Pushed to the SSPX

[Bbigam]

How convenient we have the flu now to rationalize a sacrilege.

If a study came out to show pot relieving flu symptoms, you’d probably find a lot of folks begging the Vatican to distribute pot in Church too.

Really? You’re comparing the Body of Christ received in the hand to marijuana? Don’t get me wrong, when, by the grace of God, I begin to receive the Eucharist at the Easter Vigil, I intend to receive on the tongue. But please don’t compare Communion in the hand to pot. That’s preposterous.

 

[JReducation]

Not sure what you mean.

A mystic is one who achieves he height of perfect spiritual union between the soul and the divine. Therefore, it is actually impossible for the mystic to engage in any inappropriate behavior during liturgical prayer, because the soul surrenders total control to the divine.

There are very few mystics, because it’s a gift that one cannot achieve on one’s own and for which one does not aspire. We can only aspire to holiness.

Mystics have been known to do some very stange things during the liturgy, such a float in the air, become fixed in a rigid position, lose sense of time and space, even speak. St. Charles Borromeo used to float or levitate (the proper word) during the consecration. It drove him crazy. One day he put a squirrel on his shoulder to keep him focussed on the mass that he was celebrating. He thought that the quirrel would distract him enough so that he would not go into a trance. Lo and behold, the congregation watched as Charles floated up with the squirrel on his shoulder. That was the end of that experiment LOL.

St. Paschal Baylon would levitate after he received communion and stay up there for a long time. One day his superior wanted him to do something after mass. Paschal was still up there. In frustration the superior threw a towel up at him and said, “While you’re up there, you may as well dust off the lamps.”

Bl. Mother Teresa is said to have become so rigid during mass that it was as if she were dead. St. Teresa of Avila also had this experience. Her hands would become so tight, that they could not pull them apart until she came out of the ecstacy.

But no mystic has ever done anything inappropriate during liturgy, unless you consider poor Charles Borromeo as inappropriate. No one else does. It’s actualy a true story and most students of mystical theology find it humorous, because poor Charles did not understand what was happening, despite the fact that he was a theologian. Mystical theoogy was not his forte. He realized that he had no control once he went into ecstacy. But what he didn’t know was that he could not stop himself from going into ecstacy, until he tried the squirel experiment.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

****ibkc…I asked a question. Are Protestants going to hell? You would certainly seem to suggest yes.

---

I do not know the mind of God, spn. I trust the teachings of the Church. Jesus knows what is in our hearts, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have our end of the bargain to keep up. I suspect that many Protestants will be bound for Hell. But many Catholics probably are, too.

 

[ibkc]

And when I tried to show my respect…I was asked who I was trying to impress. Talk about the these pharisees in sheep’s clothing calling the kettle black???

I have to admit that I understood why that question was asked. You first derided traditional expressions of piety then bragged about how loudly you say “AMEN” when you receive the Sacrament, etc. If someone in the normal OF communion line said “AMEN” loud enough for me to hear it if I am not directly behind them, I’d find it distracting and odd.

Fortunately, that is not an issue in the Extraordinary Form because we don’t say “Amen” when we receive – unless we are visitors from the OF who don’t know any better.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m a little confused here. What table are you talking about, the altar? If it’s the altar, it must be venerated.

The tabernacle should not be on a credence table. I must be on something that is fixed so that it cannot fall, such as a pedestal, if not an actual altar. It can be on the side. That is allowed. It has to be visible, but it does not have to be center. Are you referring to an actual credence table or to a pedestal of some form, that may look like a table?

In our chapel, the tabernacle is on the left corner on a tall table. I mean tall. You have to stand to open the tabernacle. If you sit you can’t reach it. But the table is very sturdy. It has a solid pedestal for a base. The tabernacle is scewed on to that. You would have to carry the entire thing away. You can’t just lift the tabernacle. That’s why I’m asking what are these tables?

We have it on the side, because the chapel is tiny. It does not have enough depth to have a tabernacle behind the altar and allow the priest back there too. So the tabernacle is on the one side and the presider’s chair on the other corner. The superior’s chair is in front of the altar so that it can be turned to face the brothers when needed.

