many parishes that celebrate NO Mass are quite reverent and are open to welcoming converts.

Because of my age, I can easily remember the way it was when even in childhood all, on both sides of the religious “fence,” were warned away from one another - to the extreme that care was taken to insure different times for dismissal from Catholic and public schools, different holiday schedules were assigned, etc… The enforcement was so extreme that the NORM was that all lost their earliest friendships as soon as attendance at separate schools parted our ways.

As for the notion of ecumenism vs evangelization, I think you have made a very interesting point. Not that long ago, evangelization was left to the missionaries. I’m not being flippant. The notion was that extreme. Our call today to evangelize as a primary practice of Faith was rather absent and made more so by the high wall of avoidance. Can I see the actions of ecumenical movement leading us to greater evangelization? Well, I can. However, it may be that others who might wish to view themselves as “above the masses” or even “above the Masses of the masses” would not be as able to see it in that same way.

Your final point: “And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.” Actually, Catholics MUST agree with that - and there is no quarter given for anyone to minimize the holiness of either form of Mass. Perfect sacrifice is perfect sacrifice.

 

[Like]

I actually agree with you. Just critique what I posted, not that particular group. I like Venarri, his stuff is usually well researched and cited. The site just happened to have the article.

Thanks and I agree with you on Venari.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Because of my age, I can easily remember the way it was when even in childhood all, on both sides of the religious “fence,” were warned away from one another - to the extreme that care was taken to insure different times for dismissal from Catholic and public schools, different holiday schedules were assigned, etc… The enforcement was so extreme that the NORM was that all lost their earliest friendships as soon as attendance at separate schools parted our ways.

This doens’t jive with my father’s accounts of his childhood in the late 40s early 50s…wonderful talks of childhood evangilization efforts, which amounted to friendly “theological” debates with the public school kids after playing ball on the weekends and after school. But then, you’ve gotta know my dad (I’ve been very blessed - I could just as easily use “wallysboy” as a screenname).

…As for the notion of ecumenism vs evangelization, I think you have made a very interesting point. Not that long ago, evangelization was left to the missionaries. I’m not being flippant. The notion was that extreme.

Then how do you explain this from the good ol’ Baltimore Catechism:
150. Who are the laity of the Church?
The laity of the Church are all its members who do not belong to the clerical or to the religious state.

151. How can the laity help the Church in her care of souls?
The laity can help the Church in her care of souls by leading lives that will reflect credit on the Church, and by cooperating with their bishops and priests, especially through Catholic Action.
“Behave yourselves honorably among the pagans; that, whereas they slander you as evildoers, they may, through observing you, by reason of your good works glory God in the day of the visitation.” (I Peter 2:12)

*151A. What is Catholic Action?
*Catholic Action is the active participation of the laity in the apostolate of the Church under the guidance of the hierarchy.

151B. In what ways can the laity participate actively in the apostolate of the Church?
The laity can participate actively in the apostolate of the Church when they arouse the interest of non-Catholics in the Catholic faith; promote high standards in the press, motion pictures, radio and television; participate in the work of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; take part in the activities of Catholic societies and organizations; represent, under proper direction, the Church’s position in speaking and writing; and go as lay missionaries to foreign lands.
(Baltimore Catechism 2, Lesson 1)

… Actually, Catholics MUST agree with that - and there is no quarter given for anyone to minimize the holiness of either form of Mass. Perfect sacrifice is perfect sacrifice.

God’s part in any valid mass is always perfect. Infinitely so. Man’s part…that can vary.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

And now a pop quiz…Who wrote the following words? JR, I’d appreciate it if you refrained from answering until a few other’s have a chance.

Whence all who saw the Lord Jesus according to the Humanity and both did not see and believe according to the spirit and the Divinity, that He Himself is the true Son of God, have been damned; so even now all who see the Sacrament, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the altar by the hand of the priest in the form of bread and wine, and do not see and believe according to the spirit and the Divinity, that this is truly the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, have been damned, since the Most High Himself testifies, who said: “This is My Body and” My “Blood of the New Testament [which is poured forth on behalf of the many]” (Mt 14:22,24); and “He who eats” My Flesh “and drinks” My Blood, “has life eternal” (cf. Jn 6:55). Whence of the Spirit of the Lord, who dwells in His faithful, is he who receives the Most Holy Body and Blood of the Lord. · All others, who do not share this same Spirit and presume to receive Him, eat and drink “judgement upon themselves” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29).

