Only priest ordained for Archdiocese of New York this year - his 1st. Mass is EF Mass

[EcceAgnusDei]

Can you grow a beard?

We’re starting a new postulancy class in August.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Ha! My beard grows faster than the hair on my head. It grows and never ever stops. It grows vertically and horizontally. It is quite its own beast and has been on my face for over 10 years.

(and yes, I’m trying to show how manly I am… grrrrr, I need my gun and some red meat!)

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Amen. Praise God. As they say down south, God’s been doing a work in all y’all.

But for the rest of the world, remember that Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Please don’t begrudge the prodigal son a fatted calf when he returns.

-Tim-

I always assumed that the elder brother got to eat the fatted calf, too, so let the party begin!

• PAX

 

[TimothyH]

How wonderfully magnanimous of you.

Oh no… the logic you promised failed to appear! You are committing the fallacy of begging the question (circular reasoning). Your argument assumes in its premises the conclusion it is trying to prove. If I want an argument that proves that the OF and the EF confer the same amount of grace, then that conclusion cannot be a part of the evidence, which you are doing in premise 1. You assume, in premise 1, that “receive Grace” is the same as “receives the same amount of Grace.” There is absolutely no justification to that, unless one uses your conclusion as a premise. That, however, is the classic definition of begging the question. Since your argument contains a fatal logical fallacy, unfortunately, you haven’t proven anything, so please remove the QED.

It reveals much that you refer to argumentation as a “trick”

Again, your argument (trick?) fails. Notice that you say we are concerned with Grace, but then you list what is necessary for Mass. You cannot equivocate the two. If you are going to prove that Mass 1 confers the same Grace as Mass 2 by using properties, then you need to list the properties necessary for the conferral of equal Grace, not the properties necessary for Mass. Otherwise, if you list the necessities for Mass (as you attempted to do here), all you end up proving is that Mass 1 and Mass 2 are both Masses. No one is disputing that. You are proving something that is not in dispute (that both are Masses) and then saying that your proof actually means that both Masses confer the same Grace. You have begged the question again.

An example of the logical fallacy you just committed would be the following:

Object A is a plant known as lactuca sativa. It is a leafy vegetable. It is iceberg lettuce.

Object B is also a plant known as lactuca sativa. It is also a leafy vegetable. It is romaine lettuce.

Because Object A and Object B have the same properties (lactuca sativa, leafy vegetables), therefore Object A and Object B both confer the same amount of nutrients.

This is obviously false. The only thing that we can conclude from that list of properties is that Object A and Object B are both lettuce. Unfortunately iceberg lettuce and romaine lettuce are not equal in nutritional value; iceberg is quite deficient.

If you argue that Object A and Object B do not share the exact same properties because one property is nutritional value and Object B has more than Object A, then you are exactly right. However, if you are trying to prove that Object A and Object B have the same nutritional value, you cannot put in your list of properties that they have the same nutritional value, because then you are assuming what you are trying to prove, i.e. begging the question. If we were to apply this scenario the OF/EF Mass question at hand, you could not include in your list of properties of the Masses that they confer equal Grace and then have as a conclusion that they confer equal Grace. That, too, would be begging the question, which is exactly what you have done.

And just to be clear, too, I am saying that both are valid and licit and two forms of the same Roman Rite.

• PAX

Except that Jesus is not lettuce.

If the Mass is valid, it’s Jesus. If the Mass is invalid, then it is bread.

It’s either the sacrament or it isn’t.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed! I offer the following from Ben Jonson: “Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune whose words do jar; nor his reason in frame whose sentence is preposterous; nor his elocution clear and perfect whose utterance breaks itself into fragments and uncertainties. . . . Negligent speech doth not only discredit the person of the speaker, but it discrediteth the opinion of his reason and judgment: it discrediteth the force and uniformity of the matter and substance.”

Very good. But you could have said it was the new translation to Psalm 42 and 98% would have believed you.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Except that Jesus is not lettuce.

I have to admit that I giggled at that. You are absolutely right; Jesus is not lettuce. Of course, I wasn’t saying that He was… I was using the same argument form with different content to show that the form was fallacious. Pointing out that Jesus is not lettuce does not in anyway defend or support the argument offered by curlycool89 (remember, an argument is a claim supported logically by evidence). Curly’s argument contained a fatal logical fallacy, as evidenced by my example involving lettuce.

If the Mass is valid, it’s Jesus. If the Mass is invalid, then it is bread.

It’s either the sacrament or it isn’t.

