TLM At the National Shrine

[JReducation]

Do they look like this, then? Or is that a “Novus Ordo” Mass too?

Our early Franciscan Missionaries and the early Dominicans used these kinds of altars. In fact, they were are still in use in those areas where the priest has to travel from place to palce and there is not physical building. These altars are blessed. What they did in the past was to carry a very tiny stone with the relics. They placed it on the table. It was about the size of a paper weight. We have many of them in the safe at our motherhouse, becauase you’re no longer required to carry them around.

The new altars are made of two panels with a hinge so that you can fold it and it slips into a carrying case that looks like the kind of case that an artist would carry, you know the big rectangular flat cases. Then there are some newer mass kits that look like an attache case, but when you open it, you can take out the contents and there are flaps that open out forming an altar. These are cases are also blessed. They are commonly used in the missions and by the chaplains in the armed forces who are on the battlefield.

But those altars in your picture were introduced long before the altars against the wall. They were actually designed by the early mendicants in the 13th century.

If you’re ever in Assisi and you get a chance to enter the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels that St. Francis rebuilt, the altar is a stone table on four stone pillars. It’s not against the wall. You can walk around it. Behind is a shelf-like altar that holds the tabernacle, which is no longer used, since the chapel is no longer used to protect it.

The table top model is not a new design. If you look at the altar in the nun’s chapel on EWTN, the Blessed Sacrament Shrine, you will see a model of an altar that was commonly used from God knows when to long after the Council of Trent.

The high altar with the spires and nitches, etc were a Gothic form of art which came much later. The altars and the churches were deliberately built to resemple each other What you saw outside was duplicated inside, such as what you get when you visit Notre Dame in Paris. The old altar looks excatly like the facade of the cathedral. That was a common gothic practice.

But Gothic is not the only form of construction that we used. St. Peter’s Basilica never had an altar flushed against the wall. If you wanted to, you could sit on the other side of it and face the priest. The other side of the sanctuary in St. Peter’s has seating so that you can actuallly sit on two sides of the altar. No matter which way the priest faces, someone is going to be facing him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I always find it interesting when you describe all the “gray” areas that can come into play within the universal Church. That it simply isn’t as black and white as some would suggest when it comes to (little) “t” tradition. That we all really need to be educated on what is faith, morals, Tradition, and tradition. In all of the rites, orders, disciples, etc.

Thank you.

There are many grey areas. But more importantly, I always believe that language has to be correct. Terms like “always” and “never” are rarely correct. Better terms are “usually”.

When it comes to this debate about the mass I’m alwasy irritated by those who say, “Latin has been the unifying language of the Church.” No way. It was the unifying language of the Roman Church. Guess why it’s called Roman. If you say that to a Greek Catholic they’ll look at you and say, “What Church?” They are just as Catholic and in full commuion with the Holy Father. The same for Melchites, Maronites, Ruthuanians, Syriacs, Malabi et al.

When someone tells me that the Council took away Gregorian Chant I always suggest that they visit the Francisan missions in California and Florida and ask the laity if they ever heard Gregorian Chant. They’ll look at you and say that the first time they ever heard it was either after Vatican II or after the missioin was abandoned by the Franciscans and taken over the secular priests. Other wise it was never used in those parishes. The same is true for the Jesuits. They never used it. Though I don’t think it was forbidden to them. I think they never used it because they are neither monastic or secular priests. They are clerks. Clerks did not have this custom. It was only hermits, canons, monks, some mendicants and secular clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

1.- A table may be blessed, but let us remember that there is a difference between a table and an altar. The tables at many Novus Ordo Masses, of course, look alot like tables.

A bishop’s chair looks like a chair too. But it’s a cathedra and one mistakes it for a common chair. In my community the superior’s chair is on the side of the sanctuary. It’s called the “Abbots chair” no one confuses it with another chair.

2.- Those parishes are either Traditional parishes or parishes that have not been “modernised” since Vatican II. Your second point basically contradicts your first point. You said permanent altars. So that would mean that any parish that does not have a permanent altar has a table instead, thus proving my point.

