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

[JReducation]

I would love to look into how the term was coined. The people who coined the term “traditionalist” know what it meanse´

Because I read French, I get the impression that it’s very bad English. It’s a very literal translation from the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre. The way that’s it’s used in his writings it means a defender of Catholic traditions. When it got translated, “traditions” was reduced to liturgy, catechism and only those things that were strictly lay. When he used it, it was much broader. It included people like my brothers and I.

That has always been a problem going from the Romance languages to the Germanic languages or the Asian languages.

I don’t even think the term “traditional Catholic” is ecclesiological at all. Yet it still exists.

It should be traditionally Catholic, not traditional Catholic. In Latin the adverbial form is used as Catholic is used as an adverb, not a noun in this context. I this context, Catholic is used to describe a way of being, not as a proper noun.

But I absolutely do not agree with the definition that is often used on CAF that a traditional Catholic is one who follows the teaching of the Church. That is just not correct.

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

Back on topic, I would love to see more vocations for those who know and love to celebrate the EF because it is still a trial for many folks to get an EF in their parish and sometimes the excuse that is used is that there is not a priest who knows how to celebrate it.

I would like to see more diocesan priests celebrate the EF. But celebrating the EF is not and must never be seen as a vocation. The man’s vocation is always to the priesthood. This is the theological and moral danger. This is one of the doctrinal issues that the Holy See wanted to clarify with the SSPX. Christ does not call men to a particular form of worship as a way of life. He calls them to a particular ministry. In this case, the priesthood. If you make the form part of the vocation, you run the risk of throwing out the vocation, if you discontinue the form.

I would also like to see people back of the religious, in those places where there are religious. It’s causing a strain. You have parishioners arguing that their rights are being denied and superiors arguing that the parishioner has not right to the Ef. SP and UE did not set the EF as a right, but as a pastoral measure. If it were a right, every priest would be obliged to comply with the request.

This back and forth is causing people’s feelings to be hurt and people moving out of parishes, thinking that they have been denied something or superiors pulling their men because they don’t want to deal with this debate that never ends.

In the meantime, the larger population gets hurt. Because the EF population is small. When an order closes down a parish rather than continue the debate, 3,000 people or even 3,000 families are displaced.

I was talking recently to a gentleman who attends the Latin Mass at my local Church (I attend the OF). Prior to the current pastor, the much loved monsignor celebrated the EF and attendance to it increased during the years. He has recently been reassigned after the bishop allowed him to remain as pastor for the untypical length of 16 years. The new pastor is a very devout and religious man who speaks latin since he served the EF in his native Malta but he never learned how to celebrate it. He started the process to learn and celebrate the EF at our parish but, according to this gentleman, made some mistakes in the beginning. This, in itself, was enough to cause certain “traditionalists” to leave this Church which has celebrated the EF since 1983. Attendance at the Latin Mass has gone from well over 200 to less than 120. Not only does it call into question the meaning of the term “stable group” but also supports the position that so called “traditionalists” care more about the liturgy than anything else.
How does one justify such a position?

That’s goofy. Everyone is going to make mistakes.

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

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”

I’m not pitting one form against another and I’m not saying if it is fair. I’m saying that is the reality.

Part of evangelizing is to bring people’s realities into harmony with the cosmos. My reality may be unrealistic, because it’s out of harmony with the absolute reality.

 

[JReducation]

Well, I’ve often said the EF celebrated today is not like the Mass as it was before Vatican II.

Not it’s not. This is the 1962 edition of the Tridentine mass. It’s not meant to be the previous edition.

None of these things are part of the mass. For example, we always had dialogue masses before 1962. Today, we do the EF in dialogue. There are no altar servers to answer the prayers. The congregation must answer them. In the past, our friars shouted out the canon so that people behind them could hear it. Then came microphones, long before the reform of the liturgy. As far as the fast is concerned, the rubrics are distinct form canon law. Catholics are bound by 1983 law. The current code says one hour fast, minimum. You can add more, but you don’t have to do so. The current code no longer requires veiling. You can do so, but no one can force you to do so, even at an EF parish. That would be a violation of your human rights. Bowing instead of genuflecting was always allowed, it has become more common today. It was never prohibited.

