One Catholic Writer's Take On Kate Kelly

[mfbukowski]

I am old enough that I remember 1962 well. I was 14 and an altar boy, and had most of the Latin mass memorized, and understood Latin because I was studying it in high school.

That was the year of the changes as I recall, and the beginning of my drift away from Catholicism.

3DOP captures well the wrenching betrayal many felt during those times.

[3DOP]

So, you are saying you go to a church headed by one of these suspended priests??

 

No. I will not say that. The Head of my church is Jesus Christ and I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church with Pope Francis as Christ's Vicar on earth. If I have not been quite clear before now,  I attend a chapel pastored by a suspended SSPX priest.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I am old enough that I remember 1962 well. I was 14 and an altar boy, and had most of the Latin mass memorized, and understood Latin because I was studying it in high school.

That was the year of the changes as I recall, and the beginning of my drift away from Catholicism.

3DOP captures well the wrenching betrayal many felt during those times.

 

Thank you Mark.

 

Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism, but better known as author of Brideshead Revisited and many other novels, a major figure of English literature in the 20th Century. He died when the changes were occurring. Being a fan, I have his collected letters. The last letter he wrote was to a Lady Mosely on March 30, 1966:

 

Dearest Diana,

 

Beware of writing to me. I always answer. It is part of my great boringness, never going out or telephoning. An inherited weakness. My father spent the last 20 years of his life writing letters. If someone thanked him for a wedding present, he thanked them for thanking him and there was no end of the exchange but death. Nancy pretended she was going blind to choke me off...

 

Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John  and his Council - they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the faith doggedly without joy. Church going is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it restored. It is worse in many countries."

 

----The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, Mark Amory editor, Penguin Books 1982, p. 639

 

The footnote reveals that Waugh died on Easter Sunday, April 10, 1966. It says he attended Mass , "said in the form he preferred by. Fr. Caraman", and then had a sudden heart attack after returning home.

 

I have never in my life heard anyone else reference this poignant cry of a dying poet about the pain he felt from having his birthright stripped away from him. I kind of found it on my own as a lover of Waugh's writings.  

Edited August 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

Rory, it is interesting how changes affect us.  I do not equate all changes to be of equal magnitude, but one of the changes that affected me was when our hymnal was changed. With the change came the encouragement to learn the new hymns, which, of course, had the impact of not singing those older hymns that may have been retained in the new hymnal.  I miss those old hymns and the regularity that we sang them.  

 

These changes affect us deeply.  I cannot imagine the  breadth of changes that you have seen in the changes to the Mass, but Waugh explains how we feel as our church attendance evolves from joyous celebration to weekly duty.  

[Yirgacheffe]

No. I will not say that. The Head of my church is Jesus Christ and I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church with Pope Francis as Christ's Vicar on earth. If I have not been quite clear before now,  I attend a chapel pastored by a suspended SSPX priest.

I am surprised somehow I expected Catholics who are as into their faith as you seem to be would not step outside the boundaries of the church.  I read about Lefebvre (only on Wiki) and honestly I just don't see the difference between Ms. Kelly defying the authority of the LDS  church and what Mr. Lefebvre has done.

[Bart Burk]

I was first attracted to Catholicism through the new mass -- it was so much more than what I experienced at the LDS church or the local Methodist church. I do not know how I would have felt if it had been in Latin instead of English.

[3DOP]

I am surprised somehow I expected Catholics who are as into their faith as you seem to be would not step outside the boundaries of the church.  I read about Lefebvre (only on Wiki) and honestly I just don't see the difference between Ms. Kelly defying the authority of the LDS  church and what Mr. Lefebvre has done.

 

Well, I would not admit that I have made a "step outside the boundaries of the church". If I have, God knows that my sole desire is to be united with eternal Rome, the communion of Catholic saints, and the current Holy Father, Francis. How may I best accomplish those desires? Submissive obedience? Maybe. Wait, yes, I must obey. But to whom do I give my obedience? The past? The present? What when there seems to be differences? What would the saints have done? What would St. Pius X (his feast is next week, heh) have me do? Shall I accept that which was roundly condemned by a panorama of popes in favor of something that appears to me to be fleeting, that in the course of history is a "blip on the radar"?  Did you know that Pope Francis's Jesuits were once suppressed?. Yes, for a period of forty years in the late 18th Century. Today is the Feast of St. Joseph Calasanctius, best known for founding an order dedicated to the teaching of children beginning in Rome and spreading rapidly through the rest of the Mediterranean and into northern Europe. False brethren made up calumnies about him and his order was demoted to that of a secular congregation. He was criticised in the highest places and misunderstood by his own pope.