An altar can be moveable and still be an altar. As I said, look at altars that the popes use when they clebrate mass in stadiums. Those are real altars. But they are moveable. If an altar had to be fixed, there would be no way that the Holy Father could celebrate a mass in a stadium or an open area. Do you disagree with this practice?

3.- How long has this rule been around? At many Traditional parishes the altars are up against the wall so you can’t walk around it yet the celebrant incenses around it.

As the pictures show you, that’s only one style of architecture. You have to remember that many of our older churches were built when this was the common architecture. Go to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was built long before Vatican II. They used a Romanesque style. The altar is not against the wall. They tried to imitate the Vatican’s altar.

4- It’s not really his choice. Prior the Vatican II the priest was required to only face the people when distributing Communion, giving the sermon, turning around for the Dominus vobiscum, blessing the people, and leaving. Most of the time at a TLM the priest faces the altar.

If we say that it’s not his choice, then we would have to say that the pope is violating the rubrics because he has been facing the people for over 40 years. Even Pope Benedict does not celebrate the Extraordinary Form in public. When the Extraodinary Form has been celebrated at St. Peter’s it has not been allowed on the main altar, only at one of the side chapels. The FSSP had a beautiful mass there not long ago. It was at a side chapel. They were not given permission to use the main altar.

We have to be very careful when we say that this is not the choice of the priest, when the law says that it is. The law decides whose choice it is. In fact, the law also says that if a priest is a religious, the statutes of his religious community and his major superior decide how he celebrates mass. This is in Summorum Pontificum. SP only applies to secular priests, not to religious who are accidently priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elsport1]

I really enjoyed watching the TLM at the National Shrine! I’ve been going to TLM for a few months now and love it! However I’m having a problem in my understanding of the church since going. I’m losing my faith in the Church

I grew up nominally catholic and until a few months ago I would have stared at you blankly if you asked me if I went to a novus ordo mass or TLM. I started taking my faith seriously towards the end of high school (I’m now in my late 20’s). Since then I’ve considered myself to be an orthodox catholic. I had some serious problems with how the mass was celebrated at times or the lack of orthodoxy in homilies. I had serious problems with the laxity of the Bishops in condemning heresy or even being a bit soft on the truth themselves. But I never really thought the whole church was in ruins all the way up to the Pope. I loved the church. I saw some problems, but what organization run by people doesn’t have problems? Now I’m having serious doubts…

Before going to TLM I looked into what people wore, immediately I started seeing postings from sspx and sedevacanist folks. Many times I didn’t realize that is what I was reading until after i finished reading the articles/blogs/commentaries. The things they said about modesty made so much more sense than the “wear what you think is modest” comments you get from novus ordo people. These were real guidelines that seem to be Biblically and historically based! After going to TLM I started looking into what the church was like prior to vatican II and it just seems to be a more concerned with saving souls than appealing to the world. Anyways, now I find I’m growing in disgust towards the novus ordo in general and JPII in particular. I always loved JPII. I have a huge poster of him in my sons room, now when I look at it I’m filled with grief for what I think he helped do to our church.

I don’t see how I can belong to a church who I think has embraced modernism. BUT I don’t see how I can embrace a church who denies the one true faith and claims that the seat of Peter has been vacant for 40 odd years. I guess that kinda leaves me with sspx but I don’t see how belonging to a group who’s priests aren’t supposed to celebrate the sacraments and do so anyways is a good idea.

I feel like I’ve gone from being a believing member of the church surrounded by some seriously confused fellow believers to a skeptic who is suspicious of every action and word of the Bishops and the Pope.

Do other TLM goers have this problem? How do I deal with it? Anyone have any suggestions with how I can reconcile the many seemingly contradictory opinions on moral values of traditional catholics and post vatican II catholics? If it is truly the faith that Jesus Christ taught shouldn’t their be a continuity between what we were supposed to believe in 1960 and what we should believe in 2010?

 

[JReducation]

Let’s take John Paul II for starters. This may help. As you know, the inquiry into his life is now complete and closed. The many commissions that examined his life found not cause for concern in his writings, his actions or his personal life. We have to remember that you don’t have to be a great administrator to be a saint. But you have to be faithful to the Church and her traditions. The Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints agreed that his life was one of holiness and heroic Christian virtue. The Defender of the Faith and his team conceded that they could not find a single point in the man’s life that they could object to. Once they completed their report it was sent to a team of Cardinals.