No one (here at least) has disputed the validity of the OF. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that the OF is valid and licit and promulgated by valid Popes. So yes, at the OF and the EF (and at Divine Liturgies and all the other valid Rites) Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in the Consecrated Host.

A couple of points to consider. The Mass is more than just the Eucharist. Otherwise, we’d could just have the Consecration and Distribution and be done with it (I am obviously aware of exceptions to the rule, exceptions in exceptional circumstances, such as prison or battlefields, etc). It is quite telling that one does not fulfill one’s obligation to hear Mass if one arrives** after** the reading of the Gospel. One has to be at Mass for the Gospel, which occurs before anything involving the Eucharist takes place on the altar. This logically means that the Gospel and everything that follows it is an intricate part of the Mass.

The Mass is more than just the Consecration of the Host.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Very good. But you could have said it was the new translation to Psalm 42 and 98% would have believed you.

Of course, 98% probably think Psalm 42 begins with: “As the deer longs for streams of water…”

• PAX

 

[ProVobis]

Of course, 98% probably think Psalm 42 begins with: “As the deer longs for streams of water…”

• PAX

I’ll have to remember that one. It could work for the Vidi Aquam too.

 

[JReducation]

Ha! My beard grows faster than the hair on my head. It grows and never ever stops. It grows vertically and horizontally. It is quite its own beast and has been on my face for over 10 years.

(and yes, I’m trying to show how manly I am… grrrrr, I need my gun and some red meat!)

• PAX

OKayyyyy

As a person living in the Diocese of Arlington, I respectfully disagree with the statement “they don’t need extern priests.” While the diocese is doing better than many in the USA, and is seeing the number of Catholics increase as opposed to decrease, there is still a need for more priests in the diocese than currently exist. My parish has 2 priests for 3500+ FAMILIES. We typically have 6 English Masses and 2-3 Spanish Masses each Sunday (counting the vigil). We rely heavily on “visiting” priests for our Sunday Masses. Our pastor has several other duties that each would be considered a full time position other than being the pastor of a parish.

Arlington may have only one parish STAFFED by religious, that does not mean Arlington has enough priests - it just means those we do have are doing multiple duties (as are many other diocesan priests everywhere).

Arlington is my diocese. I know it very well.

I guess the middle-of-the-road Catholics are wrecking things, too. We’re all human, after all

• PAX

We must need to take things that the Church says without adding to it and if we don’t understand or it’s not clear, we ask rather than assume to know.

What a concept.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[choliks]

The bad news is only one priest was ordained for the Archdiocese of New York this year.
The good news is that priest offered a traditional Latin Missa Solemnis as his first Mass.

sthughofcluny.org/2012/05/first-mass-of-fr-patric-darcy.html

http://sthughofcluny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IMG_8725.jpg

http://sthughofcluny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IMG_8582.jpg

That’s hair-raising in a good way. The ambient lighting enhanced the reds and the golds of the vestments and the altar. It’s beautiful.

In our “little” parish, we don’t have churches that are as ornate as this, and only the OF is offered. But it is what God has given us, thus it is that we shall receive in humility.

 

[iloveangels]

God’s grace does work through the cracks. It’s really interesting. My wife died and I was a widower with a 9 yr old daughter and 4 yr old son.

When my youngest entered college, I entered religious life. I distributed our assets between the two kids (adults). To me, they’ll always be kids.

Then the situation with my sister.

What I never expected was to stay and start a new community with two SFOs. I was going to be here for a while working in pro-life ministry and returned.

My son really taught me to be a better Franciscan. He took his money and poured it into a house that he’s not going to live in, just so that there would be a home for the Franciscans of Life. I, a Franciscan, was taught detachment by my son. How is that for irony?

Through all of this, I feel blessed. Somehow God brought good out of evil. Instead of one angry and rebellious young man, my son is a generous and hard working young man. The srapes and cuts that life has dealt him, seem to have enlarged his heart rather than harden it.

Which convinces me even more that “Vita ad vitam vocat.” (Life calls out to life.). God who is Life can bring life out of tragedy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Raising good kids is tough under the best conditions. You have a very fine and understanding son, one with a heart for good.

I still call my children kids too, even though they’re in their 30s. They’ll always be my kids.

 

[JReducation]

That’s hair-raising in a good way. The ambient lighting enhanced the reds and the golds of the vestments and the altar. It’s beautiful.

In our “little” parish, we don’t have churches that are as ornate as this, and only the OF is offered. But it is what God has given us, thus it is that we shall receive in humility.

You don’t need ornate to celebrate any form of the mass. You need a priest, altar, bread and wine.

When we are assigned to a parish, they tend to be ornate, because they belong to the bishop. They are constructed to suit his taste.