 

Maybe Abp. Lefebvre was filled with wrath and bitterness and likewise, his children? Any investigator needs to consider that distinct possibility. But I would submit to you that God sometimes allows his best servants to be tested through opposition of those who hate us and being misunderstood by those who love us. I do not put myself in such a category. I have not endured injustices such as it appears to me that he did, while maintaining a serene determination to carry through to the end as did Msgr. Lefebvre. He always taught, and his priests have taught us, that we can not be swallowed up by what he termed "bitter zeal". We must always beware of letting any lies that are believed by others about us from a getting a foothold in our hearts that would make us lose our peace, allowing us to become bitter, even if, and perhaps especially if, our cause is just. 

 

By the way, I think you assumed that when I referred to Msgr. Lefebvre, it was merely the French for Monsieur. No, it is a title Monsignor. I would never refer to an archbishop as mister any more than I would refer to the pope as Mr. Bergoglio. No offense intended and none taken, I am sure.

 

I was first attracted to Catholicism through the new mass -- it was so much more than what I experienced at the LDS church or the local Methodist church. I do not know how I would have felt if it had been in Latin instead of English.

 

I hope you understand that for anyone who will take the trouble, missals are plentiful, several to a pew, to give the translations for visitors and those who might not own one. English employs the Latin alphabet and the phonics are quite consistent with ours. Additionally, the biblical readings, announcements, and sermon are made in the vernacular. As I said before, the language isn't the issue. But I'll tell you a short story.

 

My mom was over 70. Not surprisingly, this happened during the reign of Pope Benedict. Rome decided that it was going to force the issue of correcting the English mistranslations of the original New Mass which is of course, in Latin. You don't have to be a Latinist to understand that "et cum spiritu tuo" probably should be translated as something with the word "spirit" in it, but the corrupters of the translation always preferred the response to "The Peace of the Lord be with you" (Dominus Vobiscum) as merely "and also with you". Why would they do that? I don't get it. Not to this day. Its more stupid than anything. Other mistranslations are more serious.

 

Anyway, Mom showed me her church bulletin where the pastor had correctly explained to the flock why this change was good. Mom thought I would be pleased and of course I am. But it highlighted how the faithful had been hoodwinked for 40 years because of translators unwilling to trust the originals that were given them to translate. Or rather perhaps they just had their own agenda? I don't know. I have heard that translating has been a problem all over the world. I know that the English translation of "pro multis", (for many) has been mistranslated as "for all" since 1969, and Rome was trying to get that cleaned up. How could any competent translator think that multis means "all". You might even discern this yourself when I remind you that our word for "all" is often seen in the root, "omni". All powerful is omnipotent. There would have to be an "omni" somewhere to require the use of the word "all".

 

If you are unaware of this, they justify the translation because it teaches the truth that Christ died for all. Of course we agree with this, but that battle had already been fought at the Council of Trent where it is pointed out that the theological reason for using the expression "pro multis", (for many) at the consecration of the chalice was because while Christ assuredly shed His Precious Blood, about to become present at the altar for all, efficaciously it doesn't do everyone the same benefit. Trent wanted to emphasize that Catholics are not universalists. Not everybody is welcome to receive Holy Communion. But the most important reason perhaps, for why this mistranslation which for all I know still hasn't been corrected, is that we believe this is what Jesus actually said Himself at the Last Supper which is why these words have such power with God:

 

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Mt 26:28)

 

My reaction was not what Mom expected. I am sure I went on a little bit of a rant about how they can congratulate themselves that after 45 years they finally translated spiritu as spirit. We continued to discuss some other problems involved with these loose translations while I knew that even if they should make a perfect translation, THAT WAS NEVER THE ISSUE. It is just amazing. They have already hidden much of the sacramental theology of the Tridentine Mass in Cardinal Ratzinger's "banal, on-the-spot product" in its Latin original. But that isn't good enough for the wreckers who want to make us over into Protestants! Mom never went back to the New Mass, seeing the folly that has gone on, and remains to be corrected...but can't be corrected. Who cares about a good translation of a defective document? But they won't even translate it properly after 40 years of trying!