The Cardinals reviewed all of the evidence presented for and against his canonization. They concluded that they could not find a single event, teaching or action on his part that was inconsistent with the faith of the Church, the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. They found that his private life was one of heroic virtues and holiness. They too closed the case and sent their report to Pope Benedict.

Pope Benedict reviews the material from both committees. This material is presented with all the arguments for and against. But what most people don’t know is that the person(s) who really decide if someone should be considered for canonization is the Devil’s Advocate who is now called the Defender of the Faith. The reason is obvious. It is the job of his team to protect the faith. If they find just one single point where the faith is compromised, they win their case. The process is not a democratic one where all the committee members vote. The committee against the cause is the one that votes and they must vote unanimously. His defenders do not vote, because they are biased in his favor.

Pope Benedict ordered the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints to write the decree. Then he signed it and made the proclamation that John Paul II had led a truly heroic and holy life. In Church talk this means that the Pope believe that his man is a saint. He has two choices from this point forward. He can canonize or he can wait for the miracles to be proven. By this time, there is not argument concerning the sanctity of Pope John Paul II. That’s resolved and closed. There is to be no further discussion on the matter, unless the pope reopens the case. No one else may call for such a thing.

Where are we now? You said that this man did so much harm to the Church or allowed harm to be done. But the research says that this is not the case. He’s a holy man who is most likely in heaven. My question is, if he gets beatified, which seems to be soon, will you still refuse to believe? If you refuse to believe in the decree that he is venerable, later that a miracle occurred through is intercession and later that he must be publicly venerated by all Catholics, then you are not in communion with the Holy Father. Even the SSPX accept that John Paul II is venerable and that he led a holy and heroic life of Christian virtue.

My point is that your issue runs very deep. You do not trust the Church. You trust your gut. That’s not a good place to be. It can be very confusing and tough to live with. I would strongly suggest that you read people like Francis of Assisi, Catherin of Siena, Ignatius of Loyola, and Bl. Mother Teresa. They all lived through tough times in the Church’s history. They encouraged and sought a holier way of life without ever doubting their Church. This may help you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

No, actually there were several Rites and usages in the Roman Church – Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, and Roman. Not a single one was abrogated with the Second Vatican Council.

Yessss. A nice distinction. When in truth the Traditional Roman Catholic Rite, the 1962 Missal, the Mass of the majority of Catholics, was effectively suppressed from 1970 - 2007, indults notwithstanding.

“Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite?” Ha, ha, I doubt 1 Roman Catholic in 1000 would have ever heard of those rites, never mind attended one.

Do you know how ridiculous this makes you sound? Are you honestly advocating for people to be illiterate? That education is the enemy of religion?

Now, did I say that, or even imply that?

 

[Layman]

Do they look like this, then? Or is that a “Novus Ordo” Mass too?

Ho, ho, no fair!

In extreme circumstances, like a battlefield, anything will do as an altar. But to move from ornate high altars, to tables, without necessity, suggests the participants have a much more casual view of the rite.

Or they think it’s more of a meal. They want to recreate the Last Supper. “What would Jesus have done?” etc.

 

[Layman]

To JREd:

Your rebuttals tend to centre around exceptions that religious orders can do, especially your own Franciscans. **The exception seems to have become the rule. **

However, most lay Catholics, I think, are, or were, served by secular clergy in parish churches. Indeed, I think you said once that the Franciscan’s charism is not to provide sacraments for local people; they were pressed into it by the lack of secular clergy(?)
**
To impose a minimalist, ascetic rite, universally, in 1970, at a swoop, on laypeople, is little short of criminal.** Most shockingly, the destruction of altars that occured and the harsh editing of the text itself.

This is excused by picking-and-mixing practices from other times, orders and rites that suit the current zeitgeist.