No takers yet?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan, I think I understand your points. Regarding one point, your skepticism regarding another’s lack of affinity for the Latin Mass, please review your skepticism - maybe in the manner of can one miss having a left arm if one was born without a left arm? In this country where Protestant sects always referred to the Catholic Church as “foreign” it does make sense to me that some converts can’t imagine having converted if the Mass had remained only in the Latin. (Call it human nature.) Also, many parishes that celebrate NO Mass are quite reverent and are open to welcoming converts.

Because of my age, I can easily remember the way it was when even in childhood all, on both sides of the religious “fence,” were warned away from one another - to the extreme that care was taken to insure different times for dismissal from Catholic and public schools, different holiday schedules were assigned, etc… The enforcement was so extreme that the NORM was that all lost their earliest friendships as soon as attendance at separate schools parted our ways.

As for the notion of ecumenism vs evangelization, I think you have made a very interesting point. Not that long ago, evangelization was left to the missionaries. I’m not being flippant. The notion was that extreme. Our call today to evangelize as a primary practice of Faith was rather absent and made more so by the high wall of avoidance. Can I see the actions of ecumenical movement leading us to greater evangelization? Well, I can. However, it may be that others who might wish to view themselves as “above the masses” or even “above the Masses of the masses” would not be as able to see it in that same way.

Your final point: “And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.” Actually, Catholics MUST agree with that - and there is no quarter given for anyone to minimize the holiness of either form of Mass. Perfect sacrifice is perfect sacrifice.

Hi Catharina,

I can imagine someone who has never been to a TLM having a negative reaction to it because they don’t really understand it. And I would definitely want to take a potential convert to a TLM with Gregorian chant with the people singing the parts of the Mass appropriate to them (However, I would be willing to take them to a low Mass TLM if they had at least a small red missal that they could read). And certainly a NO done properly with Gregorian chant would be a better choice than the way it is typically celebrated today.

I was born too late to know the items you are recounting. It would be interesting to hear different perspectives on items such as evangelization prior to Vatican II. And I am all for laypeople being called to evangelize. And I certainly don’t want such a wall up that evangelism becomes virtually impossible. However, I simply look at the way ecumenism has been portrayed and practiced the past forty years as putting quite a damper on evangelism as it seems to give off the attitude that dialogue is almost an end in itself and being friendly with people from other religions is its high point.

I must have miscommunicated. When I am talking about the TLM and NO I am not speaking about the Holy Eucharist per se. Of course the Holy Eucharist in any valid Mass is of equal and infinite value and one is not more holy than another. When I speak about the TLM and the NO I am talking about the liturgy itself as distinct from the Holy Eucharist. I am talking about the prayers, the rubrics, and even the art and architecture which can be typical of either form. And in this I definitely think one form can be argued to be better than another, as Dietrich von Hildebrand argues in my signature line link below.

God bless.

 

[DustinsDad]

No takers I see. So who wrote these words…
Whence all who saw the Lord Jesus according to the Humanity and both did not see and believe according to the spirit and the Divinity, that He Himself is the true Son of God, have been damned; so even now all who see the Sacrament, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the altar by the hand of the priest in the form of bread and wine, and do not see and believe according to the spirit and the Divinity, that this is truly the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, have been damned, since the Most High Himself testifies, who said: “This is My Body and” My “Blood of the New Testament [which is poured forth on behalf of the many]” (Mt 14:22,24); and “He who eats” My Flesh “and drinks” My Blood, “has life eternal” (cf. Jn 6:55). · Whence of the Spirit of the Lord, who dwells in His faithful, is he who receives the Most Holy Body and Blood of the Lord. All others, who do not share this same Spirit and presume to receive Him, eat “and” drink “judgement upon themselves” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29).
The answer is none other than St. Francis of Assisi himself in The Words of Sacred Admonition, Chapter 1. Many links for this is available, here’s a few…

franciscan-archive.org/patriarcha/opera/admonit.html
sacred-texts.com/chr/wosf/wosf03.htm
thenazareneway.com/st_francis.htm