 

Before she moved in with us, we drove an extra 10 or 12 miles to pick her up, and she was willing at that age to try to learn the Traditional Mass. She is almost deaf, but she follows along most of the time. It is challenging because of all the yipping babies, but she does pretty well. She is now 79 years old and still working on her Latin.

 

Regards and apologies to all. Obviously, I love to talk about these things, and I am happy to continue. But I would hate to offend by talking about something that probably isn't of interest to most Mormons.

 

Rory

Edited August 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bart Burk]

The wreckers who want to make us into Protestants?  I can tell you when I was coming to the Catholic Church the mass never caused me to confuse Catholicism with Protestantism. Perspective please ... of course I have this strong hope that eventually everyone who trusts in the name of Jesus will be saved.  

[mfbukowski]

Thank you Mark.

 

Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism, but better known as author of Brideshead Revisited and many other novels, a major figure of English literature in the 20th Century. He died when the changes were occurring. Being a fan, I have his collected letters. The last letter he wrote was to a Lady Mosely on March 30, 1966:

 

----The Letters of Evelyn Waugh, Mark Amory editor, Penguin Books 1982, p. 639

 

The footnote reveals that Waugh died on Easter Sunday, April 10, 1966. It says he attended Mass , "said in the form he preferred by. Fr. Caraman", and then had a sudden heart attack after returning home.

 

I have never in my life heard anyone else reference this poignant cry of a dying poet about the pain he felt from having his birthright stripped away from him. I kind of found it on my own as a lover of Waugh's writings.

I can't imagine an LDS analogue to convey how this felt. We are used to change in our rituals and doctrine. Perhaps the only thing that could communicate the feeling adequately would be if we imagined a prophet completely doing away with temples altogether, in the name of openness and doing more good for society and "making the gospel accessible" to more people.

Obviously for some it would destroy the gospel in the name of openness. That's about the way it seemed to me.

What Catholics DO is go to mass. Yes they live their faith during the week, but their central focus is that hour or so on Sunday which gives them that uplift they need to get through the week. Suddenly that was gone.

I was raised knowing and experiencing that wherever I went in the world, I would hear the exact same words, see the exact same motions and prayers anywhere I went. I was taught that that would never change.

Suddenly it was gone. In its place was what seemed to be chaos.

I honestly now think that was the beginning of my understanding of relativism, as I worked through how that change "didn't really matter", but at the time it felt like the end of the world. The anchor was gone, and nothing was solid, just raging seas in all directions.

[mfbukowski]

The wreckers who want to make us into Protestants?  I can tell you when I was coming to the Catholic Church the mass never caused me to confuse Catholicism with Protestantism. Perspective please ... of course I have this strong hope that eventually everyone who trusts in the name of Jesus will be saved.

But that was the feeling in my family as well. It was always we Catholics against the Protestants. Now suddenly we were the enemy.

[Calm]

Rory or Bart, this a good link for differences:

http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals

[ChristKnight]

Rory or Bart, this a good link for differences:

http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals

 

Just an FYI, that link does not compare the latest translation of the "novus ordo" to the "traditional" Mass.  The latest translation includes changes such as the response of "and with your spirit" instead of "and also with you" to "the Lord be with you", which is more in line with what the Latin says (as well as what the liturgies in the East say). 

[Bart Burk]

I actually went through a bit of a crisis when they changed the endowment ceremony.  I always understood the words of the endowment ceremony had been received directly from heaven just like the sacrament prayers.  When it was changed, I learned there had been changes in the past that I never knew about.  And some of the changes seemed to impact LDS doctrine.

 

The Catholic liturgy varies from rite to rite in different languages.  The mass in the Byzantine rite and the mass in the Latin rite have always been different.  It is a practice, not a revelation.  It is of course based on scripture and is faithful to the tradition of the sacrifice of the Lord's Supper, but it was never presented as something where the words literally came from God.  We don't worship the mass.  We worship Jesus.