Thing is, fashion is the enemy of permanence. What looks good today looks dated tomorrow. But, hey, if it can change that drastically, it can certainly be changed back just as quick! Or can it? Let’s hear from those loyal to the Magisterium, who favour the New Mass, on that one.** I wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict suppressed the N.O., before, say, next Easter?**

Anyway, we now have a rite that has:

• Free-standing altar tables (because they existed in some locations);
• A Mass in the local lingo (because, hey, we changed languages 1500+ years ago);
• Mass with drastically edited text (because Masses have been changed before); * Communion into your hand (because other rites kind of did it that way);
• EMHCs handing you communion (because they gave it to the sick before, at home);
• Unvested laity (dunno what the precedent is for that) in the sanctuary (which now is no longer delimited by altar rails, so looks like just another part of the Church);
• 30 year-old hymns instead of 300 year-old-ones (Easier to sing. Nicer, too. Don’t want to upset the choir, either, now we can’t get altar boys. Got to be careful);
• Priest facing the people, (because it happens in some basilica or other. Can’t remember);

Sets a precedent for:

1. Not taking mass seriously, (because the setting, rite, dress and behaviour of the participants are cueing you not to. It seems to be a performance directed at you and your neighbours are up there in plain clothes and it’s in your local dialect and the priest makes a joke during his sermon and the hymns are cheesy …);

2. Further drastic change. If CITH can get an indult, why not dancing? First, in special circumstances, in a particular country, with the local bishop looking the other way.
Then, holidaymakers and visiting clergy get wind of it, and so it comes to Boise, Idaho. Then, the Vatican protests. Bishops reply by saying “It is the work of the Holy Spirit amongst the people”. Pope then grants an indult.

I think the revolutionaries of the 60’s thought that teaching the catechism, straight, was too oppressive. So now we have a generation reared in schools which don’t teach the basics of their religion, going to Masses which don’t really illustrate the basics of their relgion, where they’ll hear sermons that don’t mention the unpleasant bits of their religion.

Cue mass apostasy, through ignorance.

**
The thing about drastic change is that things can always dratstically change back, I suppose**

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve had it told to me at least through several sources that Pope Paul VI, by “relaxing” the rules of fasting and Friday abstinence, actually made an appeal to our higher levels of spirituality to do such penance or abide by traditions. Telling Catholics that something is no longer a mortal sin doesn’t automatically say that going forward, Catholics are free to do what they want to do without limits. That to me is a very important distinction and you can extend that to other practices, such as COTT only, wearing veils, learning Latin, etc. I don’t think it’s right to start bringing in legalities in these types of matters to start taunting those who want to preserve the integrity of their faith. It’s our spiritual life that should be the issue, not whether we “win” our arguments here.

 

[Elsport1]

JR…no one other than Jesus and our Blessed Mother is perfect. The saints were not perfect while on earth. Couldn’t one believe that someone lived a holy life and had many wonderful things to say/write but they had slip ups? If someone is declared a saint I’m supposed to believe they’re in heaven (do I have too? I think so but I’m not sure) but I don’t have to believe that every action/word/writing they did is absolutely correct, do I?

I really have no intention on leaving the church. I firmly believe that it is the one true faith. I am willing to be wrong and that the church is right. I just see things that don’t make sense to me.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

A bishop’s chair looks like a chair too. But it’s a cathedra and one mistakes it for a common chair. In my community the superior’s chair is on the side of the sanctuary. It’s called the “Abbots chair” no one confuses it with another chair.

An altar can be moveable and still be an altar. As I said, look at altars that the popes use when they clebrate mass in stadiums. Those are real altars. But they are moveable. If an altar had to be fixed, there would be no way that the Holy Father could celebrate a mass in a stadium or an open area. Do you disagree with this practice?

As the pictures show you, that’s only one style of architecture. You have to remember that many of our older churches were built when this was the common architecture. Go to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was built long before Vatican II. They used a Romanesque style. The altar is not against the wall. They tried to imitate the Vatican’s altar.

If we say that it’s not his choice, then we would have to say that the pope is violating the rubrics because he has been facing the people for over 40 years. Even Pope Benedict does not celebrate the Extraordinary Form in public. When the Extraodinary Form has been celebrated at St. Peter’s it has not been allowed on the main altar, only at one of the side chapels. The FSSP had a beautiful mass there not long ago. It was at a side chapel. They were not given permission to use the main altar.

