TLM At the National Shrine

[JReducation]

As a poster said in another thread, just because a Pope does something does not automatically mean it’s right. Paul VI and JPII were not up-holding Tradition. So anyone who says Archbishop LeFebvre broke his vows of obedience is wrong because he promised to always obey the Pope as long as he up-held Tradition. They did not do that. And Archbishop LeFebvre was more concerned about obeying God than the Pope. People say that if you dis-obey the Pope you dis-obey God. But God knows better than anyone, even the Pope. The Pope may be the shepard but he still has a master. And for those who say it’s impossible for God not to aprrove of anything the Pope does because God chose the Pope, let us not forget the Pope that was thrown into the tiber river. No human is perfect, not even the Pope. One last thing I’d like to point out is that your conscience is really the voice of God. You can choose to listen to it or ignore it. Archbishop LeFebvre chose to listen to it and saved the Traditional Latin Mass. God chose him to preserve Tradition.

Whether the prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II was right or wrong, he reamins the pope. He was disobeyed on a canonical point. He excommunicated the Archbishop. There was never a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the pope. That disaqualifies him for canonization. The state of his soul is not in question here. That’s up to God. The point that is on the table is whether or not he meets the criteria for canonization. He does not.

And again, when did the SSPX say John Paul II should be made a saint?

The Society has always said that they stand by the Holy Father and recognize his authority and his Apostolic Succesion. As the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter the pope has a right to canonize John Paul II. If the Society denies that he has this right or states that the pope is making a mistake on a matter that is infallible, then they are not in communion with the Successor of Peter. When you are in communion with Peter, you must accept his infallible statements.

Thus far we have Peter saying that John Paul led a holly and heroic life of Chistian virtue. We have Peter saying that he can be venerated by the faithful. We have Peter saying that there is nothing else to say about the life of John Paul II. You’re either with Peter or against Peter. This is one of those areas that is not optional. The faithful do not have the option to disregard or refuse to believe that John Paul II led a heroic life of virtue and should be venerated. You don’t have to pray to him. But you may not speak against him. To do so is to say the opposite of what the pope is saying.

The Society says that it is not in conflict with the authority of Peter. The leadership of the Society has not raised any objections to the beatification of John Paul II, nor have they tried to dissuade the Vatican from studying the alleged miracles. Nor have the leaders of the SSPX said that they do not acknowledge the pope’s authority to bind the Church to venerate John Paul II. Nor has the Society said that John Paul’s life was not heroic and holy. You’re the first person whom I have heard suggest that the Society has a position on this. I doubt that the position is that of the leadership.

Do you see what I’m talking about?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Whether the prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II was right or wrong, he reamins the pope. He was disobeyed on a canonical point. He excommunicated the Archbishop. There was never a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the pope. That disaqualifies him for canonization. The state of his soul is not in question here. That’s up to God. The point that is on the table is whether or not he meets the criteria for canonization. He does not.

The Society has always said that they stand by the Holy Father and recognize his authority and his Apostolic Succesion. As the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter the pope has a right to canonize John Paul II. If the Society denies that he has this right or states that the pope is making a mistake on a matter that is infallible, then they are not in communion with the Successor of Peter. When you are in communion with Peter, you must accept his infallible statements.

Thus far we have Peter saying that John Paul led a holly and heroic life of Chistian virtue. We have Peter saying that he can be venerated by the faithful. We have Peter saying that there is nothing else to say about the life of John Paul II. You’re either with Peter or against Peter. This is one of those areas that is not optional. The faithful do not have the option to disregard or refuse to believe that John Paul II led a heroic life of virtue and should be venerated. You don’t have to pray to him. But you may not speak against him. To do so is to say the opposite of what the pope is saying.

The Society says that it is not in conflict with the authority of Peter. The leadership of the Society has not raised any objections to the beatification of John Paul II, nor have they tried to dissuade the Vatican from studying the alleged miracles. Nor have the leaders of the SSPX said that they do not acknowledge the pope’s authority to bind the Church to venerate John Paul II. Nor has the Society said that John Paul’s life was not heroic and holy. You’re the first person whom I have heard suggest that the Society has a position on this. I doubt that the position is that of the leadership.

Do you see what I’m talking about?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Peter and Benedict XVI are two different Popes. Just because you’re Pope does not make you Peter. It makes a Pope his successor but not Peter himself. I am with Peter, but dis-agreeing that JPII should be made a saint does not make me against him in any way what-so-ever.