Lesson we should take from this quiz? You can not separate charity from the truth. That mean’s the truth about Christ, the truth about His Church. And yes, the truth about his great saint, St. Francis of Assisi.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Jeanette_L]

(This is in response to post #469)

Hi Jeanette,

I agree with the principle that we should hope and pray that the liturgy ought to help draw people to the Church, and is one of the prime means of evangelism. I would also note, however, that conversions to Catholicism have definitely dropped since the changes after Vatican II were implemented. I have posted this a number of times, so forgive me if you’ve already seen it, but I think it bears repeating:

This quote is from Fr. Rutler’s book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes. The emphases in bold are mine:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into criticism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108)

I am always a bit skeptical when someone says something to the effect that they would not have converted if they had at first come in contact with the TLM rather than the NO. It is hard to imagine that someone could attend a TLM, particularly in a beautiful church with Gregorian chant being sung, and not be deeply touched and attracted even if at first it was unfamiliar to them. And there was really not a big problem with people converting to the Catholic Faith with the TLM in place.

Regarding ecumenism, if we are talking about converting people to the Catholic faith, then well and good (but then, why don’t we just call it evangelism?). We may disagree on some of the methods, but at least in principle we would be in agreement that we should be seeking the best means possible to help people become Catholic with the help of God’s grace. The problem with ecumenism as it has been practiced the past 40 years, is it seems to have given the impression that one does not really need to convert to the Catholic faith. That at these ecumenical gatherings there is not going to be any intention to call people to become Catholic. Perhaps this is one reason why there seems to be quite a bit of indifferentism in the Church today.

And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.

God bless.

Why is it that everyone continually takes such a narrow view of time when looking at change? We are somehow stuck on the notion that if we don’t see the fruits of something within a certain determined amount of time, which is subjective and wildly variant, that somehow we have made a wrong turn and must about face immediately!

Thank God the early Christians had more patience than we, or Christianity would have died out within the first century when the Lord failed to return in some allotted amount of time, depending on who was complaining about it the loudest or had the best argument against whether Christ really knew what he was talking about when he promised such a thing.

I still hold to the position that there isn’t a person alive today who can predict when the vineyard will come into it’s full harvest and how many people will be counted among the saved and unsaved, the converted and unconverted and how the Holy Spirit is going to accomplish this great task and with what method or combination of methods. And until then, we have to stop crying the blues because we can’t see the future and can’t trust that God does indeed have everything under control, in spite of our lack of vision.

We are in a pruning stage, like it or not. And if there is anyone here who has any experience with gardening, when plants and trees are first pruned, the inexperienced eye would swear that the gardener just ruined all the previous work he had put into his garden, things can look pretty funky. And the gardener knows to prune different plants and trees at different stages, so unless you once again, have the experience he has, you are going to be bewildered as to why things are not coming together at the same time.

The experienced gardener can look at the cut branches and pinched buds, in all these different stages, and have the vision to see what the garden is going to produce with all his efforts.

If you are the branch, you are not going to like being snipped and pinched, but then again, being a branch, you are not in control, but the gardener is. It is not for the branch to tell the gardener his job, but to submit to whatever vision the gardener has.

You can quote all the priests and naysayers you like, you can say that you don’t see all the converts coming in that should be with the HUGE amount of time we have given God to accomplish all this, but you don’t have the mind of God, or the power of the Holy Spirit, and cannot say that things are not on track because it’s not within your power to do so, unless you are a prophet, well then, that’s another story altogether.

How in the world can you all have the peace of Christ when you are all so worried that everything in the Church is going to @#$% in a handbasket? I don’t think the Holy Spirit has botched His job, and I don’t think he needs us, who are not the ones with the authority to change anything, to sit back and give him advice on how to do his job.

But, then once again, I’m the big picture kind of gal, and this is just my measly :twocents:.

 

[DustinsDad]

How in the world can you all have the peace of Christ when you are all so worried that everything in the Church is going to @#$% in a handbasket? I don’t think the Holy Spirit has botched His job, and I don’t think he needs us, who are not the ones with the authority to change anything, to sit back and give him advice on how to do his job…

I’m listening right now to Catholic Answers on the radio - 2nd half of today’s show (3-26-08) is with Anthony Esolen talking about “*Manhood and the Liturgy.” *

Everyone - ESPECIALLY folks who think the non-Sacramental side of the liturgy can’t be critiqued - needs to listen to this.