But I’m curious to what you mean by tables, is it the actual altar where the sacrifice is celebrated? That’s not just any table, if that’s what you mean.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It was on, what looked to me like what I would call a credence table - no pedestal or anything that gave it prominence. And no specila attention was given to it. In fact the only acknowledgement was a slight bow by the deacon before he removed the ciborium for Communion.

And I’m sorry Brother, but as holy and respectful as I’m sure your Masses are, the removal of the tabernacle from the center of the altar in the place of prominence in the middle of the church is just plain bad, IMHO. It is one of the modern innovations that I feel has led to a de-emphasis of the Real Presence. And as small as your chapel certainly is, I will send you as many pictures as you need of very tiny altars upon which men have figured out upon which how to place tabernacles. Even Franciscans!

I am happy that you refer to the table as an altar. As you know, the term altar and oblation has been all but deleted from the prayers in the OF. I’m sure that was important to someone.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The rubrics in the GIRM are very specific. You genuflect when you arrive at the sanctuary, at the consecration, when you open the tabernacle, when you leave.

Apparently, the GIRM is not germinating in every diocese (or at least in Syracuse).

 

[JReducation]

The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have explained that the Church’s reach extends even into the Reformation communities. There are truths in these communities and Christ uses them as a means to save those souls who are faithful to them.

It’s an imperfect communion with the Church. However, these truths are part of the Church and those who believe them and live by them, can be saved. Unbeknownst to them, when they subcribe to these truths and live by them, they are within the embrace of the Church. The goal is to be in full communion with the Church. But in God’s mercy, he chooses even those who are in an imperfect communion. The key word is communion. Even with full communion, there is no guarantee of salvation, unless one works out his salvation through a life of virtue.

If you observe closely, the Church has never said that anyone is in Hell. She has infallibly named who is in Heaven. But she does not assume to know who is not saved nor does she encourage Catholics to engage in such speculation either. Only God knows how he will save and who will not be saved. The Church only knows who is saved and even there, she does not know everyone, only those who have lived heroic lives of virtue. St. Teresa of Avila always taught her Caremelite nuns to pray for Judas. When asked why, she responded, “We too have betrayed Him.” The theological point that she was making is that we cannot take for granted that we know everything, because we are all imperfect beings and sinful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Apparently, the GIRM is not germinating in every diocese (or at least in Syracuse).

I don’t know every parish in Syracuse or every diocese in my own state, for that matter. But if they don’t have a tabernacle in the sanctuary, you don’t genuflect when you arrive or when you leave.

But let’s not talk about any diocese or parish. That is wrong to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

It was on, what looked to me like what I would call a credence table - no pedestal or anything that gave it prominence. And no specila attention was given to it. In fact the only acknowledgement was a slight bow by the deacon before he removed the ciborium for Communion.

And I’m sorry Brother, but as holy and respectful as I’m sure your Masses are, the removal of the tabernacle from the center of the altar in the place of prominence in the middle of the church is just plain bad, IMHO. It is one of the modern innovations that I feel has led to a de-emphasis of the Real Presence. And as small as your chapel certainly is, I will send you as many pictures as you need of very tiny altars upon which men have figured out upon which how to place tabernacles. Even Franciscans!

I am happy that you refer to the table as an altar. As you know, the term altar and oblation has been all but deleted from the prayers in the OF. I’m sure that was important to someone.

You’re entitled to your opinion. The rule is that the tabernacle need not be on the main altar. As to our own chapel, the altar is away from the wall. If we put the tabernacle on it, we would have to celebrate the mass facing away from the friars. That is not allowed to us. If you watch the mass on EWTN, that is the typical way that Franciscans celebrate mass. The only friars who have an indult from the General to celebrate the EF as their conventual mass are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Every other friary must ask for permission to use the EF and it cannot be used every day.

The rules require that the place of repose is visible. As to the use of the word “table”, that is a legitimate translation from the Latin. The altar can be translated as table. But it is understood that there is a difference between that table and your coffee table. If you’re referring to venerating the altar or table where the sacrifice is to be offered, that is correct. The clerics must do that.