If you visit one of our chapels you would think that you just entered a Puritan church. They’re white washed. Some don’t have stained glass windows. Heck, some don’t have windows. Only statues allowed are St. Francis and the Blessed Mother. There is usually a crucifix or an icon of the San Dimiano cross. Thee are no kneelers or communion rails. The altar is a very simple flat table that is always detached from the wall. It has been that way since the time of Francis. He did not like the altar against the wall. He started the custom of an altar that you could walk around it. The tabernacle is always on a pedestal or built into the wall behind the altar so that the priest cannot look at it during mass.

When the mass is said at orientem, a crucifix is placed between the tabernacle and the priest to focus his attention on the altar and not on the tabernacle. Francis did not approve of adoration of the reserved Eucharist during mass. The Eucharist was on the table.

Usually, there are no pews, only chairs or benches and the sanctuaries are very small or there is no sanctuary.

Despite the simplicity you can celebrate the Latin Rite in the OF, EF and Franciscan form. The Byzantine Franciscans also use the same floor plan to celebrate the Byzantine rite.

The actual space does not really determine the form that you can use.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Joannm]

You don’t need ornate to celebrate any form of the mass. You need a priest, altar, bread and wine.

When we are assigned to a parish, they tend to be ornate, because they belong to the bishop. They are constructed to suit his taste.

If you visit one of our chapels you would think that you just entered a Puritan church. They’re white washed. Some don’t have stained glass windows. Heck, some don’t have windows. Only statues allowed are St. Francis and the Blessed Mother. There is usually a crucifix or an icon of the San Dimiano cross. Thee are no kneelers or communion rails. The altar is a very simple flat table that is always detached from the wall. It has been that way since the time of Francis. He did not like the altar against the wall. He started the custom of an altar that you could walk around it. The tabernacle is always on a pedestal or built into the wall behind the altar so that the priest cannot look at it during mass.

When the mass is said at orientem, a crucifix is placed between the tabernacle and the priest to focus his attention on the altar and not on the tabernacle. Francis did not approve of adoration of the reserved Eucharist during mass. The Eucharist was on the table.

Usually, there are no pews, only chairs or benches and the sanctuaries are very small or there is no sanctuary.

Despite the simplicity you can celebrate the Latin Rite in the OF, EF and Franciscan form. The Byzantine Franciscans also use the same floor plan to celebrate the Byzantine rite.

The actual space does not really determine the form that you can use.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The Benedictines too are usually very simple in any ornamentation in their churches and chapels. Aside from some flowers and a statue of Mary most Benedictines chapels I have been in are pretty sparse and so too are the vestments.

 

[curlycool89]

No one presented this as fact at all.

What was asserted was: Traditionalists often believe A
No one asserted A.

Fine, but it seems odd that they’d believe in something without actually asserting it.

This “logic” fails because it presupposes the same graces are received regardless of form, which is exactly the question theoretically under dispute by “traditionalists”.

Actually, if you take a class about formal logic, you will see that this logic is valid. That means that if the premises are right then the conclusion is right. If you want to attack the argument, then you have to show that one of the premises is false.

You also seem to be confusing the graces inherent in a mass with those actually received by the participants, which are clearly two different things.

Is then the grace received by the participants an objective or subjective matter? I’m giving an objective viewpoint, while you are saying essentially that it is subjective which breaks down any argument about graces received into a relativist position, which means that arguing over which form gives “more” graces becomes a moot point.

It isn’t clear that it is wrong. It may be, but then again, maybe not. I’m not aware that the Church has spoken on the matter at all.

Then why take a position over which one gives “better” graces at all if the Church has not said anything?

Because the juridical declaration that the EF and OF are two forms of the same rite doesn’t say anything at all about the question at hand.

But if they are the same right, then what objectively makes them different?

on the term efficacious from previous posts let me say this:

from Dictionary.com:

I would see that if one form of the liturgy was more efficacious than for another, it would be from a matter of preference, similar to beauty, no? Nothing is objectively beautiful, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore beauty, as effication is merely subjective, even if many may hold the same to be “true” for themselves.

Well, unless you’re Plato with his forms and stuff.

Maybe this is shocking, but I agree with Big_Feet’s opinion. Personally I think that the graces available at each Mass is the same, but I absolute agree that the amount you receive can be different, and that it is based on how well the form of the Mass jives with your own personal spirituality. Some people receive more at the EF and some receive more at the OF (as opposed to participating in the other form).

I’m fine with that definition.

That’s because most Americans don’t know how to speak proper English, much less Church English. It’s true.