In fact, there was a problem with one of our brothers and the EF mass. He has CP. He can’t walk. He has to celebrate the entire mass sitting down. He uses crutches to get to the altar and sits on a bar stool. Of course, he uses the altar on the main floor of the sanctuary, not the one three steps up. He’s still ad orientem, but not on the high altar. He does not distribute communion at the communion rail. He cannot walk back and forth and he cannot bend over to reach you mouth without risking an accident. You have to stand, if you want communion on the tongue or put out your hands if you want to kneel. He props himself up on his crutches and stands at the edge of the sanctuary.

Some people wrote our superior complaining that this was not the EF. Our superior explained the reasons for the few minor changes. They wrote back, “Find another priest.” Our superior went postal. He cancelled all EF masses for that parish and they may never have one again or the friars will leave. The bishop was called in and he ruled that the request was unreasonable and did not bind him to find another priest when they had one who knew how to celebrate the EF and a religious superior who had given permission for that priest to do so. They lost out.

I mention this, because people are often very rigid to the point that they hurt themselves. That’s not a good thing to be.

Brother and I often disagree and I don’t think he minds because I have my own mind.

So you did get my Mother’s Day gift?

I NEVER said anything about uniformity in liturgical practice. I fully support all all currently approved liturgies of the Church, as I will support any approved liturgies of the Church in the future, even if it is reduced to one!

That will never happen unless you want to see every religious order of men converge on the Vatican in protest. There will always be diversity. There has always been and it’s part of our Catholic tradition.

Brother, I would like to hear more about this because clearly “Contraception is a sin and you will go to hell” just isn’t working. Its the same old tired argument.

"You’ve been duped and here is the who and the why. All falsehoods lead to sin." That gets people’s attention.

Is there a source for one to access what you have learned? Theology of the Body? Is that the start? I would very much like to hear more of what you learned, how you learned it and how you teach it, about being duped and setting people on fire. It is something close to my heart. Are there others doing this in different locations? Is this specific to your community?

Have you written about your “Gospel of Life” ministry?

-Tim-

Actually, I wrote a manual for fathers, which will be published at the end of this year.

I also have my presentation in power point, which I would be happy to share.

I started my studies with Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger. I wanted to know why they were such big advocates of contraception. I was horrified by their diabolical plan to eradicate every minority. I continued to read. I went on to read several works and articles by female activists, especially NOW. That was quite enlighening.

The more I learned the more I taught to our friars in formation. I assigned them research papers to do. They found more interesting stuff among proponents of planned parenthood.

I really got my moral education from Planned Parenthood and Nazism.

It has been great, because when you put it in context, then people understand why it’s so evil. That begs them to ask, what’s the right thing to do and how do we do it.

That’s when you bring in Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, Theology of the Body and NFP.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[/QUOTE]

 

[wasserfall]

from Dictionary.com:

I object to your quoting Big Feet. You intentionally quoted so as to place words in my mouth that I never expressed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Big_Feet]

I object to your quoting Big Feet. You intentionally quoted so as to place words in my mouth that I never expressed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

My apologies… I was trying to refernce the most recient post on the term. I have made adjustmetnts to my post as to not refrence you or anyone else directly.

 

[JReducation]

I object to your quoting Big Feet. You intentionally quoted so as to place words in my mouth that I never expressed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Maybe he just put his big feet in his mouth.

Let’s just blow it off and keep moving. In fact, let’s get back to the OP. We started in NYC and are now in Hong Kong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

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.

Some people have said that about being in communion with the Church!

 

[Big_Feet]

Maybe he just put his big feet in his mouth.

Let’s just blow it off and keep moving. In fact, let’s get back to the OP. We started in NYC and are now in Hong Kong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

yep…I sure did.
Adjustment has been made.
and back to the OP…

Congrats to this newly ordained priest! I am happy that there is another, much needed priest in this world today. I pray that others may follow God’s call in their lives, too.