It sounds to me like the SSPX never said JPII should be made a saint. Exactly why I’m still wondering why you said they did. Maybe I read your post wrong, but that’s what it appeared like to me. By the way, the criteria for becoming a saint is living a holy and Traditional life and worshiping and praising God the way He prefers to be. It seems to me that Archbishop LeFebvre meets the criteria pretty well. He did, after all, save the Traditional Latin Mass.

 

[pro_multis]

Well, it was pretty good. However, the entrance of the Mass was extremely shaky. I saw one or two priests talking to people on their way to the altar, that wasn’t good either. It was nice, but would have been much better if the entrance were more reverent.

They were probably N.O. priests who saw some of their parishoners and just reacted politely. I would guess they felt a little unsure of what to do. This would never happen at a traditional trad mass. Most priests approach the foot altar in almost a trance like state, never making eye contact with the people in the pews. It’s just a different state of mind.

 

[JReducation]

Peter and Benedict XVI are two different Popes. Just because you’re Pope does not make you Peter. It makes a Pope his successor but not Peter himself. I am with Peter, but dis-agreeing that JPII should be made a saint does not make me against him in any way what-so-ever.

It sounds to me like the SSPX never said JPII should be made a saint. Exactly why I’m still wondering why you said they did. Maybe I read your post wrong, but that’s what it appeared like to me. By the way, the criteria for becoming a saint is living a holy and Traditional life and worshiping and praising God the way He prefers to be. It seems to me that Archbishop LeFebvre meets the criteria pretty well. He did, after all, save the Traditional Latin Mass.

Look, let’s not deceive ouselves here. The criteria for canonization is decided by the popes. Archbishop Lefebvre does not meet the criteria. Once you disobey on a canonical point and your excommunicated, you cannot be canonized, unless you have shown remorse and atoned for your disobedience. Since this did not happen, the does not meet the pope’s criteria. The pope’s criteria is infallible.

As far as Peter is concerned, it has always been the tradition of the Church that the man who sits on the Chair of Peter is Peter. Historically, he is the successor of Peter, theologically he is Peter. Peter’s chair is not vacant. Pope Benedict occupies it. Therefore, he decides whom he wishes to canonize, not us. The faithful have rarely had a say in the matter. There is only one condition under which the faithful’s voice counts, when there is a universal call for canonization. This is not the case with the Archbishop. If there is not universal call for canonization, then it’s up to Peter.

The tradition is not in the criteria and has never been. The criteria is that the person has lived a holy and heoric life, has fulfilled the duties of his state in life with holiness and fidelity to the Church, he has atoned for sins, he has not taught heresy or supported heresy. The three bodies that studied John Paul’s life were unable to come up with a single reason why he should not be canonized. That’s why he is declared Venerable. What happens now?

There are alleged miracles. They remain alleged until they are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they happend through the intercession of John Paul II. Who decides when the proof is sufficient? The reigning pope. The man’s life is no longer in question. You may as well drop it, because the Church is not going to listen. She does not want to return to the subject of his life. The man’s life is not up for further study or scrutinity. The documents have been sealed and the decree has been signs. He is Venerable and must be addressed as such.

What are the other options now? The pope can dispense with the miracles and canonize him. The miracles are not necessary, neither is the investigation. But that has already been done. Pope Benedict already dispensed with the waiting period. Canon law says that you have to wait five years after the person’s death to begin the study of his life. Pope Benedict said that the law did not apply to Pope John Paul II and ordered the investigation to begin the year after his death. He also ordered that it be completed by the fifth year after his death. The three commissions have reveiwed thousands of pages of testimonies, Pope John Paul’s writings, interviewed eye-witnesses and found nothing lacking.

The committee is not made up of Cardinals, as you inferred in an earlier post. The Cardinals do not enter the picture until the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is finished. The study is like a trial. The Postulator of the Cause presents his case for canonization. He and his team must convince the Defender of the Faith and his team. They both come to the table with theologians, lay people, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, menn of science and any other witness that they can muster to support their case for or against. If the committee whose job it is to defend the truth fails, the Postulator wins the case.

Then the Cardinals enter the picture. The result is sent to a committee of Cardinals who are theologians and canon lawyers. They tear the report apart looking for objectionable points. If they fail to find at least one objectionable point, they have a moral duty to recommend that the canonization process proceed.

Then the pope enters the picture. He and his staff go through the findings looking for weaknesses. If the pope feels that there is no weakness in the argument, he writes back to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and orders it to write the decree of Venerable. The decree is written along with a papal bull that Pope Benedict must sign. He signs the decreee declaring that Pope John Paul lived a holy and heroic life of vitue. He signs a Papal Bull closing the case. No one may reopen it, except him.

