TLM At the National Shrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Permanent seating was only for the wealthy. That’s why in old cathedrals in Europe you see benches up only partway up the naive.

In St. Peter’s they were added. They did not always have the permanent seating either. The benches went up partway. But I don’t know when they were added.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
(The joke was the Chair of Peter).
 
Exactly. The New Testament is part of the Deposit of Faith which the Pope is supposed to defend, or so I thought.
I’m sorry, I’m not exactly sure what your response to my question is.

Is the removal of the requirement for women to veil a violation of Papal infallibility?
 
I’m sorry, I’m not exactly sure what your response to my question is.

Is the removal of the requirement for women to veil a violation of Papal infallibility?
No, it isn’t. It’s a matter of discipline and in matters of discipline, infallibility only extends to saying that whatever the discipline is that the Church imposes, that discipline at least cannot lead the faithful into impiety.
 
No, it isn’t. It’s a matter of discipline and in matters of discipline, infallibility only extends to saying that whatever the discipline is that the Church imposes, that discipline at least cannot lead the faithful into impiety.
This is true. The Church cannot impose disciplines that are hazardous to the faithful. The Holy Spirit wil prevent it.

I believe that the problem is that many people are confused thinking that because the discipline is no longer in place it means that no one can do this, which is not true. It simply means that it is not an obligation for those who don’t want to do it. It’s like meat on Fridays. Just because it’s not a sin to eat meat, does not mean that one should not abstain.

I believe the other confusion is in the incorrect interpretation of the historical pacts. The fact that a law is changed is does not mean that those who created it in the past were in error. It simply means that the reigning pontiff see no further need for it. What was necessary yesterday may not be necessary today. It boils down to what the current pontiff considers are the priorities of his reign. Doctrine, morals and sacraments cannot change. Those remain in tact. The externals can change or even vary from one situation to another, which is often the case.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
A)“It’s a matter of discipline”.
B) “It was done elsewhere at one time”.

A) Means it can be dropped. B) Means it can be added in.

Leading to

C) A mix-and-match liturgy. The exception becomes the rule.

Now, you can argue for this or that alteration as having a precedent, but all of them, together, added in at once? It’s a revolution.

Masses now look more like school recitals. If the intended effect is to promote fellowship, that’s fine. If the intended effect is to promote religious awe and reverence, the changes are peverse.

e.g. If anyone can walk in the sacred space during the rite, how holy is it? Boy altar servers were subsititutes for clergy. The schola used to be a minor clerical order, I understand. Now “we can’t get boys to be altar servers”, because they don’t want to serve with girls in the performance the Mass has become. The TLM is serious business. The N.O. just isn’t. It’s friendly. It’s nice.

So we have homosexual priests, served by girls, preaching tolerance to a contracepting congregation. We have to be less strict in those circumstances. The alternative, that we are sinners who can end up in Hell, doesn’t bear thinking about.

**If you introduce loads of populist elements at once into a rite you can’t be surprised at a lack of vocations to say it and a fall in attendance at it. It just isn’t, by definition, as serious a business as before. **

It’s a celebration, everythings OK, Mrs. Goodlady is in the sanctuary, have a lie in.
 
**If you introduce loads of populist elements at once into a rite you can’t be surprised at a lack of vocations to say it and a fall in attendance at it. It just isn’t, by definition, as serious a business as before. **

It’s a celebration, everythings OK, Mrs. Goodlady is in the sanctuary, have a lie in.
I disagree with your assessment. I visit many parishes, about 121 a year in our diocese. None of them has a shortage of priests. They all have very good liturgies, with both male and female altar servers.

My own community does not have a shortage of vocation. We have undergone a shift, but I believe that was more of our own choosing. We used to get many men who wanted to be priests, but we began to refer them to the diocesan seminary, because most of them did not understand the difference between religious life and Holy Orders. They came to us wanting to be priests, but not necessarily wanting to be brothers. St. Francis did not found an order of priests, He founded a brotherhood in which priest were allowed to join, but the reason for thier joining was that they wanted to follow Francis’ path in following the Gospel. So we have three non-clerical friars to every one ordained friar. But those who are ordained very much want to be brothers. They want to walk in the footsteps of St. Francis, that’s why they join us.

In the diocese where I work we have also had a shift in vocations. There was a time when the ratio of priests to religious brothers weas 4:1 and now it’s 2:1. The number of priests has not dropped. The number of religious brothers has increased, because the diocesan vocation director is pointing more men to the religious life for the same reason that we point men to the diocesan seminary. Many men who walk into his office say that they want to be priests, but when you interview them, they really want relgious life, not Holy Orders. It’s just that many people did not know the difference between the two calls.

We also have a congregation of sisters founded in the diocese and it’s very large and growing. They started with four about 10 years ago and they have over 150 today. Some of the sisters are now being sent to other dioceses to start new foundations.