 

In that respect it is the Bishops in union with the Pope who have the final say over how the mass is said.  I am a "young" Catholic so I may not be stating all of this properly, but just as the LDS (like Kate Kelly) have to respect the authority of their leaders, Catholics have to respect the authority of their leaders.  I don't see where the doctrines of the Catholic Church have been compromised through Vatican II.  They were further clarified.

 

The ark is steadied by those in authority, not those without authority.  That's what people like Kate Kelly seem to have forgotten.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Bart Burk

[Calm]

Thenk you for providing a contrasting opinion. It is good to see beyond a superficial understanding to why certain aspects of people's faith means so much to them even if different from others.

[mfbukowski]

Well, I would not admit that I have made a "step outside the boundaries of the church". If I have, God knows that my sole desire is to be united with eternal Rome, the communion of Catholic saints, and the current Holy Father, Francis. How may I best accomplish those desires? Submissive obedience? Maybe. Wait, yes, I must obey. But to whom do I give my obedience? The past? The present? What when there seems to be differences? What would the saints have done? What would St. Pius X (his feast is next week, heh) have me do? Shall I accept that which was roundly condemned by a panorama of popes in favor of something that appears to me to be fleeting, that in the course of history is a "blip on the radar"?  Did you know that Pope Francis's Jesuits were once suppressed?. Yes, for a period of forty years in the late 18th Century. Today is the Feast of St. Joseph Calasanctius, best known for founding an order dedicated to the teaching of children beginning in Rome and spreading rapidly through the rest of the Mediterranean and into northern Europe. False brethren made up calumnies about him and his order was demoted to that of a secular congregation. He was criticised in the highest places and misunderstood by his own pope.

 

Maybe Abp. Lefebvre was filled with wrath and bitterness and likewise, his children? Any investigator needs to consider that distinct possibility. But I would submit to you that God sometimes allows his best servants to be tested through opposition of those who hate us and being misunderstood by those who love us. I do not put myself in such a category. I have not endured injustices such as it appears to me that he did, while maintaining a serene determination to carry through to the end as did Msgr. Lefebvre. He always taught, and his priests have taught us, that we can not be swallowed up by what he termed "bitter zeal". We must always beware of letting any lies that are believed by others about us from a getting a foothold in our hearts that would make us lose our peace, allowing us to become bitter, even if, and perhaps especially if, our cause is just. 

 

By the way, I think you assumed that when I referred to Msgr. Lefebvre, it was merely the French for Monsieur. No, it is a title Monsignor. I would never refer to an archbishop as mister any more than I would refer to the pope as Mr. Bergoglio. No offense intended and none taken, I am sure.

 

 

I hope you understand that for anyone who will take the trouble, missals are plentiful, several to a pew, to give the translations for visitors and those who might not own one. English employs the Latin alphabet and the phonics are quite consistent with ours. Additionally, the biblical readings, announcements, and sermon are made in the vernacular. As I said before, the language isn't the issue. But I'll tell you a short story.

 

My mom was over 70. Not surprisingly, this happened during the reign of Pope Benedict. Rome decided that it was going to force the issue of correcting the English mistranslations of the original New Mass which is of course, in Latin. You don't have to be a Latinist to understand that "et cum spiritu tuo" probably should be translated as something with the word "spirit" in it, but the corrupters of the translation always preferred the response to "The Peace of the Lord be with you" (Dominus Vobiscum) as merely "and also with you". Why would they do that? I don't get it. Not to this day. Its more stupid than anything. Other mistranslations are more serious.

 

Anyway, Mom showed me her church bulletin where the pastor had correctly explained to the flock why this change was good. Mom thought I would be pleased and of course I am. But it highlighted how the faithful had been hoodwinked for 40 years because of translators unwilling to trust the originals that were given them to translate. Or rather perhaps they just had their own agenda? I don't know. I have heard that translating has been a problem all over the world. I know that the English translation of "pro multis", (for many) has been mistranslated as "for all" since 1969, and Rome was trying to get that cleaned up. How could any competent translator think that multis means "all". You might even discern this yourself when I remind you that our word for "all" is often seen in the root, "omni". All powerful is omnipotent. There would have to be an "omni" somewhere to require the use of the word "all".