In the meantime three committees of Catholic and non-Catholic scientists study the alleged miracles. They must unanimously agree that there is a miracle. It is the pope who decides that the miracle is the result of the intervention of the candidate for beatification.

This is where things are right now. But the pope can accelerate the process by ignoring the absence of miracles and canonize. He can skip beatification. In either case, the pope’s position on all three levels: venerable, blessed and saint is without error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

They were probably N.O. priests who saw some of their parishoners and just reacted politely. I would guess they felt a little unsure of what to do. This would never happen at a traditional trad mass. Most priests approach the foot altar in almost a trance like state, never making eye contact with the people in the pews. It’s just a different state of mind.

It’s also a very different enviornment. In a parish, even in the Ordinary Form, the priest and deacons don’t greet people as they process in. They see these folks every Sunday and some every day at daily mass.

In this kind of enviornment you may be seeing people you have not seen for a long time and you may not see again, because of the size of the crowd.

We have to learn to cut people some slack and not make comparisons. That’s uncharitable. I have been to the EF in a parish where the priest and I have not seen each other for over a year and when he saw me he winked as a form of greeting. I’m sure that he doesn’t wink at every person in the congregation. That would be silly. The same priest offered me communion in the hand, out of respect for my major superior who was standing right next to me. There is a sense of respect and kindness that people show each other whether it’s during the EF or the OF. Kindness does not displease God.

I was not expecting communion in the hand at the EF. I was stunned when he asked me, “Do you want it in the hand?” I politely nodded no and put out my tongue, but I did not kneel, because Franciscans never kneel for communion. We genuflect when the priest holds up the host and we stand. We do that even when the Holy Father celebrates mass for us at the Motherhouse in Assisi, where he goes several times a year. We receive on the tongue, but standing. It’s been our custom since 1209. We’re not bound to kneeling. We recognize that communion on the hand is an indult. Communion standing is our right established by our founder and approved by the Church.

My point is that either EF or OF, priests and deacons are going to be polite and kind. They are going to be respectful of the people present. This is not a violation of the rubrics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Why do you mock the charism that has carried the Trappists, Carthusians and Franciscans so far?

Heh heh, because I’m not one. And neither are most laypeople.

And because to impose austerity on laypeople, many of whose lives are austere, but not by choice, is wrong; they come to Mass to get a glimpse of Heaven. Especially the kind of ‘austerity’ that involves building minimalist ‘space-ship’ churches, wrecking existings ones and expurgating an existing Mass.

In Ireland, we know about the Parish Priest who likes to ‘leave his mark’ on his church, to the groans of the local people. I think an entire hierarchy were bushwhacked into doing the same to our Mass in the 60’s.

 

[JReducation]

Heh heh, because I’m not one. And neither are most laypeople.

And because to impose austerity on laypeople, many of whose lives are austere, but not by choice, is wrong; they come to Mass to get a glimpse of Heaven. Especially the kind of ‘austerity’ that involves building minimalist ‘space-ship’ churches, wrecking existings ones and expurgating an existing Mass.

In Ireland, we know about the Parish Priest who likes to ‘leave his mark’ on his church, to the groans of the local people. I think an entire hierarchy were bushwhacked into doing the same to our Mass in the 60’s.

The bold is mine. It is not necessarily wrong. For example, when certain religious orders agree to take on a parish in a diocese the major superior sits down with the bishop and sets the parameters. One of the parameters that he sets is that the laity in the parish must adopt the spirit of the order taking over the parish.

For example, Franciscans, Carmelites, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Benedictines have a policy, they will not serve in any parish where the laity does not adopt to their way of celebrating mass, celebrating the Liturgy of the Hours, and their way of running a parish. The bishops know this in advance. They agree in the name of the laity to cooperate with the religious order. The religious order has the right to close the parish with 24 hours notice, if they feel that their rights have been abused by the laity. The religious life always takes precesence over the parish life.

We have a parish that depends on Benedictines to staff it. The agreement between the Abbot and the bishop was that the monks would not live in the parish. They would work in the parish from 9-3. They leave at 3:00 because they have to pray the Liturgy of the Hours, eat together, recreate together and study together. They go to bed very early. Every activity in the parish is run by lay ministers. The monks are not all priests. They send an ordained monk to celebrate morning mass and to hear confessions during the scheduled time. They celebrate the mass with the same austerity that they do in the Abbey. Their form of the mass is a blend between the Tridentine and their own customs. The use different prayers from the rest of the Church, because they do not use the Roman Missal. They use the Benedictine missal and lectionary. The prayers are different and the readings are different, unless there are holy days that coincide.