I can’t speak to the table that you’re describing, the one that holds the tabernacle, but it should be solid enough to be safe. It does not have to be high, just solid and safe.

You said that the deacon bowed. That is also acceptable, but the preferred reverence is the genuflection. However, the GIRM does say that you can give a reverential bow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

You’re entitled to your opinion. The rule is that the tabernacle need not be on the main altar. As to our own chapel, the altar is away from the wall. If we put the tabernacle on it, we would have to celebrate the mass facing away from the friars. That is not allowed to us. If you watch the mass on EWTN, that is the typical way that Franciscans celebrate mass. The only friars who have an indult from the General to celebrate the EF as their conventual mass are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Every other friary must ask for permission to use the EF and it cannot be used every day.

The rules require that the place of repose is visible. As to the use of the word “table”, that is a legitimate translation from the Latin. The altar can be translated as table. But it is understood that there is a difference between that table and your coffee table. If you’re referring to venerating the altar or table where the sacrifice is to be offered, that is correct. The clerics must do that.

I can’t speak to the table that you’re describing, the one that holds the tabernacle, but it should be solid enough to be safe. It does not have to be high, just solid and safe.

You said that the deacon bowed. That is also acceptable, but the preferred reverence is the genuflection. However, the GIRM does say that you can give a reverential bow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My issue with all this is that although it is the rule, for whatever the reason, it is a new rule since the innovations of the 1970s. The tabernacle placement was changed from place of prominence to a place of visibility, and reverence from a genuflection to a more minor (my words) act of reverence (a bow or nod of the head).

In the secular world, one genuflects as a sign of reverence for royalty. I wonder how each of these changes moves one more towards the glory of God or the Kingship of Christ?

These may all be small things but the complaint of traditionalists is that the modern innovations tend to place God more on a human plane. So the genuflection becomes a nod of the head (bow by the priest), the place once held by the tabernacle (physical essence of Christ the King) is now held by the presider, Christ Our King is now Christ our Brother.

 

[Lamentabili]

If you observe closely, the Church has never said that anyone is in Hell. She has infallibly named who is in Heaven. But she does not assume to know who is not saved nor does she encourage Catholics to engage in such speculation either. Only God knows how he will save and who will not be saved. The Church only knows who is saved and even there, she does not know everyone, only those who have lived heroic lives of virtue. St. Teresa of Avila always taught her Caremelite nuns to pray for Judas. When asked why, she responded, “We too have betrayed Him.”

The following sounds pretty definitive as to the Church’s position on the fate of Judas…

From the Catechism of Trent (emphasis added):

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Penance.shtml

“Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required. To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance. Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes. Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil. Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation. Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.”

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Orders.shtml

“Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this,** that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.**”

 

[surritter]

How convenient we have the flu now to rationalize a sacrilege.

Whoa – who is it that defines what a sacrilege is? Your opinion?

The Vatican has given an indult for Holy Communion to be distributed in the hand if the communicant wishes that. And YOU are saying that the Vatican is allowing a sacrilege?

Is this why the SSPX folks in this discussion are drawn to that group? Because THEY know better than the Pope what is a sacrilege??

 

[JReducation]

My issue with all this is that although it is the rule, for whatever the reason, it is a new rule since the innovations of the 1970s. The tabernacle placement was changed from place of prominence to a place of visibility, and reverence from a genuflection to a more minor (my words) act of reverence (a bow or nod of the head).

In the secular world, one genuflects as a sign of reverence for royalty. I wonder how each of these changes moves one more towards the glory of God or the Kingship of Christ?

These may all be small things but the complaint of traditionalists is that the modern innovations tend to place God more on a human plane. So the genuflection becomes a nod of the head (bow by the priest), the place once held by the tabernacle (physical essence of Christ the King) is now held by the presider, Christ Our King is now Christ our Brother.

I understand what you’re saying and I appreciate the sentiment. But remember, the tabernacle was not always there. As I said before, this was introduced by St. Francis around the year 1209. We’re not exactly sure about the year. The reason was that the friars’ chapels were very small compared to the monastery churches and diocesan cathedrals. However, one would not question the devotion of a Benedict, Dominic, Bernard and any of the people of their generation, just because they did not have the tabernacle in the center.