 

If you are unaware of this, they justify the translation because it teaches the truth that Christ died for all. Of course we agree with this, but that battle had already been fought at the Council of Trent where it is pointed out that the theological reason for using the expression "pro multis", (for many) at the consecration of the chalice was because while Christ assuredly shed His Precious Blood, about to become present at the altar for all, efficaciously it doesn't do everyone the same benefit. Trent wanted to emphasize that Catholics are not universalists. Not everybody is welcome to receive Holy Communion. But the most important reason perhaps, for why this mistranslation which for all I know still hasn't been corrected, is that we believe this is what Jesus actually said Himself at the Last Supper which is why these words have such power with God:

 

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Mt 26:28)

 

My reaction was not what Mom expected. I am sure I went on a little bit of a rant about how they can congratulate themselves that after 45 years they finally translated spiritu as spirit. We continued to discuss some other problems involved with these loose translations while I knew that even if they should make a perfect translation, THAT WAS NEVER THE ISSUE. It is just amazing. They have already hidden much of the sacramental theology of the Tridentine Mass in Cardinal Ratzinger's "banal, on-the-spot product" in its Latin original. But that isn't good enough for the wreckers who want to make us over into Protestants! Mom never went back to the New Mass, seeing the folly that has gone on, and remains to be corrected...but can't be corrected. Who cares about a good translation of a defective document? But they won't even translate it properly after 40 years of trying!

 

Before she moved in with us, we drove an extra 10 or 12 miles to pick her up, and she was willing at that age to try to learn the Traditional Mass. She is almost deaf, but she follows along most of the time. It is challenging because of all the yipping babies, but she does pretty well. She is now 79 years old and still working on her Latin.

 

Regards and apologies to all. Obviously, I love to talk about these things, and I am happy to continue. But I would hate to offend by talking about something that probably isn't of interest to most Mormons.

 

Rory

Of course we get around that with our open canon, an ontological difference about the nature of "truth" that puts me where I am and you where you are.

 

We believe that there is much more to be revealed as we receive more truth line upon line.

 

But I love what you said about the translations.  And from an LDS perspective, translating "per omnia saecula saeculorum" as "forever" is a travesty!!

 

Yes, idiomatically it means something like that, but literally it means "Through all the worlds of the worlds", and is usually used to close a prayer, just before the word "Amen".  From an LDS perspective of course that becomes relevant because we believe God created "worlds without number" and perhaps that phrase can be seen as a nod to that concept.

Edited August 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I actually went through a bit of a crisis when they changed the endowment ceremony.  I always understood the words of the endowment ceremony had been received directly from heaven just like the sacrament prayers.  When it was changed, I learned there had been changes in the past that I never knew about.  And some of the changes seemed to impact LDS doctrine.

 

The Catholic liturgy varies from rite to rite in different languages.  The mass in the Byzantine rite and the mass in the Latin rite have always been different.  It is a practice, not a revelation.  It is of course based on scripture and is faithful to the tradition of the sacrifice of the Lord's Supper, but it was never presented as something where the words literally came from God.  We don't worship the mass.  We worship Jesus.

 

In that respect it is the Bishops in union with the Pope who have the final say over how the mass is said.  I am a "young" Catholic so I may not be stating all of this properly, but just as the LDS (like Kate Kelly) have to respect the authority of their leaders, Catholics have to respect the authority of their leaders.  I don't see where the doctrines of the Catholic Church have been compromised through Vatican II.  They were further clarified.

 

The ark is steadied by those in authority, not those without authority.  That's what people like Kate Kelly seem to have forgotten.

It's fascinating how the human mind works and how ironic all this is to me.

 

For me, the changes in Catholicism was what made me leave, ultimately because at the time I thought truth was timeless and eternal.  Over a period of time, considering this, I became an atheist, and then studied theories of truth- perhaps exactly because of the conflict this brought.

 

I then discovered more relative ways of seeing truth, and harmonizing change with religious truth, and then became LDS because I understood those changes and therefore an open canon.  So when the endowment changed- I was ready for it, partially ironically because I had been through the Vatican II changes.

 

So here the two of us are- moving in the same direction, perhaps, coming to the same realizations, from two different perspectives.

 

I find that extremely cool!  The Perry Scheme wins again! 