We have to be very careful when we say that this is not the choice of the priest, when the law says that it is. The law decides whose choice it is. In fact, the law also says that if a priest is a religious, the statutes of his religious community and his major superior decide how he celebrates mass. This is in Summorum Pontificum. SP only applies to secular priests, not to religious who are accidently priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

1.- I was talking about tables at a Novus Ordo. Chairs don’t really factor into this discussion.

2.- What I dis-agree with is a Mass at a stadium. The atmosphere there would be way louder than your typical Novus Ordo. How would you even be able to pray with all that noise?

3.- I know that, I’m just saying altars don’t need to be sticking out when the celebrant can still incense them if they’re against a wall.

4.- Yeah, he’s been facing the people for over 40 years. That practice started at Vatican II. That should indicate that something doesn’t seem right there. I mean, ONLY 40+ years? Yet for 1,000+ years the priest faced the altar more. I believe something that was done and taught by the Church for that long is what I’d rather go by.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Let’s take John Paul II for starters. This may help. As you know, the inquiry into his life is now complete and closed. The many commissions that examined his life found not cause for concern in his writings, his actions or his personal life. We have to remember that you don’t have to be a great administrator to be a saint. But you have to be faithful to the Church and her traditions. The Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints agreed that his life was one of holiness and heroic Christian virtue. The Defender of the Faith and his team conceded that they could not find a single point in the man’s life that they could object to. Once they completed their report it was sent to a team of Cardinals.

The Cardinals reviewed all of the evidence presented for and against his canonization. They concluded that they could not find a single event, teaching or action on his part that was inconsistent with the faith of the Church, the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. They found that his private life was one of heroic virtues and holiness. They too closed the case and sent their report to Pope Benedict.

Pope Benedict reviews the material from both committees. This material is presented with all the arguments for and against. But what most people don’t know is that the person(s) who really decide if someone should be considered for canonization is the Devil’s Advocate who is now called the Defender of the Faith. The reason is obvious. It is the job of his team to protect the faith. If they find just one single point where the faith is compromised, they win their case. The process is not a democratic one where all the committee members vote. The committee against the cause is the one that votes and they must vote unanimously. His defenders do not vote, because they are biased in his favor.

Pope Benedict ordered the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints to write the decree. Then he signed it and made the proclamation that John Paul II had led a truly heroic and holy life. In Church talk this means that the Pope believe that his man is a saint. He has two choices from this point forward. He can canonize or he can wait for the miracles to be proven. By this time, there is not argument concerning the sanctity of Pope John Paul II. That’s resolved and closed. There is to be no further discussion on the matter, unless the pope reopens the case. No one else may call for such a thing.

Where are we now? You said that this man did so much harm to the Church or allowed harm to be done. But the research says that this is not the case. He’s a holy man who is most likely in heaven. My question is, if he gets beatified, which seems to be soon, will you still refuse to believe? If you refuse to believe in the decree that he is venerable, later that a miracle occurred through is intercession and later that he must be publicly venerated by all Catholics, then you are not in communion with the Holy Father. Even the SSPX accept that John Paul II is venerable and that he led a holy and heroic life of Christian virtue.

My point is that your issue runs very deep. You do not trust the Church. You trust your gut. That’s not a good place to be. It can be very confusing and tough to live with. I would strongly suggest that you read people like Francis of Assisi, Catherin of Siena, Ignatius of Loyola, and Bl. Mother Teresa. They all lived through tough times in the Church’s history. They encouraged and sought a holier way of life without ever doubting their Church. This may help you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Vatican wants to canonize so many people these days, I’m surprised they haven’t tried to canonize the people directly involved in the Vatican II reform. As for John Paul II, I have already said why I do not believe he is worthy of sainthood. Not to say he was a heretic or anything, but praying with people that worship false gods, something the Church would not tolerate before Vatican II, crosses the line. Before Vatican II such a practice was considered wrong. Now all of a sudden it’s ok? Something can’t be declared wrong by the Church since the very beginning and then just 40+ years ago be ok. That’s not how it works. As I have stated before, not all religions are on the same level. Catholicism tops all other religions and denominations because it’s the only one Christ started. And as much as I believe in miracles (all Catholics must believe in them) there is no proof what-so-ever that JPII performed those miracles. What about the story of the woman who prayed to him and then had a dream where JPII said NOT to pray to him? That says it all. None of the Cardinals are Traditional either, so why would they believe there was nothing wrong with him praying with those people?