The parish where I teach religious education has five priests, four deacons, and six brothers. They have seven masses every weekend and all are full. The church seats about 800. They have two priests hearing confessions on Saturdays.

Our brothers run a parish no too far from where I’m stationed. We have seven brothers at that house. One of the ordained brothers serves as the parish administrator. The only reason that he can’t be the pastor is because the superior of the house is not a priest. You can’t have to bosses of equal rank in one house.

What I’m trying to say is that there is a vocation shift in many places and many orders. For example our Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, which almost everyone knows because Fr. Benedict G is so famous, they have over 100 friars in a very short time. You won’t see them at a parish, because it’s forbidden by the constitutions. Unless you live in the worse part of town, you won’t run into them either, because they are not allowed to serve the middle and upper classes. But you will see them on the streets of New York, London, Lima, and Managua, sitting with the homeless, the alchoholics, the drug addicts, those who have jsut gotten out of prison and the down-trodden.

We have just welcomed into the USA the Missionaries of the Poor. They are sending brothers all over the world. They started as a very smalll congregation in Jamaica. Again, you will not see them in parishes. Unless you live in a slum, are homeless, sick, poor, abandoned, you may never run into them. They work in the poorest parishes. They have over 200 brothers, some ordained. They too are a very young religious community.

The Franciscan Brothers of Peace in the MId-West are thriving. Again, you will not see them in parishes. It’s not allowed in the constitution. They may not ordain anyone either. The idea is to keep the Franciscan life in its purest state, that is the imitation of the life of St. Francis. But they are also growing by about 10 new brothers every years.

In fact, we’re now creating another branch of the Franciscan order, the Franciscan Brothers of Life. When I finish my tour as superior of this community, I’m supposed to move to direct the formation of that new branch of the order. The project began last March and there are already six postulants. These men will work in pro-life ministry full-time. Again, you may only see them in your parish when they go to train your priests on the Gospel of Life and to recruit lay volunteers to work in pregnancy centers.

to be continued
 
conclusion

If you look around, you will see emerging communities and older communities of women thriving such as the Dominicans of St. Cecilia, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, the Sisters of Life, the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, the Missionaries of Charity. The Missionary Brothers of Charity are also growing in the USA. These are the brothers founded by Mother Teresa. They are called brothers, but they have some ordained brothers too. They have two branches, an enclosed branch and an active one, just like the sisters. You willl never see them, because Mother Teresa wrote into their rule that they may not wear a habit or anything that distinguishes them as religious men. They must dress like the common man in India. They wear kahki (sp?) pants and white shirts. That was the whole idea of that religious family, to give to the Church an Indian family of religious, even though they have many religious who are not Indian.

Then you have diocese like Boston and Arlington who have no more room in their seminaries. They are full of vocations to the secular priesthood. You have a diocese like Miami that has four deacons to every parish. The diaconate is also a vocation. The FSSP has many vocations

I do believe that thee is a shift is priorities on the part of religious orders. The focus is back on religious life, not on parishes. Dioceses are focsuing more on global ministries than parishes. They are putting many men to work with the poor and in the poorest neighborhoods. There is a shortage in the middle class parishes, but there is an abundance in the low income parishes. The central USA is suffering a shortage too. But that’s a local or regional problem, not a universal problem. There are simply some communities or geographical areas, that are not thriving, but others are. My guess is that a lot has to do with smaller families and a smaller number of Catholics in given areas.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Is the removal of the requirement for women to veil a violation of Papal infallibility?
Violation of what exactly? Since when is this an issue of Papal infallibility? You seem to have a pattern for posting irrelevant material. Either you accept the teachings of St. Paul or anything else in the New Testament or you don’t. Why try to cloud the issue? If the Pope chooses not to accept the New Testament, that’s his right. You can choose to follow him in this regard or not, but I fail to see how he’s protecting the Deposit of Faith.
Sorry Spirithound is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.
I can’t put you on ignore but I can ignore you. Trust me.
 
This is true. The Church cannot impose disciplines that are hazardous to the faithful. The Holy Spirit wil prevent it.
Not to sound too cynical here, but shouldn’t we just remove all disciplines just to be on the safe side? No more grounds for grave or mortal sins, sounds good to me. The Church is so cool to remove these disciplines and make my life easier. :rolleyes:

And then they wonder how the Church can allow rampant sex abuse by its priests and coverups by the bishops. :mad:
 
Bro. JR,

Just want to thank you again for taking the time to share the knowledge you have. I learn so much and it gives me a much bigger picture of what it means to be Catholic as well as what it means to be part of the truly universal church.

Prayers and blessings.
 