My community was asked to take on a parish and our major superior met with the bishop. The bishop agreed that the parish would follow the Franciscan tradition. The agreement included severn friars, but only one is ordained. He cannot be the pastor, because he is not the superior. The superior is a lay brother. The superior is the parish adminstrator. The priest is the assistant administrator. The ordained friar is allowed to celebrate the OF in Latin if he wishes. But he may not celebrate the EF, because the house chapter forbade it. On special occasions they invite one of the FSSP to celebrate the EF, just as you see on EWTN. The mass is very solemn, but it’s the OF.

The people do not kneel for communion, but they follow the same practice as the friars do. They genuflect when they approach and then stand. No one tells them that they may not kneel, if they want to. They have simply followed the Franciscan custom.

The laity have all been instructed to call everyone Brother, including the priest, but they must call the superior Father. These are forms of austerity. But the laity is very happy with their friars.

The Church is very simple. There is a tabernacle on the center of the sanctuary, because that’s where St. Francis wanted it. It used to be on the side. But it was moved when the friars got there. However, the statues were put in the back, because the only statues that we have up front are the Blessed Mother on one side and St. Francis on the other side. St. Joseph had to move to the back and has a very nice little corner with candles and flowers for him. On the other back corner is a nice statue of St. Clare, with candles and flowers for her.

It’s an austere use of space and a very noble tradition, as is the tradition of the Benedictines, Carmelties, Dominicans, Carthusians, Trappists and the other mendicant and monastic orders.

One reason that many orders aer no longer willing to take on parishes is because in some places people demand that the orders give up their customs to accommodate to their needs and desires. This has cause problems. The idea is not to divide a parish, but to unite. When the customs of the religious orders are a source of division, they simply pull out and parishes are closed, because there are not enough secular priests to take them. That’s why the religious were asked to help in the first place. But it is not the desire of the religious to be a source of division in a parish.

I don’t see how it is so cruel or wrong to bring in these different spiritualities of the different religious families. Most parishes don’t have a problem. People who have Salesians often find themselves very engaged in Salesian spirituality. Other who have Carmelites engage in Carmeltie spirituality and Franciscan spirituality is by far the most known of the religious traditions and most loved by many people, despite it’s austerity and simplicity. We change prayer of the mass acccording to our own missal and our lectionary, whenever we have a Francis feast, just like the Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans and others do.

With the shortage of secular priests, if the parishioners get too demanding, they will find themselves merging with other parishes, because religious will not be able to help. People can get a lot of spiritual benefit from different schools of spirituality, if they open their minds to it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Expurgating the TLM is false austerity. Are we in a hurry to get the Mass over or are people now incapable of grasping more ornate language? It may be proper for monastics not to have beautiful, brocaded vestments, for example, but we laypeople need every help we can get to raise our minds to the Divine.

It’s perverse when, in a secular parish, a priest decides to mothball old vestments or gut an old church.

It’s like a fusspot maiden aunt saying to a kid “Oh, you don’t need those old toys any more” and binning them. Cue trauma.

I think a generation of clerics, overcome with the spirit of revolution, decided to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Now a subsequent generation of laypeople have no idea what the Mass of their forefathers was like. So CITH or dancing can seem acceptable, after a bit of initial disquiet.

 

[ProVobis]

Expurgating the TLM is false austerity. Are we in a hurry to get the Mass over or are people now incapable of grasping more ornate language? It may be proper for monastics not to have beautiful, brocaded vestments, for example, but we laypeople need every help we can get to raise our minds to the Divine.

Makes sense to me.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Expurgating the TLM is false austerity. Are we in a hurry to get the Mass over or are people now incapable of grasping more ornate language? It may be proper for monastics not to have beautiful, brocaded vestments, for example, but we laypeople need every help we can get to raise our minds to the Divine.

The OF and the EF take approx. the same amount of time. I have also heard horror stories of before the Second Vatican Council of so-called “speed Masses” where the Priest would say Mass in 15 minutes or less.

The average for both forms on Sunday is approx. 1 hour. I’ve been to OF Masses that lasted 2-3 hours – most of the Pope’s Masses take at least 2 hours. Still, this is a drop in the bucket compared to the Eastern and Oriental Liturgies. The Byzantine Liturgy averages between 1-1/2 to 2 hours and during special days this increases. In the Coptic Church, during Holy Week plan to be in Liturgy every day at least 12 hours up to 18 hours.