[3DOP]

Of course we get around that with our open canon, an ontological difference about the nature of "truth" that puts me where I am and you where you are.

 

We believe that there is much more to be revealed as we receive more truth line upon line.

 

But I love what you said about the translations.  And from an LDS perspective, translating "per omnia saecula saeculorum" as "forever" is a travesty!!

 

Yes, idiomatically it means something like that, but literally it means "Through all the worlds of the worlds", and is usually used to close a prayer, just before the word "Amen".  From an LDS perspective of course that becomes relevant because we believe God created "worlds without number" and perhaps that phrase can be seen as a nod to that concept.

 

Mark, it seems doubtful that I made any mileage at all with any fellow Catholics or non-Catholics that had interest. They seem to just pass over what is to me, the completely critical discussion of "emergency". I guess they think it is just a talking point. Anyway, I am truly glad that I awakened some old memories for you, and that to some degree, you can appreciate where I am in all of this without imagining that I can follow you philosophically. "I have not yet soaked myself in petrol..." So you were there? I wasn't, both because I am about eight years younger and also because we weren't Catholic or even Christian. You understand the confusion that followed. You seem to appreciate Waugh. Those who were peripheral weren't the confused. They just went along. It sounds like your family took everything very seriously. They cared. To have the faith be dear to you, was to have confusion in those times. What can we do when they tell us to just follow. Obey. Obey. Obey. Who do we obey? Oh, whoever is alive today? Abp. Lefebvre very rightly claims that what caused him to be elevated to the episcopate, placed in charge of Catholic Africa, with annual audiences with Pius XII in the 40's and 50's, caused him to be censured and eventually suspended in the 70's and 80's. He never changed. The Church changed. For the better? Maybe you would think so. Obviously, 99% of Catholics think so. But have the changes been so much better that there is no room for sympathy for someone like Abp. Lefebvre who stood astride two eras that were totally different? So suspend him, the stubborn *******. Excommunicate him, the disobedient rebel, the dirty Protestant. Thank you very much Mark, for the sympathy which is hard to find in Catholic circles. 

 

Apparently Pope Francis has recently taught from Mt. 16 that the Rock, upon which Christ will build His Church, was Peter's faith. I can not be surprised with anything he says anymore. If it was correct, this position has been condemned by the Catholic Church since the first time it appeared. According to what I am hearing, I should just change my mind because I shouldn't be like Kate Kelly, against living authority. I need to believe who ever is the authority when I am alive. It doesn't matter what anybody else with the same authority has ever said about it for the length of oh...virtually forever.. If the Church says one thing for 2,000 years, and one time in 2014, the pope says something different, he is right? That is crazy talk. Its just crazy. What will it take to wake Catholics from their lethargy? It just won't work for a Catholic who wants to be able to have some kind of apologetic integrity to change the interpretation of Mt. 16. Sigh...Mark, your assistance came when it was least expected. Don't imagine that I can be sympathetic to your ways of looking at reality. But I like you Mark, and appreciate your recent contributions here very much. Thanks for the sympathy. Such comments as I have made here are what caused me to be banned at Catholic Answers with my defenses deleted. Considering that Catholic Answers has "gone out on a limb", defending the traditional interpretation of Mt. 16, it will be interesting to hear how they try to twist the Pope's Protestant interpretation of Mt. 16 into something compatible with what they have been teaching.   

 

God bless.

 

Rory

Edited August 28, 2014 by 3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

Well, I would not admit that I have made a "step outside the boundaries of the church". If I have, God knows that my sole desire is to be united with eternal Rome, the communion of Catholic saints, and the current Holy Father, Francis. How may I best accomplish those desires? Submissive obedience? Maybe. Wait, yes, I must obey. But to whom do I give my obedience? The past? The present? What when there seems to be differences? What would the saints have done? What would St. Pius X (his feast is next week, heh) have me do? Shall I accept that which was roundly condemned by a panorama of popes in favor of something that appears to me to be fleeting, that in the course of history is a "blip on the radar"?  Did you know that Pope Francis's Jesuits were once suppressed?. Yes, for a period of forty years in the late 18th Century. Today is the Feast of St. Joseph Calasanctius, best known for founding an order dedicated to the teaching of children beginning in Rome and spreading rapidly through the rest of the Mediterranean and into northern Europe. False brethren made up calumnies about him and his order was demoted to that of a secular congregation. He was criticised in the highest places and misunderstood by his own pope.