Also, when did the SSPX ever make such a statement? I have never heard them say that. Perhaps you mis-understood, or perhaps they said he lived a holy life but was not worthy of canonization. If anybody today should be made a saint it is Archbishop LeFebvre. Had he not gone against Vatican II and all the TLM would not still exist today. I trust the Church, but the Traditional Church. Not all of the teachings of the Church today are Traditional. They just aren’t. I appreciate your kindness and patience with Traditionals JReducation, but I do dis-agree with your post about JPII.

 

[MarkThompson]

3.- I know that, I’m just saying altars don’t need to be sticking out when the celebrant can still incense them if they’re against a wall.

Just to check, do you have any sources (traditional or Traditional) discussing altars that they they should be up against a wall? Where are you getting that from?

 

[JReducation]

As for John Paul II, I have already said why I do not believe he is worthy of sainthood. Not to say he was a heretic or anything, but praying with people that worship false gods, something the Church would not tolerate before Vatican II, crosses the line. Before Vatican II such a practice was considered wrong. Now all of a sudden it’s ok? Something can’t be declared wrong by the Church since the very beginning and then just 40+ years ago be ok. That’s not how it works.

And as much as I believe in miracles (all Catholics must believe in them) there is no proof what-so-ever that JPII performed those miracles.

None of the Cardinals are Traditional either, so why would they believe there was nothing wrong with him praying with those people?

You are not disagreeing with my post,. I’m just reporting what happened and how John Paul II became Venerable John Paul II. It is Pope Benedict with whom you’re disagreeing. You will have moral cunundrum if he is beatified and canonized. These are infallible statements from the Chair of Peter. Catholics must assent when the Church says that someone is a saint. They don’t have to pray to that saint, but they cannot question that person’s holiness. At this point, the Holy Father has closed any and all discussion on the holiness of John Paul II. There is no room in the Church for anyone to question it, because the Church tradition does not allow it.

As for the miracles there are two situations that must be considered.

FIRST: It must be proven that the miracle ocurred through the intercession of the deceased. Now . . . you say that this cannot be proven. But you’re deviating from tradition. The Church says that it can be proven. The proof is that the pope believes it. If there is a miracle and the pope believes that it was through the intercession of John Paul II, there is the proof. Peter has spoken.

SECOND: The miracles are not necessary for canonization. A pope can canonize without the miracles, without the studies of a person’s life and without the consent of the faithful and the canonization is still an infallible decree that must be accepted.

There have been many such canonizations. In my own order there were three. Pope Gregory IX closed the investigation on the life of Francis of Assisi. He said that he did not need it, because he knew Francis personally. Therefore he beleived that Francis was a saint and that all the miracles that people were attributing to his intercession were true. The Cardinals opposed the decision. Pope Gregory traveled to Assisi, 20 months after Francis’ death and canonized him.

Pope Gregory canonized St. Anthony of Padua without an inquiry five months after his death.

Pope Nicholas canonnized St. Clare 18 months after her death. He argued that she was a part of his order (he was a Franciscan Brother), that he had known her personally and there was no doubt that she was a saint. So he canonized her.

St. Francis, St. Anthony and St. Clare were never investigated. They were never Venerable or Blessed. They were burried and canonized.

Francis prayed with Muslims. He made a treaty with the Muslims not to preach to them or to the Jews if the Muslims would allow the Franciscans to pass through Jordan and Egypt to get to the Holy Land and if they would allow the brothers to establish a permanent community there. He promised that the community would serve the needs of Christians, Muslims and Jews and that the Catholic Church would not try to convert them. The deal was struck.