As for saying the EF for his 1st mass, good for him! And, for other newly ordained who did not, good for them, too! It is his ability to celebrate in either form he wishes, and I am glad he was able to do so!

 

[JReducation]

Some people have said that about being in communion with the Church!

They are wrong on that one. The Church actually teaches that there are degrees. People need to stop making up their own rules and limit themselves to repeating what the Church says.

I’m beginning to realize that this is a human problem, not a Modernist one. The Traditonalists do it as much as anyone else. The Liberals ran with Vatican II and wrecked it. Now Traditionalists are trying to undo the damage by running with tradition and wrecking it too.

What is wrong with us human beings? Will we never learn?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

If there is any more efficacy in one form rather than another then it has to be purely subjective, since the only objective efficacy comes from Christ made wholly and entirely present in the Eucharist.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

1. Long unkempt beards

I’m loving your order already, Brother.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

I’m loving your order already, Brother.

• PAX

Can you grow a beard?

We’re starting a new postulancy class in August.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I may have my preferences, but who doesn’t? They are all beautiful in their own way** (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)**

This is a very modern view of beauty. Notice how it is relative and subjective and therefore inarguable. The great thinkers of humanity, from the Greeks to the Romans to the Christians (and we can also include non-western intellects from Muslim lands and Hindu lands, etc), all held that beauty was something objective and therefore could be measured, compared, discussed, argued. There is a whole field of philosophy that deals with the Beautiful: aesthetics.

The Good, the True, and the Beautiful are all from God and lead us to God. To say that one is subjective, that one is “in the eye of the beholder,” flies against the wisdom of the ages and easily calls the others into questions as well, as we see rampant in today’s modern, relativistic, and subjective age.

So, to sum up, I do not agree with you; rather, I’m going to side with Plato and Aristotle and hundreds of great thinkers from the past on this one. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. It is an objective quality, like goodness and truth. Someone may think something is beautiful, but they may in fact be mistaken. Beauty does not mean “I find this attractive.” Beauty is a objective quality, just like goodness and truth.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Sure. I’ve heard many protestants say the same in their condemnation of the Church. It is nice, though, to deal with objective fact.

It also nice to offer arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

You sound like a liberal.

I had a good chuckle at this one; anyone who has read just a handful of TrueLight’s posts know that she is not a liberal Catholic at all. And now, after my laugh, I refer you to my point above: It also nice to offer arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

One of the most important aspects of traditional Catholicism is the adherence to traditional expressions of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics don’t have a problem with the teaching that contraception will send you to hell, as an example. They don’t need it expressed another way. They just accept the teaching and conform their lives to it.

Yes. And I would say that the traditional formulations can be more efficacious. Of course, in preaching, teaching, catechizing, etc, we need to meet people were they are. But then we need to lead them into Catholic culture, Catholic identity, and a Catholic worldview, which means we start with what we have and end up with what the Church has given us over the centuries.

One can certainly start out by telling people that they’ve been duped by the contraceptive mentality. But if one doesn’t go on and explain that contraception is sinful and leads one to hell, then one has only given the person they are teaching 1/2 of the truth. This can be dangerous, because if people only think of contraception, etc, as a big conspiracy theory instead of a sin, then they do not connect the dots between the truths of sin and hell and personal actions. Notice also, that if one simply discusses contraception as being duped (and doesn’t go further), then one is arguing solely from natural grounds. The Church and Her laws are supernatural. We can and should start from the natural, but we must go on to the supernatural. Otherwise we end up with things like liberation theology, which only focus on the here and now.

It’s one thing to believe that contraception is bad for my health. It’s quite another to believe that is against the will of God.

• PAX

(Please note that I am not saying that Brother JR and has community do not address the supernatural. I wouldn’t do that as I do not know anything about their community. I am simply making a point about the traditional ways of teaching and understanding moral theology).