Also, what ornate language is to be grasped when the Mass is in Latin (and it doesn’t matter which usage)? For even if we understand what is going on and where we are in the Liturgy, very few of us are so fluent in Latin that we can appreciate the fine subtleties of the Latin text. So grasping ornate language really only applies when the Liturgy is in the vernacular, which was admittedly rare in the EF and much more common in the OF. As a side note, the English translations are much improved and will make its public debut looks like the end of next year.

 

[Layman]

The speed issue is a red-herring. It’s always trotted out as a deficiency of the old rite, when it was merely a deficiency (but not an abuse) in the way it was said. By some priests. ‘Horror’ stories? Horror? Come on.

I said ‘speed up’ because I can’t see any reason to cut whole paragraphs from the old rite.

The language might seem ornate to 60’s kids if read from an old missal. Kinda depressing to think the RC church might have invented dumbing-down years before it caught on elsewhere.

Your argument pre-supposes that the laity must understand every word of what’s being said. If the Mass is a sacrifice offered on their behalf, I submit that that is not so.

Y’can’t really de-sacralise, de-clericalise, ‘de-hierarchialise’ and ‘populise’ a mystic rite and then expect people to experience religious awe at it. Coupled with bad/liberal/no religious teaching, you have a generation who are Catholic in name only. ‘Jesus loves you’ + easy going People’s Mass = A lost generation.

 

[ProVobis]

are people now incapable of grasping more ornate language?

Much of the appeal of an Italian opera is the fact that it is in Italian. And somehow people who attend understand the Italian opera better as it makes a more meaningful and more lasting imprint on the mind, whereas if people hear a vernacular interpretation, they will just enjoy for the moment and then forget. Language is only an instrument of communication (and a small one at that) but it is not the only one. My three cats don’t speak English; yet they communicate better amongst themselves than listen to me. How is that?

 

[Chatter163]

The OF and the EF take approx. the same amount of time. I have also heard horror stories of before the Second Vatican Council of so-called “speed Masses” where the Priest would say Mass in 15 minutes or less.

The average for both forms on Sunday is approx. 1 hour. I’ve been to OF Masses that lasted 2-3 hours – most of the Pope’s Masses take at least 2 hours.

Theoretically that is true and in my experience it is true for spoken Masses. However, because of the incensations, chant, people kneeling for communion, no EMHCs, and sung Credo and readings (often then repeated in the vernacular), in my experience a Sung EF Mass tends to take much longer than its OF counterpart. I rarely see typical Sunday OF Masses even reaching an hour, except on feasts, whereas Sung EF Masses tend to run from 1:10–1:30, depending on the length of the sermon. Sometimnes this is also a function of the way that typical parish Mass schedules work, meaning that the OF Masses are hurried along to clear everyone out for the next Mass, with the EF Mass as the last one of the morning or day.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Look, let’s not deceive ouselves here. The criteria for canonization is decided by the popes. Archbishop Lefebvre does not meet the criteria. Once you disobey on a canonical point and your excommunicated, you cannot be canonized, unless you have shown remorse and atoned for your disobedience. Since this did not happen, the does not meet the pope’s criteria. The pope’s criteria is infallible.

As far as Peter is concerned, it has always been the tradition of the Church that the man who sits on the Chair of Peter is Peter. Historically, he is the successor of Peter, theologically he is Peter. Peter’s chair is not vacant. Pope Benedict occupies it. Therefore, he decides whom he wishes to canonize, not us. The faithful have rarely had a say in the matter. There is only one condition under which the faithful’s voice counts, when there is a universal call for canonization. This is not the case with the Archbishop. If there is not universal call for canonization, then it’s up to Peter.

The tradition is not in the criteria and has never been. The criteria is that the person has lived a holy and heoric life, has fulfilled the duties of his state in life with holiness and fidelity to the Church, he has atoned for sins, he has not taught heresy or supported heresy. The three bodies that studied John Paul’s life were unable to come up with a single reason why he should not be canonized. That’s why he is declared Venerable. What happens now?

There are alleged miracles. They remain alleged until they are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they happend through the intercession of John Paul II. Who decides when the proof is sufficient? The reigning pope. The man’s life is no longer in question. You may as well drop it, because the Church is not going to listen. She does not want to return to the subject of his life. The man’s life is not up for further study or scrutinity. The documents have been sealed and the decree has been signs. He is Venerable and must be addressed as such.