 

Maybe Abp. Lefebvre was filled with wrath and bitterness and likewise, his children? Any investigator needs to consider that distinct possibility. But I would submit to you that God sometimes allows his best servants to be tested through opposition of those who hate us and being misunderstood by those who love us. I do not put myself in such a category. I have not endured injustices such as it appears to me that he did, while maintaining a serene determination to carry through to the end as did Msgr. Lefebvre. He always taught, and his priests have taught us, that we can not be swallowed up by what he termed "bitter zeal". We must always beware of letting any lies that are believed by others about us from a getting a foothold in our hearts that would make us lose our peace, allowing us to become bitter, even if, and perhaps especially if, our cause is just. 

 

By the way, I think you assumed that when I referred to Msgr. Lefebvre, it was merely the French for Monsieur. No, it is a title Monsignor. I would never refer to an archbishop as mister any more than I would refer to the pope as Mr. Bergoglio. No offense intended and none taken, I am sure.

 

 

 

 

Rory

Well it's quite obvious you agonize over these issues and one could never accuse you of deciding lightly to align with someone on the outs with the Catholic church.  I can only say that were I to take a turn toward the religious and in particular with a religion with defined authority such as Catholicism or the LDS I would stick with those inside the church.  But that's just me, as a kid I was angry with Curious George because he always broke the rules, rules were there to be followed, if he had just obeyed the man in the yellow hat the disasters would never have occurred.  Maybe that's why I avoid religion, why take on rules I don't have or add another in authority over me   But you know I still  can't really see any difference between what Ms. Kelly did and what Msgr. Lefebvre did, when it comes down to it they both are saying they know better than those in authority over them.

About the "mister" you referred to Msgr. Lefebvre and also to Abp. Lefebvre I wasn't sure what either meant and it seemed that leaving off an honorific altogether would be disrespectful so I settled on Mr.  No disrespect intended just unsure of what "title" should be used.  I've seen people refer to Joseph Smith as "Smith" or worse "Joe" and that always struck me as intending to give offense.  I would probably have the same trouble if I were to find myself in the company of any Catholic priest/cardinal/bishop/monsignor and if I couldn't eaves drop the proper address would use the word sir in addressing him.  For me mister and sir are forms I use to show respect if I don't know the proper address.

[saemo]

The reference to the "that famous liberal Pope" was sarcasm.

Here is a link to the SSPX FAQ from its own web site for those who are interested:

http://sspx.org/en/faq-page#n1785

We have a couple of parishes in South Bend which regularly provide the traditional Latin mass as well as the English language mass, Spanish language mass, Polish language mass ... there are probably other languages as well. My understanding is the English language mass is simply a translation of the Latin mass. I want to have a clear understanding of what is being said at mass so I prefer the English language mass. Occasionally, parts of the mass in my parish are done using Latin. Imagine the LDS requiring all of the wards and branches in Spanish speaking countries to use the English sacrament prayers simply because they were received that way by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants. That's akin to requiring English speaking countries to use Latin.

The earliest references to the Order of Mass, are by Justin Martyr, in Greek. Greek is the original language, or one of the original languages. And it is used today, in the Kyrie Eleison, and other Greek prayers, words and phrases. Like Christo Anesti, during Eastertide.

From the ancient vernacular liturgies that exist, it is clear the vernacular was used in the Early Church. The Latin Rite developed over time and was made the only and official liturgy after, and because of, the Coucil of Trent.

I agree with Rory that it is important to keep orthodox meaning and teaching in the Order of Mass, but also the Rites are meant to be understood by the faithful, who are, participants.

Edited August 28, 2014 by saemo

[why me]

I agree with Rory that it is important to keep orthodox meaning and teaching in the Order of Mass, but also the Rites are meant to be understood by the faithful, who are, participants.

When I was a boy the mass was said in latin and very few people undestood it. Of course, it was all done by rote and so eventually people could assume what was being said during the mass. But the latin mass was basically not very interesting to many people and so, it began to be less used. The catholic church also wanted people to feel more connected to the mass and so, the native language of the countries were stressed so that they could feel more like participants and not as objects during the mass.