 

[TimothyH]

One of the most important aspects of traditional Catholicism is the adherence to traditional expressions of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics don’t have a problem with the teaching that contraception will send you to hell, as an example. They don’t need it expressed another way. They just accept the teaching and conform their lives to it.

Amen.

When I listen to audiosancto.com, I am amazed at how faithful the sermons are to traditional Catholic teaching. The priests are not shy about preaching about hell, modesty, fornication, etc.

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-

 

[floresco]

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.

I have seen a good article on this topic that makes a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic efficaciousness. The intrinsic efficaciousness of a Mass is infinite and thus is the same for both forms of Mass. The extrinsic is finite and can be affected by various factors. Thus it is possible to speak of one Mass being more or less extrinsically efficacious than another. It was written by an FSSP priest.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

sigh, fine we’ll do some logic for you.

How wonderfully magnanimous of you.

As for the logic I promised:
P1. Through the Mass, the people of God receive Grace.
P2. There are 2 forms of the One Latin-Rite Mass (OF and EF).
C. Therefore, the Of provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass, and the EF provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass.
(QED).

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.

Ok, I’ll do a second trick for people

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

using what’s called the Property of Identity of Indiscernibles (PII). PII says “if x has all the properties of y, and y has all the properties of x, then x is the same as y”. What we’re concerned about is grace, so lets look at what’s necessary for a Mass:

• sacred vestments (this goes back to Exodus)
• a priest (needed to act in persona Christi) with proper intent
• an altar
• rubrics (basically a standard way of doing things) and scripture readings (ex - lectionary or missalette)
• bread and wine (proper matter) and sacred vessels
• The Holy Spirit

Both the EF and OF have all these things that are necessary for a Mass, so both of them are the Mass. Since the Mass gives grace and both of these are the Mass, they both give graces that are associated with the Mass.

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.

Just to be clear, I’m saying that both are good and that going to either is good (so I’m not pitting them against each other, on the contrary I’m pointing to the similarities).

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

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Because I read French, I get the impression that it’s very bad English. It’s a very literal translation from the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre. The way that’s it’s used in his writings it means a defender of Catholic traditions. When it got translated, “traditions” was reduced to liturgy, catechism and only those things that were strictly lay. When he used it, it was much broader. It included people like my brothers and I.

Any SSPXer will tell you that it is not just the liturgy or the devotions – it is the doctrine. The liturgy, among other things, help us live the doctrine. Correct liturgy supports correct doctrine. Lex orendi lex credendi. And yes, Archbishop Lefebvre was surely concerned and interested in Religious like yourself, Brother JR.

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

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.”

But celebrating the EF is not and must never be seen as a vocation. The man’s vocation is always to the priesthood.

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?

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

This is one of the doctrinal issues that the Holy See wanted to clarify with the SSPX.

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?

Christ does not call men to a particular form of worship as a way of life. He calls them to a particular ministry. In this case, the priesthood. If you make the form part of the vocation, you run the risk of throwing out the vocation, if you discontinue the form.

Please see my comments and question above about the FSSP, etc.

On that point, they are walking on theological quicksand. That is another point that the SSPX has been asked to back off on.

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.

Part of evangelizing is to bring people’s realities into harmony with the cosmos. My reality may be unrealistic, because it’s out of harmony with the absolute reality.

Exactly. Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are not subjective, but are an objective part of absolute reality. We must conform ourselves to them.

• PAX

 

[frizzgrig]

We have very good news from diocesan seminaries around the nation. Their numbers are increasing and some are putting men on waiting lists. The numbers came out with the Ad Limina visits. Some dioceses and regions that come to mind off the top of my head are: Boston, Denver, Arlington, Florida, New York, Baltimore and Atlanta. Arlington has only one parish staffed by religious. They don’t need extern priests.

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).

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’m beginning to realize that this is a human problem, not a Modernist one. The Traditonalists do it as much as anyone else. The Liberals ran with Vatican II and wrecked it. Now Traditionalists are trying to undo the damage by running with tradition and wrecking it too.

What is wrong with us human beings? Will we never learn?

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

• PAX