DD

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Why is it that everyone continually takes such a narrow view of time when looking at change? We are somehow stuck on the notion that if we don’t see the fruits of something within a certain determined amount of time, which is subjective and wildly variant, that somehow we have made a wrong turn and must about face immediately!

Thank God the early Christians had more patience than we, or Christianity would have died out within the first century when the Lord failed to return in some allotted amount of time, depending on who was complaining about it the loudest or had the best argument against whether Christ really knew what he was talking about when he promised such a thing.

I still hold to the position that there isn’t a person alive today who can predict when the vineyard will come into it’s full harvest and how many people will be counted among the saved and unsaved, the converted and unconverted and how the Holy Spirit is going to accomplish this great task and with what method or combination of methods. And until then, we have to stop crying the blues because we can’t see the future and can’t trust that God does indeed have everything under control, in spite of our lack of vision.

We are in a pruning stage, like it or not. And if there is anyone here who has any experience with gardening, when plants and trees are first pruned, the inexperienced eye would swear that the gardener just ruined all the previous work he had put into his garden, things can look pretty funky. And the gardener knows to prune different plants and trees at different stages, so unless you once again, have the experience he has, you are going to be bewildered as to why things are not coming together at the same time.

The experienced gardener can look at the cut branches and pinched buds, in all these different stages, and have the vision to see what the garden is going to produce with all his efforts.

If you are the branch, you are not going to like being snipped and pinched, but then again, being a branch, you are not in control, but the gardener is. It is not for the branch to tell the gardener his job, but to submit to whatever vision the gardener has.

You can quote all the priests and naysayers you like, you can say that you don’t see all the converts coming in that should be with the HUGE amount of time we have given God to accomplish all this, but you don’t have the mind of God, or the power of the Holy Spirit, and cannot say that things are not on track because it’s not within your power to do so, unless you are a prophet, well then, that’s another story altogether.

How in the world can you all have the peace of Christ when you are all so worried that everything in the Church is going to @#$% in a handbasket? I don’t think the Holy Spirit has botched His job, and I don’t think he needs us, who are not the ones with the authority to change anything, to sit back and give him advice on how to do his job.

But, then once again, I’m the big picture kind of gal, and this is just my measly :twocents:.

Hi Jeanette,

First, it’s not so much that more converts did not come in after all the liturgical (and other changes); it’s that the Church went into a decline in pretty much every measurable statistic after Vatican II. That, and just being aware of what is going on in the Church today, indicates that we are quite possibly in the greatest crisis in the Church’s history (in fact, as I recall, Fr. John Hardon even said as much on one of his taped talks). Our job as Catholics is to assess the situation as it stands.

Secondly, the arguments regarding the NO do not at all depend primarily on Mass attendance. For instance, Cardinal Ottaviani’s arguments were made prior to its official release (latin-mass-society.org/study.htm). Dietrich von Hildebrand’s arguments (see my signature line link) were made prior to any statistical assessment.

Of course the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. She is indefectible. She will never officially teach error in Faith or Morals. That is Christ’s promise to us in the scriptures and has been borne out throughout the centuries and will continue to be borne out in this time also. We can trust that because Christ does not lie.

Yes, we are certainly going through a time of pruning, or, rather, judgment. It reminds me of when Israel complained of eating manna in the wilderness so God let them eat quail until they got stuffed full of it. Ultimately, God allowed that for Israel’s own good. That they could see their own human errors and say “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” God has dealt with Israel similarly throughout her history, and Israel is meant to be an instructive lesson for us.

However, the Holy Spirit does not dictate the prudential decisions of a Pope or the human element of the Church. The Pope and other leaders of the Church are capable of making poor prudential judgments that can affect how effective the Church is in her mission. Sure, God will ultimately be working everything out for good, but He sometimes deals with us based on how we act with our own free will (and the human element of the Church in prudential matters does have free will). He dealt with Israel based on their human actions. That does not mean God ever abandoned Israel, or The Ten Commandments were in error.