Francis came back to Rome with the agreement. Pope Honorius had never given permission for such an agreement. Francis persuaded him to accept, so that the friars could go to the Holy Land and serve the Christians who wanted to travel there. Honorius agreed. To this day the Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land has been in existence and it answers directly to the popes. They are an autonomous group of Franciscans. They have existed since 1228 and supported by every Pope. In fact, a percentage of every Good Friday collection goes to the Franciscan Commisereate and has been going since the time of Pius X. Pius X approved of it, because he too was a Franciscan.

If I’m not mistaken, Paul VI waved one of the miracles for the canonization of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. The miracle wouldn’t come and so he decided that his conviction was enough. He wanted to do this before he died.

It’s not accurate to say that praying with people of other faiths was new. Francis had done it, Charles de Facould, who is also up for canonization, did it. Bl. John XXIII did it. And Bl. Mother Teresa did it. Charles de Facouls, John XXIII and Mother Teresa have all been beatified and had one miracle attributed to them. You can’t deny that they are Blessed or that these miracles happened through their intercession. That would be heresy. If the miracles happened through their intercession, then there is a seond sign of holiness. The first sign is always a person’s life. That’s the most important sign.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre cannot be canonized, because he was excommunicated by a pope. This does not mean that the man is not in heaven. It simply means that the Church cannot evelate someone for public veneration when that person has committed an act of disobedience against a pope. I know that people argue that there is a canon in his favor, because there is a canon that speaks to fear, etc. But Pope Benedict has said that the canon does not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. Once a pope says that a canon does not apply to you, there is nothing another pope can do to change that. That’s an infallible moral statement. Observe, the pope is not making a statement about the Archibishop’s soul. He’s only saying that the Archbishop died outside the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yessss. A nice distinction. When in truth the Traditional Roman Catholic Rite, the 1962 Missal, the Mass of the majority of Catholics, was effectively suppressed from 1970 - 2007, indults notwithstanding.

“Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite?” Ha, ha, I doubt 1 Roman Catholic in 1000 would have ever heard of those rites, never mind attended one.

I’m sure all the Eastern and Oriental Catholics as well as all the non-Roman rite Western Catholics will be thrilled to know you think they don’t matter at all.

Now, did I say that, or even imply that?

Nothing comes from nothing. The toothing for modernism, change, a ‘breath of fresh air’, began with the printing of the first Gutenburg bible. Then, a man could become his own Pope.

With the advent of public libraries, any man could become a biblical scholar.

With paperback books, any man could become a liturgical scholar.

The result: a ‘rationalisation’ of a mystical rite. You don’t really need all those ‘externalities’.

With the internet, we’re finding just how shady the development on the New Mass was and what the post-Vat. II mentality has wrought in parishes worldwide.

Good news: Thanks to the internet and blogs, people are seeing what a Mass could be. That their own parishes’ production is not the norm.

This reads to me as if you blame all the problems today on the availability of books and learning.

Knowledge is not the enemy!

 

[JMJ_coder]

1.- I was talking about tables at a Novus Ordo. Chairs don’t really factor into this discussion.

Why not? You’re trying to artificially create distinctions in what you consider a proper altar and a table, wouldn’t the same apply to common chairs and chairs befitting the Liturgy?

2.- What I dis-agree with is a Mass at a stadium. The atmosphere there would be way louder than your typical Novus Ordo. How would you even be able to pray with all that noise?

Where do you get that from? When I watched the Mass at Yankee Stadium with Pope Benedict XVI, it didn’t seem rowdy in the least.

3.- I know that, I’m just saying altars don’t need to be sticking out when the celebrant can still incense them if they’re against a wall.

But, to incense “around” the altar implies the need to walk on all sides.

4.- Yeah, he’s been facing the people for over 40 years. That practice started at Vatican II. That should indicate that something doesn’t seem right there. I mean, ONLY 40+ years? Yet for 1,000+ years the priest faced the altar more. I believe something that was done and taught by the Church for that long is what I’d rather go by.

The Priest still faces the altar. And as has been pointed out earlier, “ad orientum” can mean toward the Cross. Indeed, in my parish which was built in 1908, the building is laid out north-south, so even when before the Vatican II, when the Priest said Mass, he was not facing East, but to the Cross.