What are the other options now? The pope can dispense with the miracles and canonize him. The miracles are not necessary, neither is the investigation. But that has already been done. Pope Benedict already dispensed with the waiting period. Canon law says that you have to wait five years after the person’s death to begin the study of his life. Pope Benedict said that the law did not apply to Pope John Paul II and ordered the investigation to begin the year after his death. He also ordered that it be completed by the fifth year after his death. The three commissions have reveiwed thousands of pages of testimonies, Pope John Paul’s writings, interviewed eye-witnesses and found nothing lacking.

The committee is not made up of Cardinals, as you inferred in an earlier post. The Cardinals do not enter the picture until the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is finished. The study is like a trial. The Postulator of the Cause presents his case for canonization. He and his team must convince the Defender of the Faith and his team. They both come to the table with theologians, lay people, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, menn of science and any other witness that they can muster to support their case for or against. If the committee whose job it is to defend the truth fails, the Postulator wins the case.

In the meantime three committees of Catholic and non-Catholic scientists study the alleged miracles. They must unanimously agree that there is a miracle. It is the pope who decides that the miracle is the result of the intervention of the candidate for beatification.

This is where things are right now. But the pope can accelerate the process by ignoring the absence of miracles and canonize. He can skip beatification. In either case, the pope’s position on all three levels: venerable, blessed and saint is without error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t know about Jews and Protestants being used as witnesses.That does not seem right to me. Anyway, just a few more point I’d like to make before we end this discussion and get back to the original topic of the thread.

1.- I appreciate how kind you have been to the Traditional Catholics here even when they dis-agree with you. I would like to thank you for that.

2.- St. Athanasius may not have been ex-communicated by the Pope but he was still ex-communicated and was found a saint after the crisis he lived through was over. I believe Archbishop LeFebvre will be found a saint after this crisis is over. He met every criteria. We must remember that the Cardinals did not treat him very kindly, and even Paul VI and John Paul II were not too kind to him (JPII was kind to him at first). Yet LeFebvre never treated any of them the same way. He still had respect for the Pope, he was not a sedevacanist. The point I keep trying to make is that had he obeyed the commands of Paul VI and/or John Paul II the TLM would not still exist today. Don’t you think saving a Mass as old and rich as the TLM meets the criteria for sainthood? Not to mention no matter how bad he was treated he was always as kind as he could be.

3.- JPII prayed with people who worshiped false gods and un-fairly excommunicated Archbishop LeFebvre. In my opinion, I just don’t think there is proof out there that he is worthy of canonization.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

They were probably N.O. priests who saw some of their parishoners and just reacted politely. I would guess they felt a little unsure of what to do. This would never happen at a traditional trad mass. Most priests approach the foot altar in almost a trance like state, never making eye contact with the people in the pews. It’s just a different state of mind.

Getting back to the orginial topic of this thread, I agree with you. Good post.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know about Jews and Protestants being used as witnesses.That does not seem right to me. Anyway, just a few more point I’d like to make before we end this discussion and get back to the original topic of the thread.

1.- I appreciate how kind you have been to the Traditional Catholics here even when they dis-agree with you. I would like to thank you for that.

2.- St. Athanasius may not have been ex-communicated by the Pope but he was still ex-communicated and was found a saint after the crisis he lived through was over. I believe Archbishop LeFebvre will be found a saint after this crisis is over. He met every criteria. We must remember that the Cardinals did not treat him very kindly, and even Paul VI and John Paul II were not too kind to him (JPII was kind to him at first). Yet LeFebvre never treated any of them the same way. He still had respect for the Pope, he was not a sedevacanist. The point I keep trying to make is that had he obeyed the commands of Paul VI and/or John Paul II the TLM would not still exist today. Don’t you think saving a Mass as old and rich as the TLM meets the criteria for sainthood? Not to mention no matter how bad he was treated he was always as kind as he could be.

3.- JPII prayed with people who worshiped false gods and un-fairly excommunicated Archbishop LeFebvre. In my opinion, I just don’t think there is proof out there that he is worthy of canonization.

I would never dare to judge a person’s soul or intentions, especially those of a person who is superior to me in rank as was Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP). But we cannot change the rules. The rules for canonization require that there be no conflict between the candidate and the papacy, as this is considered to be an undesireable example for the laity. The reason for canonization is not for the benefit of the deceased. If the deceased is in heaven a decree of canonization isn’t going to get him a better seat. He’ll simply be venerated with all of the unknown saints on All Saints Day.

