Latin Mass Attracts Young Worshippers and Converts in Bob Jones University Territory

The Greenville News ^ | 4/27/04 | Ron Barnett

[Mershon]

The sanctuary is both modern and Romanesque, a streamlined brick and glass edifice with a lofty, vaulted ceiling.

And inside this brand new house of worship on Greenville's Eastside echoes a liturgy that is nearly as ancient as Christianity itself - the Traditional Latin Mass.

[Unam Sanctam]

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ, and that Church is a visible Church in communion with the Successor of Peter. This is not simply an optional bit of Catholic belief that one can take or leave. Therefore, there is a HUGE difference between FSSP and indult masses on the one hand and SSPX and other schismatic groups on the other hand. It is not the case that the difference does not matter. It is an issue that has to be addressed, and that is why any good Catholic should ensure that the Tridentine mass is by a group in communion with the Holy Father. Where the bishop has, in breach of Ecclesia Dei, not provided for an indult mass, then you must follow your conscience in line with what the Church says. However, it would appear that many "traditionalists" who post on this site go to masses of schismatic groups even if there is an indult mass available, and even if there is not one, they go far beyond attending a schismatic mass out of "necessity," but actually publicly and vocally proslytize on this site on behalf of schismatic groups, encourage others to disobey and disrespect the legitimate authorities of the Church, including the Pope, schismatically call into question the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Catholicity of the Church, speaking of a "Novus Ordo Church" and other schismatic phrases. In these cases it is demonstrated that their intention is not simply to satisfy their conscience by assisting at the Tridentine rite, but to call into question the legitimate authorities in the Church and to encourage schism.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

I always think the point should be made that this Mass is closer to the Mass that vatican II called for then the current Mass. Remember, the current Mass was crated later, and was very different then what Vatican II called for.

[ultima ratio]

This account repeats an error regarding the SSPX. The Pope never "excommunicated" Archbishop Lefebvre. He announced that an excommunication had taken place latae sententiae and was automatic--that is, it had resulted from the Archbishop's act of disobedience. The Pontiff himself had no direct involvement. What makes this more complicated than is at first apparent, however, is the fact that Canon Law provided for exceptions for disobedience which incurred no penalty--one of which the Archbishop properly evoked. The Pope was therefore incorrect in his assessment of the Archbishop's status.

[ultima ratio]

Vatican II absolutely expressed a new theology--much of it ambiguously Catholic at best. So does the Novus Ordo. So does Rome in general these days--so new as to represent a wholly new religion.

[Grey Ghost II]

What say you, Catholics? Did Vatican II express a a different theology?

Absolutely. It's a whole new religion and is hardly recognizable from pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The new Mass has more in common with a Lutheran meal service than it does the Tridentine Mass.

[eastsider]

What say you, Catholics? Did Vatican II express a a different theology?

The definition of theology going back to Augustine that defines not only the Augustinian tradition but the entire catholic tradition is fides quaerens intellectum -- that is, theology is faith seeking understanding. While the basic definition of theology has remained the same, the specific truths of our faith have been given different philosophical iterations throughout the Church's history. For example, Augustine gave the truths of our faith a (neo)Platonic iteration, Aquinas an Aristotelian iteration, and Rahner a Kantian iteration.

Vatican II did not offer a new definition of Catholic theology, but it did set out to articulate the truths of the faith in a way that spoke to the Church in the modern world. In some cases, that articulation was quite new, representing a change not in the truths of the faith but rather in the common understanding of those truths.

One example of a change in common understanding initiated by Vatican II would be the right to religious freedom and the possibility of salvation for all, as found primarily in Dignitatis Humanae ("On Human Dignity") and to a lesser extent in Lumen Gentium ("Light to the Nations"). This doctrine is one of the clearest examples of where Vatican II not only advanced the Church’s doctrine and clarified its prior articulation, but on the point of the right to religious freedom, actually reversed what had been the common teaching and understanding up to that point.