 

[Layman]

I’m sure all the Eastern and Oriental Catholics as well as all the non-Roman rite Western Catholics will be thrilled to know you think they don’t matter at all.

I did not say that. I stated a fact, that the great majority of Roman Catholics are not aware of these rites. Also, the Roman Catholic rite is the one under discussion.

This reads to me as if you blame all the problems today on the availability of books and learning.

Knowledge is not the enemy!

Picking-and-mixing rubrics from antiquity or other rites, based on current fashionable ideas, is, I think.

A holy person can get to heaven without book knowledge. A scholar cannot get to heaven without holiness, which is in the gift of God. I get a sense that a lot of clerics and laypeople are enchanted with the written history of the Christian rites without meditating, sufficiently, on their purpose and the Persons to which they are directed.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I did not say that. I stated a fact, that the great majority of Roman Catholics are not aware of these rites. Also, the Roman Catholic rite is the one under discussion.

When the argument being presented is one like ‘altars must be against the wall’ and presented as if that were an eternal truth, one way to show the error in such a thought is to point out how it is not like that in other rites or even in other uses in the same rite.

Picking-and-mixing rubrics from antiquity or other rites, based on current fashionable ideas, is, I think.

A holy person can get to heaven without book knowledge. A scholar cannot get to heaven without holiness, which is in the gift of God. I get a sense that a lot of clerics and laypeople are enchanted with the history of the Christian rites without meditating, sufficiently, on their purpose and the Persons to which they are directed.

And an ignorant man can be just as arrogant and prideful as a learned man. Similarly, a learned man can be as holy as an ignorant man. Saint Isidore of Seville was a very learned man, and yet he was a very holy man.

One of the aims (and there were many) of the liturgical reforms (which began over 100 years ago), was to simplify what in certain parts of the Liturgy had become overly complicated and convoluted. Another of the aims was a somewhat return to the Liturgy of earlier Christian times. There were of course other aims of varying importance.

 

[Layman]

When the argument being presented is one like ‘altars must be against the wall’ and presented as if that were an eternal truth, one way to show the error in such a thought is to point out how it is not like that in other rites or even in other uses in the same rite.

I did not make that argument.

And an ignorant man can be just as arrogant and prideful as a learned man. Similarly, a learned man can be as holy as an ignorant man. Saint Isidore of Seville was a very learned man, and yet he was a very holy man.

You said that I thought that ‘knowledge was the enemy’. I said that knowledge does not imply holiness. I did not say that ignorance implied holiness. Or that knowledge could not imply holiness.

One of the aims (and there were many) of the liturgical reforms (which began over 100 years ago), was to simplify what in certain parts of the Liturgy had become overly complicated and convoluted. Another of the aims was a somewhat return to the Liturgy of earlier Christian times. There were of course other aims of varying importance.

Well, they’re certainly very simple now! I say that if you believe God is present at Mass then you should muster all the pomp and pageantry you can.

**The ‘return to the liturgy of earlier Christian times’ implies a) that it was somehow better back then, b) that we know exactly what they did, and why and c) that the liturgy that developed from the death of the last Apostle onwards, to the present day, was somehow deficient, so it needed severe editing in the 1960’s **

Many people seem nowadays to be very knowledgeable about the history of the rubrics of the Roman Catholic rite and other rites. Their knowledge does not mean that their changing the Roman Catholic rite, by adding bits and pieces and deleting or editing others, is going to improve it i.e. make it a better vehicle for bringing men nearer to the Divine.

**
I submit that grave mistakes have been made and that a return to the TLM is a simple and beautiful way of circumventing them.**

 

[Oneofthewomen]

**
I submit that grave mistakes have been made and that a return to the TLM is a simple and beautiful way of circumventing them.**

And you are intitled to that opinion.

My question is, what about all of the people who where born after 1969 and only know the OF as it is now, what do we tell them?

 ***"Sorry that Mass you have celebrated and loved your whole life is not the 
         'true Mass', so we are going back to 1962,  deal with it!"***:confused:

Now, I do realize that many people feel that is exactly what happend when the novus ordo came out, and that it left many people angry and resentful, but didn’t we learn something then, and shouldn’t we look back at what happened and not make the same mistakes now?