As to Christ our brother, that is not a new concept either. That was a concept that was written by St. Francis in his rule for the Secular Franciscan Order. He was the first to formally advocate for veneration of Christ as brother. This is not even his own idea. He takes it from scripture where we are told that Christ is the first-born of many brothers and sisters.

Both spiritualities, Christ the King and Christ the Brother have co-existed since the early Church. Christ the brother fell into disuse until Francis of Assisi brings it back in his rule for the Secular Order. Then it fell into disuse for a long time, because the Secular Order lost its prominence at the time of the discovery of the Americas. But before that, it was very popular. It was the Spanish Carmelite mystics who re-introduce the spirituality of Christ as King in their writings about the Interior Castle.

My point is that spiritual theology goes through cycles. Both concepts are correct and both are rooted in revelation. But they seem to take prominence at different times in history. Take it from someone who has taugh this for a long time. The two concepts are correct and they seem to cycle around each other. I could go into a whole thesis as to why they do, but that would be too long for this post and you dont’ need all that information. What is probably more important to you is to know that Christ is still revered as King. This has not been forgotten by the Church, theologians and most lay people either. Today, Christ our brother, has a softer tone to it, than Christ our king. But both are theologically correct and I would not be surprised if they cycle around again and the majestic spirituality becomes prominent again in the future and then the fraternal and so forth.

Spiritual theology has demonstrated that spirituality seems to go in cycles…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The following sounds pretty definitive as to the Church’s position on the fate of Judas…

From the Catechism of Trent (emphasis added):

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Penance.shtml

“Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required. To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance. Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes. Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil. Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation. Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.”

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Orders.shtml

“Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this,** that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.**”

The purpose of these documents was to define and comment on the specific sacraments of Penance and Holy Orders. What they say about Judas is based on popular belief. But the documents do not set out to discuss and define the state of Judas. That was thrown in to drive home a point.

Teresa of Avila’s theology on Judas, is a little different. Where she is going with this is that we do not know the destiny of any soul, except those canonized by the Church. Therefore, she encourages her nuns to pray for Judas’ soul, just in case he could be in purgatory.

These are two different topics. The documents from Trent are about the Sacraments, not about Judas. Teresa’s comment is about the possibility of salvation through God’s mercy and the charity of the living.

One of the basic rules of theology is that you take the topic of the writing as a whole, not pull out a single sentence and use that as a theological statement. That’s not the way that we write theology. Theology is written thematically. One has to focus on the theme of the writing that one is reading.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

I understand what you’re saying and I appreciate the sentiment. But remember, the tabernacle was not always there. As I said before, this was introduced by St. Francis around the year 1209. We’re not exactly sure about the year.
… ]

As to Christ our brother, that is not a new concept either.

… ]

I am not trying to be disrespectful here. But don’t these rationalizations amount to archaism? VII did not call for a wholesale dumping of Church liturgy and tradition in favor of archaic practices - unless I am completely mistaken.

 

[JReducation]

Whoa – who is it that defines what a sacrilege is? Your opinion?

The Vatican has given an indult for Holy Communion to be distributed in the hand if the communicant wishes that. And YOU are saying that the Vatican is allowing a sacrilege?

Is this why the SSPX folks in this discussion are drawn to that group? Because THEY know better than the Pope what is a sacrilege??

Communion in the hand is not a scrilege. It’s not even a minor sin. Where did that come from? There are some who have said this, but the Church has never taught this. Ultimately, it is up to the Church to teach morals, not individuals.

There was a school of thought that gathered around Aquinas that believed that it was a sin to touch the Eucharist unless you were a priest.

This was problematic for two reasons. First, the Fathers of the Church describe how to receive communion in the hand. Second, deacons have always distributed communion in the Roman Rite. Deacons have never had their hands consecrated or anointed. The Church never used Thomas’ treatise on this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

I understand what you’re saying and I appreciate the sentiment. But remember, the tabernacle was not always there. As I said before, this was introduced by St. Francis around the year 1209. We’re not exactly sure about the year. The reason was that the friars’ chapels were very small compared to the monastery churches and diocesan cathedrals. However, one would not question the devotion of a Benedict, Dominic, Bernard and any of the people of their generation, just because they did not have the tabernacle in the center.