A canonization is for the benefit of the living. The saints are identified for us as examples of fidelity to the Church, obedience to the papacy, examples of extraordinary virtue and extraordinary acts of holiness. Unfortunately, the good Archbishop has one very important point against him, the disobedience to the pope. Objectively, that is a grave sin. We can only speak objectively here. He died before the excommunication was lifted. Therefore, he died outside the physical Church. That’s another issue against his canonization.

As far as John Paul II praying with non believers, that is not a violation of dogma or morals. It was never a dogma or a moral law. It was discipline that the Church had implemented to protect the faithful from converting to heresy. Popes are not bound by disciplines or by canon law. They are only bound by dogma and morals. This rule did not apply to John Paul II. Secondly, he never converted to a heretical faith, nor did he pray to false gods. And there is a precedent of other saints who have done the same thing and have been beaitified and canonized. The rule about praying with people of other faiths was a canon, not a moral law. I’m not even sure when that canon was implemented. But the pope is not bound by canon law. He is always above the law, because he is the Law Giver.

On another note, yes there are alwasy non Catholics on the committees for canonization from start to finish. They must include Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists and Orthodox. The idea is to find a fault, if there is one. There are also many academic sciences represented. The flow of traffic through these hearings is like a trial. People are questioned and cross examined. Documents are read and reread. The are only two people who may not be interrogated: the confessor and the spiritual director. Even the pope can be interrogated. It would not suprise me if Pope Benedict had to submit a written deposition since they worked so closely for many years.

Finally, I do not attack Traditionalist Catholics or any other Catholic. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a Catholic and so is the next guy. Our Holy Father Francis always said that we need not agree, but we must always be brothers to the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marie5890]

I would never dare to judge a person’s soul or intentions, especially those of a person who is superior to me in rank as was Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP). But we cannot change the rules. The rules for canonization require that there be no conflict between the candidate and the papacy, as this is considered to be an undesireable example for the laity. The reason for canonization is not for the benefit of the deceased. If the deceased is in heaven a decree of canonization isn’t going to get him a better seat. He’ll simply be venerated with all of the unknown saints on All Saints Day.

A canonization is for the benefit of the living. The saints are identified for us as examples of fidelity to the Church, obedience to the papacy, examples of extraordinary virtue and extraordinary acts of holiness. Unfortunately, the good Archbishop has one very important point against him, the disobedience to the pope. Objectively, that is a grave sin. We can only speak objectively here. He died before the excommunication was lifted. Therefore, he died outside the physical Church. That’s another issue against his canonization.

As far as John Paul II praying with non believers, that is not a violation of dogma or morals. It was never a dogma or a moral law. It was discipline that the Church had implemented to protect the faithful from converting to heresy. Popes are not bound by disciplines or by canon law. They are only bound by dogma and morals. This rule did not apply to John Paul II. Secondly, he never converted to a heretical faith, nor did he pray to false gods. And there is a precedent of other saints who have done the same thing and have been beaitified and canonized. The rule about praying with people of other faiths was a canon, not a moral law. I’m not even sure when that canon was implemented. But the pope is not bound by canon law. He is always above the law, because he is the Law Giver.

On another note, yes there are alwasy non Catholics on the committees for canonization from start to finish. They must include Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists and Orthodox. The idea is to find a fault, if there is one. There are also many academic sciences represented. The flow of traffic through these hearings is like a trial. People are questioned and cross examined. Documents are read and reread. The are only two people who may not be interrogated: the confessor and the spiritual director. Even the pope can be interrogated. It would not suprise me if Pope Benedict had to submit a written deposition since they worked so closely for many years.

Finally, I do not attack Traditionalist Catholics or any other Catholic. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a Catholic and so is the next guy. Our Holy Father Francis always said that we need not agree, but we must always be brothers to the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Your explanation of the process of canonization has been very enlightening and clarified many of my own questions. I am a supporter for the cause for Abp Fulton Sheen and I feel better educated now about what the whole process is and is not about.

Thank you.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The speed issue is a red-herring. It’s always trotted out as a deficiency of the old rite, when it was merely a deficiency (but not an abuse) in the way it was said. By some priests. ‘Horror’ stories? Horror? Come on.

Why in the EF of the Mass it something a ‘deficiency in the way it was said’, but in the OF of the Mass it’s being shown as a deficiency in the rite itself. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

I said ‘speed up’ because I can’t see any reason to cut whole paragraphs from the old rite.