Specifically, in Dignitatis Humanae, the council recognized that there is a right to religious freedom that is based on the dignity of the human person. Even when the person may be in error, he does not lose his human dignity and therefore his right to that freedom. This was a development of doctrine to the point of actually being a reversal of at least the common teaching. The common position in 19th century theology was summed up in the phrase, “Error has no Rights.” For example, some Catholic theologians taught that in a state in which Catholics were the majority or had power, the state had no obligation to endorse or tolerate any other religion except Catholicism, or to allow any practices which would in any way cause problems for Catholics. The recognition at Vatican II was that even though error has no rights, the one who errs has rights, and thus the human person maintains a dignity even when they use that dignity or that freedom improperly. Therefore, the Church’s claim to what was called “indirect power” in civil matters concerning religion (the claim that the Church had the right to demand that the state favor the Catholic state) was no longer taught.

Another example was a new way – new, at least, in terms of recent centuries – of talking about the role of Christ in the Church, avoiding what had been an ongoing debate since the Reformation. After Trent, post-conciliar Catholic theologians had reacted to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura in a way that emphasized the importance of tradition. Vatican II, however, points out in Dei Verbum (Word of God) that tradition and scripture are not two different sources of revelation but simply two different channels by which the ONE source of revelation -- Christ Jesus -- flows. Of course, even this can be misleading, because scripture is part of the tradition, and because tradition is bound by and defined by scripture. Still, by focusing on the person of Christ Jesus as the source of revelation, the often acrimonious debate about whether there are two sources of revelation or one is skirted. There is only one source of revelation, but it’s not sola scriptura, it is the person of Christ Jesus – the Word of God.

[ultima ratio]

"Please note that mass at this church is offered by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which is in full communion with the Holy Father. It is so important that those seeking out masses according to the Tridentine rite ensure that those churches are in full communion with the Successor of Peter, otherwise they are not fully Catholic."

Your inference is wrong--as usual. The SSPX, for instance, is certainly fully Catholic. On the other hand, the Holy See itself clearly is not, since many of its highest officials are heretical or apostate. This is not the case with Catholic traditionalists, wherever they may still be found.

The SSPX makes no compromises with the faith--not even under pressure from Rome--which distinguishes it from the FSSP which is indulged by Rome only on condition that it remain silent about the destructive policies of the Holy See. But the ancient Mass should never have been an "indulgence" in the first place; it is the eternal patrimony of every true Catholic and its denial demonstrates a calculated disregard for the salvation of souls and for the faith itself.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Jonathan Arrington, a 21-year-old Greek major at Furman University, leads the Gregorian chant from a high loft at the back of the church. A die-hard Southern Baptist until converting to Catholicism three years ago, Arrington said he feels a connection to centuries of Christian faith in the Latin rite.
------

Gerry Matatics is responsible for this conversion. The story is here http://www.gerrymatatics.org

I wonder if Jonathan is entering SSPX or FSSP seminary?

[Mershon]

Then why not just move an hour and a half down the road and join a Catholic Church in union with Rome in Greenville, SC?

[Mershon]

"The Pontiff himself had no direct involvement."

Motu proprio - From JPII himself. That is "no direct involvement."

Second, read Ecclesia Dei Adflicta and Vatican I, especially about the Pope having full and immediate JURIDICAL power.

Unless and until these are lifted, as a Catholic, you are bound to accept them, or you lapse into private judgment. Stop repeating the same tired, old SSPX propaganda. Yes, Lefebvre excommunicated himself. Read Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

[Mershon]

"This doctrine is one of the clearest examples of where Vatican II not only advanced the Church’s doctrine and clarified its prior articulation, but on the point of the right to religious freedom, actually reversed what had been the common teaching and understanding up to that point."

My approved master's thesis, awaiting a Nihil obstat and imprimatur from my bishop, proves that DH did not OVERTURN previous infallible teaching on this point, and that it merely emphasized the "dignity of the human person" aspect. The document itself states at the outset that it must be read in continuity with the traditional Catholic teaching. The new Catechism makes this clear as well. There was little in the way of development, with lots of prudential and authentic (but not ordinary magisterial) teaching in DH. It is also murky at best. If it overturned the previous, continuous ordinary teaching, then the gates of hell have prevailed.