As to Christ our brother, that is not a new concept either. That was a concept that was written by St. Francis in his rule for the Secular Franciscan Order. He was the first to formally advocate for veneration of Christ as brother. This is not even his own idea. He takes it from scripture where we are told that Christ is the first-born of many brothers and sisters.

Both spiritualities, Christ the King and Christ the Brother have co-existed since the early Church. Christ the brother fell into disuse until Francis of Assisi brings it back in his rule for the Secular Order. Then it fell into disuse for a long time, because the Secular Order lost its prominence at the time of the discovery of the Americas. But before that, it was very popular. It was the Spanish Carmelite mystics who re-introduce the spirituality of Christ as King in their writings about the Interior Castle.

My point is that spiritual theology goes through cycles. Both concepts are correct and both are rooted in revelation. But they seem to take prominence at different times in history. Take it from someone who has taugh this for a long time. The two concepts are correct and they seem to cycle around each other. I could go into a whole thesis as to why they do, but that would be too long for this post and you dont’ need all that information. What is probably more important to you is to know that Christ is still revered as King. This has not been forgotten by the Church, theologians and most lay people either. Today, Christ our brother, has a softer tone to it, than Christ our king. But both are theologically correct and I would not be surprised if they cycle around again and the majestic spirituality becomes prominent again in the future and then the fraternal and so forth.

Spiritual theology has demonstrated that spirituality seems to go in cycles…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR,

I do enjoy conversing with you! I certainly understand that one will (should) find a precedence for these innovations. I am always drawn back to the same question: Why, after 800 years, do we change if not to give greater glory to God. And if we are not giving greater glory to Our Lord, then why change. And if we are giving greater Glory to God, how is that manifest in these changes?

I don’t know the answer, I don’t expect that you know, and no one else has been able to frame it in a way to get through to someone as dense as I.

God Bless

GTO

 

[Lamentabili]

The purpose of these documents was to define and comment on the specific sacraments of Penance and Holy Orders. What they say about Judas is based on popular belief. But the documents do not set out to discuss and define the state of Judas. That was thrown in to drive home a point.

I don’t believe one can dismiss these statements that easily. They are definitive statements of fact regarding the eternal fate of Judas made in an official Catholic Catechism. A catechism that was used as the gold standard to teach Catholics the faith for around 500 years. True, the purpose of the sections cited was not meant to be a treatise on Judas’ salvation, but the bolded sections serve to show that Judas’ eternal fate was well understood by the Church’s Magisterium.

The Catechism even draws the distinction that Cain perhaps despaired of salvation but Judas certainly did.

The following are extremely strong and definitive words by any standard in an official teaching document of the Magisterium. They leave no ambiguity. In my opinion the only reason people seem to ignore them is because they are never spoken of today and were issued long ago. If the same statements were made in the most recent Catechism, I don’t think there would be any doubt of the Church’s stance on Judas. And indeed, as far as the weight of the source and truth of the assertions, they may as well have been made by the current catechism.

“Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body.”

"that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.

 

[pnewton]

I am not trying to be disrespectful here. But don’t these rationalizations amount to archaism? VII did not call for a wholesale dumping of Church liturgy and tradition in favor of archaic practices - unless I am completely mistaken.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the problem of archaism is when one goes back to the original way of doing this in the first century just for the purpose of going back. If the same reasons, or different ones, exist for returning to a practice, it is acceptable.

I think in the next decade we will see this principle played out. I suspect we may return to some element of the Mass before the changes of the last two generations. It will not be archaism because any changes will have a reason beyond just going back to get back to the good old days.

 

[pnewton]

“Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body.”

"that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.

On Judas, I always found the words of Jesus rather compelling when he said that it was better that he had never been born. I can not imagine how that could be possible if Judas ever in eternity ended up in heaven.