Violation of what exactly? Since when is this an issue of Papal infallibility? You seem to have a pattern for posting irrelevant material. Either you accept the teachings of St. Paul or anything else in the New Testament or you don’t. Why try to cloud the issue? If the Pope chooses not to accept the New Testament, that’s his right. You can choose to follow him in this regard or not, but I fail to see how he’s protecting the Deposit of Faith.
Does this issue fall under “morals”, as in the “faith and morals” with which Papal infallibility is activated? If it does, and the Pope officially abrogates the rule mandating it, then Papal infallibility has been violated and the gates of hell have prevailed. If this does not fall under faith or morals, then you need to accept that the Pope has the authority to change that discipline, but as others have pointed out, you do not need to accept that it was a good idea.
 
Well, my experience is the opposite of JREds, but I’m just going by what I’m hearing. It’s “Please pray for more vocations” and “One priest per parish” and “Father X is overworked as he’s covering two parishes”.

Hard to draw conclusions from a very small sample. Two dioceses I’m familiar with which have a vocation shortage also seem quite progressive and ecumenical.

Y’see, what also vexes me is that the TLM is a beautiful advert for a holy life. We had a sung TLM at a side-altar last Sunday and the candles, chant, cotters, vested priest, altar boys, stained glass, statues and icons really looked and sounded like something wonderful. Something you’d like to get in on. When we have the organ it’s even better.

Crazy to ban it or interfere with it. I mean, it’s like rock stars saying: “We’ll get rid of the theatrics and amplification and costumes, drop half our set and do it acoustic-style. It’ll still be the same concert”.
 
Well, my experience is the opposite of JREds, but I’m just going by what I’m hearing. It’s “Please pray for more vocations” and “One priest per parish” and “Father X is overworked as he’s covering two parishes”.

Hard to draw conclusions from a very small sample. Two dioceses I’m familiar with which have a vocation shortage also seem quite progressive and ecumenical.

Y’see, what also vexes me is that the TLM is a beautiful advert for a holy life. We had a sung TLM at a side-altar last Sunday and the candles, chant, cotters, vested priest, altar boys, stained glass, statues and icons really looked and sounded like something wonderful. Something you’d like to get in on. When we have the organ it’s even better.

Crazy to ban it or interfere with it. I mean, it’s like rock stars saying: “We’ll get rid of the theatrics and amplification and costumes, drop half our set and do it acoustic-style. It’ll still be the same concert”.
It IS the same concert. It’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the essential thing, though the clothing is different.

And your concert analogy is apt. Compared to the EF, some of us quite appreciate the “noble simplicity” of the OF.
 
I mean, it’s like rock stars saying: “We’ll get rid of the theatrics and amplification and costumes, drop half our set and do it acoustic-style. It’ll still be the same concert”.
:D:D

Just close your eyes and pretend.
 
It IS the same concert. It’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the essential thing, though the clothing is different.

And your concert analogy is apt. Compared to the EF, some of us quite appreciate the “noble simplicity” of the OF.
Actually, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ is a better term for the O.F. The sacrificial element is played way down. If you’re conducting a killing, a propitiatory offering, the people involved would be a lot more self-effacing and reverential.

If it’s now seen as a meal, the removal of the altar rails, letting unvested laity in the remaining space and generally making it more people-oriented makes sense. It’s a celebration. The People’s Mass.

Latin, chant, exclusiveness, ad-orientem, the priest as a superior being are then incongruous. So they’ve been dropped.
 
Actually, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ is a better term for the O.F. The sacrificial element is played way down. If you’re conducting a killing, a propitiatory offering, the people involved would be a lot more self-effacing and reverential.

If it’s now seen as a meal, the removal of the altar rails, letting unvested laity in the remaining space and generally making it more people-oriented makes sense. It’s a celebration. The People’s Mass.

Latin, chant, exclusiveness, ad-orientem, the priest as a superior being are then incongruous. So they’ve been dropped.
You’re quite wrong. I’m what I assume you would refer to as a “Novus Ordo” Catholic. I was (and most Catholics I know were) instructed that the Holy Sacrifice was just that, a holy sacrifice, THE Holy Sacrifice. The priest that rec. me into the Church told me that he always was conscious of Who he lifted up before the Father for our sins. I’ve always been aware of that and meditated on it during the elevation.

The OF is as demonstrative of that as the EF. The mind of “traditionalists” is not the mind of the Church on this Matter
 
Actually, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ is a better term for the O.F. The sacrificial element is played way down.
Indeed. Pope Paul VI put his signature on that definition of the Mass. He didn’t even include sacrifice in the definition until the “traditionalists” corrected him later; yet he refused to change the texts which downplay and confuse the sacrificial aspect of the liturgy.
 
Indeed. Pope Paul VI put his signature on that definition of the Mass. He didn’t even include sacrifice in the definition until the “traditionalists” corrected him later; yet he refused to change the texts which downplay and confuse the sacrifice issue.
I don’t see any confusion at all. “May the Lord this sacrifice at your hands…” is pretty clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top