 

Now of course, there are more traditionalists who would like to celebrate the old mass, which may be considered less of the world and more traditional.

[why me]

I was first attracted to Catholicism through the new mass -- it was so much more than what I experienced at the LDS church or the local Methodist church. I do not know how I would have felt if it had been in Latin instead of English.

You would have focused on the beauty of the rituals and movements of the priest and the music. It was quite beautiful. At times one could not even hear the priest say the words. But the atmosphere was good as people behaved well and dressed modestly. I remember that catholic mass of the seventies with the folk music mass. the catholic church tried to get more of the hippies to come to mass but it failed miserably. The folk mass was quickly done away with. And then came the wearing of shorts and jeans, tank tops, low cut blouses. flip flops etc. It became the people's mass. I think that today, catholics are dressing more modest when they come to church.

 

My only compliant is with the communion. It seems that 90 percent of the mass participants receive it regardless if worthy or not. It was much different in the past when people knew what worthiness meant.

[Bart Burk]

My only compliant is with the communion. It seems that 90 percent of the mass participants receive it regardless if worthy or not. It was much different in the past when people knew what worthiness meant.

I don't even know where to start on that stupid statement ...

Edited August 28, 2014 by Bart Burk

[why me]

I don't even know where to start on that stupid statement ...

When I was a boy, I went to confession on a saturdafy so that I go up for communion on that sunday. It was taught to me that only worthy people could partake of communion and one became worth by going to confession. So, the lines for confession were quite long and I remember waiting awhile for my turn. Now, it is much different. The old timers like myself remember the way it used to be. My comment was not stupid. Times have changed but back in the 60s, one must go to confession to receive communion.

 

Catholics and Communion

 

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication. 

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner. 

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10). 

Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14).

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

 

Do you believe that the majority of catholics today who go to confession are following the above guidelines like we did when I was a boy?

[cdowis]

"If you can accept certain assumptions, the teachings of the Catholic church make perfect sense."

[3DOP]

When I was a boy, I went to confession on a saturdafy so that I go up for communion on that sunday. It was taught to me that only worthy people could partake of communion and one became worth by going to confession. So, the lines for confession were quite long and I remember waiting awhile for my turn. Now, it is much different. The old timers like myself remember the way it used to be. My comment was not stupid. Times have changed but back in the 60s, one must go to confession to receive communion.

 

Catholics and Communion

 

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication. 

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner. 

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10). 

Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14).

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

 

Do you believe that the majority of catholics today who go to confession are following the above guidelines like we did when I was a boy?

 

I think Bart misunderstood you to be jumping to the conclusion

 

You would have focused on the beauty of the rituals and movements of the priest and the music. It was quite beautiful. At times one could not even hear the priest say the words. But the atmosphere was good as people behaved well and dressed modestly. I remember that catholic mass of the seventies with the folk music mass. the catholic church tried to get more of the hippies to come to mass but it failed miserably. The folk mass was quickly done away with. And then came the wearing of shorts and jeans, tank tops, low cut blouses. flip flops etc. It became the people's mass. I think that today, catholics are dressing more modest when they come to church.

 

My only compliant is with the communion. It seems that 90 percent of the mass participants receive it regardless if worthy or not. It was much different in the past when people knew what worthiness meant.

 

The Latin priest prays inaudibly to remind the faithful that the priest alone goes before God with the prayers of the people. Even though everybody seems skeptical about it, it is quite easy to follow along in a good Missal. In the Eastern Rite this distinction between priest and people is even more vivid. Instead of the priest praying silently while facing the altar, the Eastern Rite priest goes behind a sort of curtain called the iconostasis. While saying these prayers the people can't even see the priest. This takes place immediately preceding and following the consecration of the Host and the Chalice. I have been taught that it was prefigured in the Old Testament when the priest alone went into the Holy of holies while the people remained outside.

 

I was sure you didn't mean to say that you were reading the hearts of the communicants. It does seem like Confession has been deemphasized in the modern church. Where I go, we are encouraged to go to Confession once a month and of course any time you commit a mortal sin. Many go more often though. We have confessions before every Mass, even during the week.