[Mershon]

Jonathan is discerning his vocation to the priesthood or religious life for a traditional Catholic order. He has never attended a Mass offered by the SSPX because he is a staunch proponent of the dogma, Outside the Church, there is no salvation.

[eastsider]

DH did not OVERTURN previous infallible teaching on this point ... If it overturned the previous, continuous ordinary teaching, then the gates of hell have prevailed.

I agree with you completely. I used the phrase "common teaching" as a way of avoiding the term "ordinary teaching" -- which is too close to "ordinary magisterium" for my liking.

[ultima ratio]

You've been spewing these slanders for quite a while now. But no matter how often you sling such slurs, they remain false and unsubstantiated by the facts. The SSPX NEVER denied its communion with the Successor of Peter--though JPII said so in the Ecclesia Dei letter. The truth is, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers refused to be complicit in the destruction of the old Mass. That is the bottom line. For this refusal, they were deliberately marginalized and persecuted--but never truly excommunicated. I myself DO attend an SSPX chapel rather than an indult Mass and do so from necessity--since the Indult parishes of themselves do not provide the necessary support for my family, for small children especially, that is needed to live a fully Catholic life. The Mass alone, in fact, is not of itself enough to guarantee that Modernist beliefs do not permeate the parish atmosphere and poison the faith. So stash these slurs--they won't wash. Nor do they hold up under closer scrutiny--though Rome wishes they could and tries its best to suggest they are real rather than insinuations without substance.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

SSPX is not outside the Church, but thanks anyway for the article.

[Pyro7480]

Yeah, the situation, as the Vatican puts it, is "irregular." The bishops were technically excommunicated, but the parishoners aren't.

[kstewskis]

Please note that mass at this church is offered by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which is in full communion with the Holy Father.It is so important that those seeking out masses according to the Tridentine rite ensure that those churches are in full communion with the Successor of Peter, otherwise they are not fully Catholic.

Unam you bring up a good point. I've been having a heated debate with the nun (and other staff) at our local parish on whether Mel Gibson "is a Roman Catholic" or not. She continues week after week to slander him saying he is not RC, not only because he rejects many parts of VatII (as per the Diane Sawyer interview), but because he has his own church "outside" the Diocese of Los Angeles. Last night she linked him as part of the schismatics that are "out there," (i.e. called him a "Lefebvre-ite").

From what I could gather, the priests that he had come onto the set to say Mass while filming "The Passion of The Christ," whom he's had personal relationships with, and who also say Mass at his church, are from The Legionnaires (sp?) of Christ." According to their website, they are in full communion with Rome and The Holy Father.

Do you have any thoughts, knowledge, or opinions regarding this group of priests? Is she wrong for these repeated accusations (in front of a large group of "new" Catholics just admitted into The Church) of Mel "not being a true Roman Catholic?"

I have my own opinions, but it is based on what Mel has said directly, not what others have said about him, or his father. I'd like to put an end to the argument, because I'm tired of hearing this kind of stuff from a nun who can't back her facts up, other than from a Diane Sawyer interview.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Mershon]

From what I could gather, the priests that he had come onto the set to say Mass while filming "The Passion of The Christ," whom he's had personal relationships with, and who also say Mass at his church, are from The Legionnaires (sp?)of Christ."

Mel Gibson never had the priests from the Legion of Christ offer Holy Mass on set. Mel attends ONLY the TLM. There have been at least two articles recently about the priests who offered Holy Mass, both in union with the Holy See.

Your nun is causing scandal through detraction and calumny, and should shut her mouth.

[Mershon]

FROM VATICAN I

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
BUT ALSO IN THOSE WHICH REGARD THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH TRHOUGHOUT THE WORLD.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

FROM ECCLESIA DEI ADFLICTA: Personal from JPII

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.