It does not take a prophet to take a look at the New Mass and realize it was a grave mistake (even if it is valid) to take a liturgy which has organically developed over centuries, let it be completely reworked by a committee whose goal seems to have been to remove almost anything offensive to Protestants (and possibly even “modern man”), then release it on the entire Church at once while effectively suppressing the old liturgy. Cardinal Ottaviani certainly predicted the results and he was not a prophet. Just a Cardinal able to use reason and prudence to foresee what is rather obvious.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m listening right now to Catholic Answers on the radio - 2nd half of today’s show (3-26-08) is with Anthony Esolen talking about “*Manhood and the Liturgy.” *

Everyone - ESPECIALLY folks who think the non-Sacramental side of the liturgy can’t be critiqued - needs to listen to this.

DD

Thanks DD. For anyone who does not know this, this talk will be archived (in a few days time, I think) at the link DD gave so one can download it or just listen to it over the Internet.

God bless.

 

[catharina]

This doens’t jive with my father’s accounts of his childhood in the late 40s early 50s…wonderful talks of childhood evangilization efforts, which amounted to friendly “theological” debates with the public school kids after playing ball on the weekends and after school. But then, you’ve gotta know my dad (I’ve been very blessed - I could just as easily use “wallysboy” as a screenname).

Then how do you explain this from the good ol’ Baltimore Catechism:
150. Who are the laity of the Church?
The laity of the Church are all its members who do not belong to the clerical or to the religious state.

151. How can the laity help the Church in her care of souls?
The laity can help the Church in her care of souls by leading lives that will reflect credit on the Church, and by cooperating with their bishops and priests, especially through Catholic Action.
“Behave yourselves honorably among the pagans; that, whereas they slander you as evildoers, they may, through observing you, by reason of your good works glory God in the day of the visitation.” (I Peter 2:12)

*151A. What is Catholic Action?
*Catholic Action is the active participation of the laity in the apostolate of the Church under the guidance of the hierarchy.

151B. In what ways can the laity participate actively in the apostolate of the Church?
The laity can participate actively in the apostolate of the Church when they arouse the interest of non-Catholics in the Catholic faith; promote high standards in the press, motion pictures, radio and television; participate in the work of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; take part in the activities of Catholic societies and organizations; represent, under proper direction, the Church’s position in speaking and writing; and go as lay missionaries to foreign lands.
(Baltimore Catechism 2, Lesson 1)

God’s part in any valid mass is always perfect. Infinitely so. Man’s part…that can vary.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Your dad is your dad and apparently rather flawless in your eyes. You’re quite correct; I don’t know your dad and can only speak to my own experience growing up Catholic in the 40s/50s.

The Baltimore Catechism as you quoted it seems self-explanatory to me. I have no need to explain it further. Do you? As children in grammar school, we supported the missions by prayer, sacrifice and donations. I doubt the other activities were open to children, although by high-school age, we were free to join sodalities. (We surely couldn’t join the foreign missions.) What your dad experienced is what your dad experienced. The way he remembers it (when speaking to you) is simply that. I remember my own experiences - and my childhood and teen years took place where there was very little mixing of various religions. Period. For some, it’s likely that the call to ecumenical action has served as an goad to evangelization.

Regarding the Mass, as I said in response to Brennan:

"Your final point: ‘And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.’

Actually, Catholics MUST agree with that - and there is no quarter given for anyone to minimize the holiness of either form of Mass. Perfect sacrifice is perfect sacrifice."

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Your dad is your dad and apparently rather flawless in your eyes. You’re quite correct; I don’t know your dad and can only speak to my own experience growing up Catholic in the 40s/50s.

The Baltimore Catechism as you quoted it seems self-explanatory to me. I have no need to explain it further. Do you? As children in grammar school, we supported the missions by prayer, sacrifice and donations. I doubt the other activities were open to children, although by high-school age, we were free to join sodalities. (We surely couldn’t join the foreign missions.) What your dad experienced is what your dad experienced. The way he remembers it (when speaking to you) is simply that. I remember my own experiences - and my childhood and teen years took place where there was very little mixing of various religions. Period. For some, it’s likely that the call to ecumenical action has served as an goad to evangelization.

Regarding the Mass, as I said in response to Brennan:

"Your final point: ‘And while the Church says the NO is a valid Mass, and Catholics should agree with that, there is no requirement whatsoever for any Catholic to hold that it is as great a form of worship as the TLM.’

Actually, Catholics MUST agree with that - and there is no quarter given for anyone to minimize the holiness of either form of Mass. Perfect sacrifice is perfect sacrifice."