Did Pope Saint Pius V have any reason when he cut text and rituals from the Liturgy prior to the Council of Trent?

Maybe they wanted room for the additional new readings from Scripture.

The language might seem ornate to 60’s kids if read from an old missal. Kinda depressing to think the RC church might have invented dumbing-down years before it caught on elsewhere.

The Church maintained the older forms of education long after the secular world discarded them in the 19th century. But, I’m a little confused, which language and which missal are you referring to here?

Your argument pre-supposes that the laity must understand every word of what’s being said. If the Mass is a sacrifice offered on their behalf, I submit that that is not so.

No, my argument presupposes being in the vernacular since very few would have the fluency in Latin to notice any subtlety of language. Thus, this comparison cannot be made between the Latin of the EF and the vernacular of the OF – though perhaps could be made between the Latin of both forms.

Y’can’t really de-sacralise, de-clericalise, ‘de-hierarchialise’ and ‘populise’ a mystic rite and then expect people to experience religious awe at it. Coupled with bad/liberal/no religious teaching, you have a generation who are Catholic in name only. ‘Jesus loves you’ + easy going People’s Mass = A lost generation.

Talk about a red herring. When I heard such a diatribe I’m torn between laughter and incredulity at the ignorance and arrogance of it all.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Much of the appeal of an Italian opera is the fact that it is in Italian. And somehow people who attend understand the Italian opera better as it makes a more meaningful and more lasting imprint on the mind, whereas if people hear a vernacular interpretation, they will just enjoy for the moment and then forget. Language is only an instrument of communication (and a small one at that) but it is not the only one. My three cats don’t speak English; yet they communicate better amongst themselves than listen to me. How is that?

The analogy is not apt here.

Someone once quipped “I don’t care what language an opera is in, as long as I don’t understand it.”

In opera, as in almost every other form of secular vocal music, it is the melody that takes precedence over the text. In opera, especially, the actual text of the libretto is usually so contrived and so ridiculous that if one is understanding what is actually being said it will likely detract from the beauty of the sound.

However, sacred music is the diametric opposite. In sacred music, it is the text that is primary and the melody is secondary. I care not what language it is in, but whatever language, the text must be clear, crisp, and perfectly understandable. I’d rather have a missed pitched than a missed syllable. And if the Liturgy and the prayers and the sacred music is to be pedagogical, it does make sense for it to be proclaimed in a language the people can understand.

 

[Layman]

Why in the EF of the Mass it something a ‘deficiency in the way it was said’, but in the OF of the Mass it’s being shown as a deficiency in the rite itself. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

I didn’t say that. I’m asking why beautiful and reverent texts were cut from the Mass.

Did Pope Saint Pius V have any reason when he cut text and rituals from the Liturgy prior to the Council of Trent?

I don’t know. I’m asking why beautiful, ornate and reverent texts were cut from the 1962 Missal.

Maybe they wanted room for the additional new readings from Scripture.

Do you mean the Old Testament? Hmmm, not really a ‘like for like’ swap.

The Church maintained the older forms of education long after the secular world discarded them in the 19th century. But, I’m a little confused, which language and which missal are you referring to here?

The 1962 Missal. The argument given for the vernacular is that ‘the laity can understand it’. I wonder why they couldn’t just read their missals.

No, my argument presupposes being in the vernacular since very few would have the fluency in Latin to notice any subtlety of language. Thus, this comparison cannot be made between the Latin of the EF and the vernacular of the OF – though perhaps could be made between the Latin of both forms.

I was comparing the English of both forms. If the purpose is to vernacularise it seems odd to edit out beautiful, ornate, reverent text and replace it with what we’ve got now.

Talk about a red herring. When I heard such a diatribe I’m torn between laughter and incredulity at the ignorance and arrogance of it all.

What’s funny or ignorant about it? We have a generation of contracepting Catholics who think it’s normal for laity to orate at funerals. In South America, dancing around the altar is well established. It’s not unknown in Ireland either.

The catechism does not appear to be taught straight in many schools, going by my experience and posts on this forum. We have a Mass where unvested laywomen stand beside the ‘presider’ to hand out Communion in a space no longer delimited as sacred (set apart) by altar rails. Sermons rarely touch on Sin, Death, HelL and Damnation. Result: a casual attitude to one’s religion.

Hence, a lost generation.

The TLM text pleads with God, in beautiful, eloquent, pious and ornate language, to accept our offering by an unworthy priest. It sets the right tone. Dunno why it was replaced by the N.O.