I approve of making fun of our ability to speak english.

Heck, my background is engineering, I think it’s pretty good that I can speak conversational english well enough to be understood (most of the time). Technical and scientific papers are downright painful to read.

On that point, they are walking on theological quicksand. That is another point that the SSPX has been asked to back off on . A mass is or is not efficacious. There is not degree of efficacioness anymore than there is a degree of pregnancy. Either you are or you’re not.

Again, it goes back to people meaning one thing, but using the wrong words. I believe that people really mean, “It’s more nurturing me for” or “it meets my spiritual needs better than the OF”. That’s quite legitimate. What people may not understand is that the thing that nurtures you may not nurture someone else The age old argument that it nurtured all those saints for hundreds of years, it not true. It was used by them. But we have no idea how much or how little it nurtured them. They rarely wrote about the mass. They focussed on the Eucharist. The Eucharist is present in any form of the Latin Rite, not just the EF and OF. Thee are seven other forms of the Latin Rite. Those people who are familiar with them can say, “I feel very close to God in this form” or “I feel bland in that form”

Now that’s the type of explanation we’ve been looking for.

 

[tradcathusa]

Wasserfall, your comments and explanations are 100% correct and dead on accurate. Thank you for your insight, it is appreciated.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Is then the grace received by the participants an objective or subjective matter? I’m giving an objective viewpoint, while you are saying essentially that it is subjective which breaks down any argument about graces received into a relativist position, which means that arguing over which form gives “more” graces becomes a moot point.

Maybe this is shocking, but I agree with Big_Feet’s opinion. Personally I think that the graces available at each Mass is the same, but I absolute agree that the amount you receive can be different, and that it is based on how well the form of the Mass jives with your own personal spirituality. Some people receive more at the EF and some receive more at the OF (as opposed to participating in the other form).

There is the issue of personal spirituality, preference, and so on.

Then there is the issue of our basic human nature.

The Traditional Mass, most traditionalists maintain, is better suited to us men and women whether or not we like it better.

I can think of many reasons, but external signs of reverence, things that the liberals of the 1950s and 1960s called “needless duplications,” a silent Canon, an organic tradition from the Apostolic Age, frequent mention of the specific propitiatory Sacrifice, mention of sin, hell, the saints and their merits (which in the OF is rarely mentioned), death and heresy and the enemies of the Church (also mostly cut from the OF), prayers for the soul of the departed (in the OF changed to prayer for the departed w/o reference to the soul)…

… well the list could get really long. But all of these things are important for us to hear even if we don’t want to. Important for us to experience. The Church, slowly and over time, with careful consideration, allowed certain things to develop and added certain things to teach, to fight heresy, to preserve doctrine, to inspire the faithful.

All of this, even if an individual Catholic doesn’t particularly like it, is better suited to our human nature and psychology. We are all different but we are all very similar too.

I would even venture that the Traditional Mass is especially better for those who dislike it for the above reasons. People who don’t like to hear about sin, merits, propitiation, who don’t like to see the priest’s role separated from the laity … they are more likely to be the ones who need to hear it, I would guess.

 

[clem456]

Whatever God desires to give me (grace is a gift) at Mass, is sufficient for me. If you would like to quanitfy it (questionable concept), one drop of God’s grace is more than I deserve and is completely sufficient, because God gives it to me, and I trust Him to know what I need.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Whatever God desires to give me (grace is a gift) at Mass, is sufficient for me. If you would like to quanitfy it (questionable concept), one drop of God’s grace is more than I deserve and is completely sufficient, because God gives it to me, and I trust Him to know what I need.

This is a beautiful attitude, but hard for me to understand how to apply.

God has given me the grace to live somewhere where there is OF and EF and I can choose. He’s given me the grace to be able to read a lot of history, study the development of the OF, check my conclusions against those who are smarter and holier than I.

I really believe God prefers, for our sake and not His, for us to be truly reverent and want everything and everyone around us to be for His Glory. I also believe the Traditional Mass is a vehicle for this. (And de-neo-Latinized Divine Liturgies in the Eastern Rites).

 

[wasserfall]

Fine, but it seems odd that they’d believe in something without actually asserting it.

They might, but no one here did.

Actually, if you take a class about formal logic, you will see that this logic is valid. That means that if the premises are right then the conclusion is right. If you want to attack the argument, then you have to show that one of the premises is false.

As EcceAgnusDei noted, your premises assume a priori that the graces available to the participant at mass are equal in either form, which is the disputed point. Anything is easy to prove if we take the conclusion to be an axiom

Then why take a position over which one gives “better” graces at all if the Church has not said anything?