"151B. In what ways can the laity participate actively in the apostolate of the Church?

The laity can participate actively in the apostolate of the Church when they arouse the interest of non-Catholics in the Catholic faith; promote high standards in the press, motion pictures, radio and television; participate in the work of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; take part in the activities of Catholic societies and organizations; represent, under proper direction, the Church’s position in speaking and writing; and go as lay missionaries to foreign lands."

(Baltimore Catechism 2, Lesson 1)

This paragraph seems to call the laity to evangelism and specifically mentions the possibility of lay missionaries going to foreign lands (of course children can’t go on foreign missions).

I don’t know if you are understanding my point that yes, a valid Mass is a perfect sacrifice regardless of form. The Holy Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity regardless of the form of Mass.

However, one form of liturgy is not necessarily as good as another. In stating that we have to hold that, you are implicitly rebuking Cardinal Ratzinger, who has made at least one statement critiquing the Novus Ordo and presided over a conference in Fontgambault, France, where critiques of the Novus Ordo were given. You are criticizing Cardinal Ottaviani, who had held Cardinal Ratzinger’s former position, and apparently was completely unaware that Catholics are required to believe that any liturgical form promulgated by the Church, no matter what changes were made, is just as good as a previous form.

And not to mention Fr. Joseph Fessio of Ignatius Press who has published entire books, such as “Reform of the Reform?” or “The Heresy of Formlessness”, which critique the Novus Ordo.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;3428932:

Experience is sometimes the best teacher. While I’m not anticipating another Protestant Reformation, I am not expecting this to be a simple thing. I have spent many years working with religious and training religious. I can tell you from personal experience that they are not all going to be comfortable with someone imposing the EF on them. They are not used to having bishops impose on them. They usually work pretty autonomously and they are very curious to know how something like the EF fits into the spirituality and charism of their order, before they adopt it.
JReducation;3428932:

The Mass is the Mass in whatever form.
I’d be very suspicious of an order who thinks that Mass is not compatible with their spirituality. The Mass is the center and summit of Christian life.

NO no no, please let me clarify. I’m not speaking about the mass. You’re perfectly correct on that score. I was speaking about a religious community changing from the NO to the EF.

The the forms of liturgy are the center of every religious order and every religious house.

Hope that’s clearer.

JR

 

[catharina]

Hi Catharina,

I can imagine someone who has never been to a TLM having a negative reaction to it because they don’t really understand it. And I would definitely want to take a potential convert to a TLM with Gregorian chant with the people singing the parts of the Mass appropriate to them (However, I would be willing to take them to a low Mass TLM if they had at least a small red missal that they could read). And certainly a NO done properly with Gregorian chant would be a better choice than the way it is typically celebrated today.

I was born too late to know the items you are recounting. It would be interesting to hear different perspectives on items such as evangelization prior to Vatican II. And I am all for laypeople being called to evangelize. And I certainly don’t want such a wall up that evangelism becomes virtually impossible. However, I simply look at the way ecumenism has been portrayed and practiced the past forty years as putting quite a damper on evangelism as it seems to give off the attitude that dialogue is almost an end in itself and being friendly with people from other religions is its high point.

I must have miscommunicated. When I am talking about the TLM and NO I am not speaking about the Holy Eucharist per se. Of course the Holy Eucharist in any valid Mass is of equal and infinite value and one is not more holy than another. When I speak about the TLM and the NO I am talking about the liturgy itself as distinct from the Holy Eucharist. I am talking about the prayers, the rubrics, and even the art and architecture which can be typical of either form. And in this I definitely think one form can be argued to be better than another, as Dietrich von Hildebrand argues in my signature line link below.

God bless.

Hi Brennan. Thanks for your kind response. Evangelization as taught and practiced during my childhood was through an enormous focus on the misssions. That is, all were “formed” to see missionary work as extraordinarily graced and important. We were called to special prayer, to sacrifices and to sacrificial giving in support of missionary work. However during my young-adult years, there grew a clearer perspective on the fact that ALL Christians share in Christianity and eventually, the call came to ecumenical encounters (maybe first looking at commonly-held beliefs). Soon after the emphasis expanded to inter-faith experiences (usually in the framework of monotheism - Jewish, Christian and Moslem faiths).

As for your signature line, yes I’ve always noticed Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work, the Case FOR the Latin Mass, in your signature line. Still I have to admit that I’ve never heard anyone attempt to make a Case AGAINST the Latin Mass. Really.

God bless you too.

 

[catharina]

"151B. In what ways can the laity participate actively in the apostolate of the Church?

The laity can participate actively in the apostolate of the Church when they arouse the interest of non-Catholics in the Catholic faith; promote high standards in the press, motion pictures, radio and television; participate in the work of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine; take part in the activities of Catholic societies and organizations; represent, under proper direction, the Church’s position in speaking and writing; and go as lay missionaries to foreign lands."

(Baltimore Catechism 2, Lesson 1)

This paragraph seems to call the laity to evangelism and specifically mentions the possibility of lay missionaries going to foreign lands (of course children can’t go on foreign missions).

I don’t know if you are understanding my point that yes, a valid Mass is a perfect sacrifice regardless of form. The Holy Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity regardless of the form of Mass.

However, one form of liturgy is not necessarily as good as another. In stating that we have to hold that, you are implicitly rebuking Cardinal Ratzinger, who has made at least one statement critiquing the Novus Ordo and presided over a conference in Fontgambault, France, where critiques of the Novus Ordo were given. You are criticizing Cardinal Ottaviani, who had held Cardinal Ratzinger’s former position, and apparently was completely unaware that Catholics are required to believe that any liturgical form promulgated by the Church, no matter what changes were made, is just as good as a previous form.

And not to mention Fr. Joseph Fessio of Ignatius Press who has published entire books, such as “Reform of the Reform?” or “The Heresy of Formlessness”, which critique the Novus Ordo.

There is no doubt that there have been errors supported in the liturgy of the NO by some people and in some places. As to ‘de fide’ or any Papal teachings, regardless of what any number of individual cardinals have said, to the best of my knowledge, The Church has never stated that the Latin Mass is to be considered “more perfect” than other forms of the Mass.

Did I miss something?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hi Brennan. Thanks for your kind response. Evangelization as taught and practiced during my childhood was through an enormous focus on the misssions. That is, all were “formed” to see missionary work as extraordinarily graced and important. We were called to special prayer, to sacrifices and to sacrificial giving in support of missionary work. However during my young-adult years, there grew a clearer perspective on the fact that ALL Christians share in Christianity and eventually, the call came to ecumenical encounters (maybe first looking at commonly-held beliefs). Soon after the emphasis expanded to inter-faith experiences (usually in the framework of monotheism - Jewish, Christian and Moslem faiths).

As for your signature line, yes I’ve always noticed Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work, the Case FOR the Latin Mass, in your signature line. Still I have to admit that I’ve never heard anyone attempt to make a Case AGAINST the Latin Mass. Really.

God bless you too.

Well, I certainly agree with the Church getting the laity to realize that they are a part of the evanglization process as well as the clerics.

However, it does seem that ecumenism, as it has been practiced over the past 40 years, is a different “animal” than evangelism, where the goal isn’t necessarily to convert anyone to the Catholic faith (which then seems as if we should just call it evangelism), but rather to dialogue.

Regarding my signature line, if you read the article, you will see that it is not only positively for the TLM, but critiques the principles behind the NO as well. And certainly the Ottaviani Intervention specifically critiques the NO:

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

I’m not saying anyone has to agree with these critiques, they don’t. I’m just saying that there have been laypeople and prelates, even as high up as Cardinals Ratzinger and Ottaviani, who have critiqued the NO without denying its validity.

Some books, like “The Heresy of Formlessness”, critique the NO, and yet are also excellent works on the liturgy as well.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

There is no doubt that there have been errors supported in the liturgy of the NO by some people and in some places. As to ‘de fide’ or any Papal teachings, regardless of what any number of individual cardinals have said, to the best of my knowledge, The Church has never stated that the Latin Mass is to be considered “more perfect” than other forms of the Mass.

Did I miss something?

I agree that the Church has certainly never stated that one has to consider the TLM to be “more perfect” (I would use the term “better”) than any other form of Mass. The Church has never stated that one form of the Mass is better than another.

As I said prior to seeing this post, while high ranking prelates and others have critiqued the NO, this does not mean that these critiques are part of the official teaching of the Church and Catholics can certainly disagree with these critiques.