No one here did.

Maybe this is shocking, but I agree with Big_Feet’s opinion. Personally I think that the graces available at each Mass is the same, but I absolute agree that the amount you receive can be different,

Then you concur to this extent with the alleged belief of “traditionalists”

and that it is based on how well the form of the Mass jives with your own personal spirituality. Some people receive more at the EF and some receive more at the OF (as opposed to participating in the other form).

This is once again an unsupported assertion. If you make the assertion as a matter of your private opinion, that’s great. If you assert that this is the doctrine of the Church, then back it up.

 

[clem456]

This is a beautiful attitude, but hard for me to understand how to apply.

God has given me the grace to live somewhere where there is OF and EF and I can choose. He’s given me the grace to be able to read a lot of history, study the development of the OF, check my conclusions against those who are smarter and holier than I.

I really believe God prefers, for our sake and not His, for us to be truly reverent and want everything and everyone around us to be for His Glory. I also believe the Traditional Mass is a vehicle for this. (And de-neo-Latinized Divine Liturgies in the Eastern Rites).

For me, maybe I could say it’s an attitude of non-application, but simply an attempt to be obedient (ob-audire, to listen) at Mass. The Mass is a gift, I try to accept.

 

[JReducation]

Yet if someone is discerning a vocation to the FSSP or other ED societies (I will leave out the SSPX for now so as not to muddy the issue, but once they are regularized we could include them as well), then the EF is the main driving point of his vocation. For example, if I feel God is calling me to the religious life, my discernment of my vocation will include which type of religious life. Friar? Monk? Contemplative? etc. Once a vocation to the priesthood has been discerned, a young man who chooses to go to the FSSP seminary has obviously discerned that the EF is part of his vocation, yes?

You’re close, but not exactly. The Sacred Congregation would not allow a community to be built around something that is transient, because if it ceases to exist, so does the institute. It has to be embedded into something that is permanent

Observe the direct quote from the FSSP site describing their vocation. The red is me speaking.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is a Clerical Society of Apostolic Life Start off with apostolic life, not liturgy of Pontifical right, that is, a community of Roman Catholic priests who do not take religious vows, [OK, so their vocation is to be ordained secular men in the world[/COLOR]] but **who work together ** [Part of their vocation is to the common table]for a common mission in the world.

The mission of the Fraternity [We have a change in language. It’s the mission of the fraternity, not the vocation of the individual member. Missions can change and the vocation remains the same] is two-fold: first,** the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite,** [first mission] and** secondly, the pastoral deployment of the priests** [second mission] in the service of the Church.

If the mission is no longer needed, the FSSP does not have to close shop, because the mission is not the vocation of the member. It is the role that the society plays in the Church. However, its members remain

apostolic
secular
clergy
members of the common table

they work together for a common mission. That common mission can change.

[qote]
By the way, did you and/or your fellow brothers get to see the FSSP ordinations? Beautiful!

No. I’ve never seen one of their ordinations. TV and YouTube are mortally sinful for us, because our current superior said so.

Could you explain how you know this? To my understanding, the doctrinal discussions and the doctrinal preamble and everything else going on between Rome and the SSPX have been private and secret. Are you privy to something the rest of us are not?

I probably am privy to somethings, but not because I’m important, but because some things are only found in certain places where lay people don’t normally look.

These were points that were on the table before they went into what I call “The SSPX Conclave”. Pope Benedict had put them on the table in several letters that were exchanged between himself and religious superiors, bishops and others who wanted to know what was going to be done about these points. In fact, this particular point goes back to when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger.

Again, how do you know this, given the secrecy surrounding the discussions? On the contrary, Bishop Fellay has hinted numerous times that the SSPX would be able to continue doing what it has always done, including holding its positions on the OF and critiquing Vatican II.

No, they knew before going into the “conclave” that there were two things that they had to back off on.

1. They have to accept the OF as a valid and equal form of the Latin Rite. They do not have to accept the abuses and other forms of creativity. But they have to accept what every other Catholic has to accept. Two forms of the one rite.
2. They have to accept the authority of the Council Documents, according to the level of authority of each document, but they are invited to continue asking questions. They are invited to continue to help clarify meanings and even correct wording where this is problematic. In that sense, they may participate in a critique. But it’s not an outright condemnation. That was not negotiable going in.

These things were told to them and to bishops and superiors around the world. It was not a State Secret. Bishop Fellay accepted these terms for the dialogue. Then the “conclave” began and we have no idea what has been said or what they have planned and here we are, waiting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV