Skip to comments.SOLEMN PONTIFICAL MASS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM FOR THE FEAST OF THE PRESENTATION
Posted on 02/01/2014 1:39:19 PM PST by NYer
EWTN is providing live coverage of ...
SOLEMN PONTIFICAL MASS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM FOR THE FEAST OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE LORD AT THE NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE INFANT OF PRAGUE
02/02 at 11:00 AM ET; 02/03 at 12:00 AM ET
Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa celebrates Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the National Shrine of the Infant of Prague in Prague, Oklahoma. LIVE.
You’ve made public statements about problems with the liturgy. What changes would you like to see?
I would like to see the liturgy become what Vatican II intended it to be. That’s not something that can happen overnight. The bishops who were the fathers of the council from the United States came home and made changes too quickly. They shouldn’t have viewed the old liturgy, what we call the Tridentine Mass or Missal of Pope John XXIII, as something that needed to be fixed. Nothing was broken. There was an attitude that we had to implement Vatican II in a way that radically affects the liturgy.
What we lost in a short period of time was continuity. The new liturgy should be clearly identifiable as the liturgy of the pre-Vatican II Church. Changes, like turning the altar around, were too sudden and too radical. There is nothing in the Vatican II documents that justifies such changes. We’ve always had Mass facing the people as well as Mass ad orientem [“to the east,” with priest and people facing the same direction]. However, Mass ad orientem was the norm. These changes did not come from Vatican II.
Also, it was not a wise decision to do away with Latin in the Mass. How that happened, I don’t know; but the fathers of the Council never intended us to drop Latin. They wanted us to hold on to it and, at the same time, to make room for the vernacular, primarily so that the people could understand the Scriptures.
You yourself have begun celebrating Mass ad orientem.
Yes, in our cathedral and a few parishes where the priests ask me to. Most of the time, I say Mass facing the people when I travel around the diocese or when I have a large number of priests concelebrating, because it works better that way.
A few priests have followed my example and celebrate ad orientem as well. I have not requested they change. I prefer to lead by example and let the priests think about it, pray about it, study it, and then look at their churches and see if it’s feasible to do.
And it’s positive when people are thinking about and talking about the liturgy.
When people make the liturgy part of their conversation, it is a good thing. As priests and laypeople discuss the liturgy, they’ll see how important it is and how it is a work of God and not our own.
But we must approach the liturgy on bended knee with tremendous humility, recognizing that it doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to God. It is a gift. We worship God not by creating our own liturgies, but by receiving the liturgy as it comes to us from the Church. The liturgy should be formed and shaped by the Church itself to help people pray better. And we all pray better when we are disposed to receive what God has offered, rather than creating something of our own.
National Shrine of the Infant of Prague
“,,,what we call the Tridentine Mass or Missal of Pope John XXIII, as something that needed to be fixed. Nothing was broken.”
Exactly. That’s what’s so puzzling to me. When the Catholic Church became so powerful, esp. in the United State, with the election of a Catholic President and Abp. Fulton Sheen who was more popular than Milton Berle on TV presenting Catholic THEOLOGY, no less-—WHY would they “fix” anything and destroy that momentum-—unless the whole calling of Vatican II was a ruse to destroy the Church from within-—which is the immediate effect of Vatican II.
What Vatican II did —was Marxism actually and a “wishy washy” Catholicism——ditching the most beautiful and longest Traditions-—FOR WHAT-—Protestant ideas?????????? which created thousands of denominations over a period of a few hundred years where they now have sodomites as pastors???? WHY?
The Logic of Vatican II defies Reason. And any Thomist knows how sickening that is to any Catholic theologian.
I distinguish between Vatican II and “the Spirit of Vatican II.”
The “spirit” killeth, but the letter giveth life.
You’ve got it backwards:
The letter giveth life to the “spirit”.
Yes, I do understand what youre saying, but while many of the Modernist problems that have driven the Church into the ground over the past 50 years are correctly traced back to the spirit of the Council, as opposed to the action of the Council itself, there is much that went on in the actual Council that should be of concern.
Specifically, their formulation or restatement of the doctrines of Religious Liberty; Ecumenism; and Nostra Aetate, are very troubling. Additionally, although the subsists in substitution for is matter has been arguably addressed by the bishops as not meaning what it appears to mean, I still am not convinced that there isnt much more to it.
There are many other less-significant though still problematic issues that were created within the four corners of the 16 documents of the Council that cannot be passed off as the fault of zealous Modernists who ran with the spirit rather than the language of the Council. In any event, if there never was a Council, there would never have been a spirit of the Council.
But savagesusie is certainly on the mark when he, essentially, notes that the Church was at its zenith in so many respects when the Council was called, and there were no pressing issues to address. So why then was it necessary? And, of course, it wasnt; it was plainly and simply the diabolic move of the Modernist bishops at the time.
It was most likely was called because Blessed John XXIII wanted to “open the windows” of the Church and things were starting to, lets just say get a little bit stale.
And once the windows were opened, things became very rotten.
Give me an aged connoisseur wine with dust on the bottle and a cracking cork over a brand new 2.99 berry fruity special at 7-11 every time. (Not actually a wine drinker but the point is made)
Maybe it was with the purpose of getting back to the “roots” of the Church, to the early Church.
What Simeon and Anna Teach Us [at the Presentation of the Lord] (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
In Preparation for the Feast of Candlemas… [Catholic Caucus]
THE PURIFICATION, COMMONLY CALLED CANDLEMAS-DAY, Presentation of the Lord
The Feast of the Presentation of the Lord Jesus in the Temple
Feast of the Purification (Candlemas)
Candlemass and Ashes
SIMEON IS OPEN TO THE LORD’S ACTION [Presentation of the Lord]
The Mysteries of Candlemas
[Feast of the] Presentation of the Lord
Orthodox Feast of The Presentation of Our Lord and Savior in the Temple; February 2
That was the purpose of VC II?
Instead of “getting back to the roots”, VC II dug up the roots of the Church and turned them over as mulch for New Church.
Ah, someone else has bought into the false antiquarianism of the Novus Ordo authors.
You sound a little like the SSPX, although I will say that if the language in the Vatican II documents were “wishy washy” than the letter gave “root” to that “Spirit”. There used to be no “wiggle room” for error prior to Vatican II.
Popes had been warning the Church of “Modernism” for a century (or more) so they had to know exactly what they were doing with the “wording” in the Document.
You are right-—the “Spirit” turned deadly, but without the ambiguous “Letter” of the Law-—it couldn’t have happened.
I like what the SSPX stated——that Vatican II was like the Vatican took the Catholic Canon and placed it on a tall, steep slide. There was only one direction for the Catholic Church to go.
It is such a shame, since the beauty and Traditions of the Catholic Church were exceptional and timeless. Such a beautiful legacy for our children to connect them to the time of Jesus. I actually just got a Latin course and going to relearn Latin. Such a beautiful language. I want to read some Cicero and Boethius in Latin.
Wow. What would the Catholic posters say here if a Protestant poster said this? Christ's Church was a little bit stale? Really?
Funny, how there was never a “spirit” of any other Council pre-Vatican II.
I was walking down a corridor when a procession of angels holding Christ candles approached. They were stunning in their beauty. As I got closer and the procession began to pass me I could see they were escorting children somewhere.
I have no doubt that you are a well-meaning individual that dearly loves our Catholic Church, but I would strongly and respectively suggest that you learn what our bishops have done to it. Compare the Vatican II Catholic Church of today (the Church of Nice), to the Catholic Church of the first 20 Councils whose mission was to lead all mankind to salvation. If you did you would not be writing as you do.
The pope and bishops of today have all but abandoned preaching about the evil of sin. They focus exclusively on social justice, the mercy of God, and the redistribution of wealth. Do you not see that? Do you not realize that this pope and these bishops no longer profess the dogmatic truths of the Catholic Church? Talk to other Catholics and ask them about our Church. They know nothing about the faith.
It was understandable why the faithful dutifully went along with the changes in the 1960s without a whimper. They believed they were being told the truth. Up until that time, the Church had always spoken with one voice, and they always spoke the truth. The faithful were taught that there was only one true Church and that all other religions were falseall other religions. Period. That is not what they hear today.
The bishops, at the time, ordered all Catholic newspapers to either print what they were told or cease being a voice for the Church. Virtually all did. Those that refused were banished. The national media was completely in sync with the progressive views of the the Second Vatican Council and they only reported the modernist/liberal point of view. If Catholics even realized there was a Council going on, they never understood there was any opposition to it at all. Surely, you must be aware of how capable the secular press is at doing that sort of thing. As a result, most all, at the time, were fooled.
But when the internet came along in the 1990s, those who saw things going so wrong in our Church and our society made the effort to read about what had really happened in the 1960s. They learned that great men like Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre and many others were simply ignored at the time. Most Catholics never heard of those men until long after they had died, and even today they are pilloried by the liberal media and the Modernist bishops.
Curious Catholics also learned that the Council, which should never have been called at all, was hijacked by the Modernists and they did everything they possibly could to subvert the Church into the Protestant domain that it is with their ecumenism, nostra aetate, redefinition of religious liberty and much more.
But while it may be somewhat understandable as to why there was not the pushback from the faithful Catholics at that time, there is no excuse today. The internet has truly opened the windows to the Church for all who would make the effort to read about our Catholic faith. Faithful Catholics should make that effort.
So repeat, if you wish, those the empty nonsensical statements that our Modernist bishops feed to the foolish in the pews today, but understand that you are subscribing, not to the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, and not to the sacred teachings of almost every pope that lived before John XXIII, but to the Modernist teachings of men who you probably havent even heard of like Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar Karl Rahner, and the list could go on.
The woes of the Church, our government and our society may all be tied directly back to the Modernist bishops of today who have abandoned their flock and are following the Modernist teachings of the Second vatican Council. A word to the wise should be sufficient.
You, my friend, deserve a HUGE round of applause.
A brief history of the Catholic mass:
This is why there is a traditional Latin rite for those who want that type of rite for mass worship.
Let’s just agree to disagree, okay?
The Destruction of Catholicism through Liturgical Change
by Michael Davies
What’s an American Catholic as compared to a Roman Catholic?
The fact that you source American Catholic speaks volumes.
American Catholic pushes works and writings by Fr. Richard Rohr. Here’s a clip about Fr. Rohr:
“Fr. Rohr is deeply involved in the New Age. On the website for his Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC), a training and formation center based in Albuquerque, New Mexico that he founded in 1987, he says the purpose of his work is to provide a faith alternative to the dominant consciousness (whatever that means).
The CAC was a well-known hub for the Churchs premier dissent group in the U.S., better known as Call to Action (endorses womens ordination, homosexuality, goddess worship, etc.).
Fr. Rohr has also been a long-time teacher of the Enneagram, an enormously popular New Age gimmick used for discerning ones personality type. A specific warning against the use of the Enneagram for spiritual direction is included in the pontifical document, Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life.
Another area where he is heavily involved is in the Emerging Church Movement, which consists of a diverse group of people who identify with Christianity but think its beliefs and teachings need to be updated to better conform to modern society (read compromise the faith).
Fr. Rohr participates in Emerging Church conferences and workshops alongside the leaders of this movement, such as Brian McClaren, a theologian who thinks the current version of Christianity only partialy reflects the truth. Another player, Phyllis Tickle, recently told an audience that By eating the body and blood of our God, we are feeding the god within us . . .
I leave with this posting about St. Justin and the early mass. As was posted, let’s just agree to disagree and go at that. You like TLM, that is fine, I like the simpler NO mass, that is fine also. Please respect my and I will respect your choice. God Bless.
I am a Roman Catholic who likes the simpler NO mass.
Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio “focused on one of the theological lights of Second Vatican Council, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, and his recovery of biblical interpretation”.
Once again, I question your choice of sources; but I may now understand why you prefer Bugnini’s mass over the Mass of All Time, the Closest Thing to Heaven.
“Mass of All Time, the Closest Thing to Heaven”.
Rather one of the types of masses in the 2,000 years of the history of the Catholic mass and now one of the wonderful rites of the Catholic Church.
This is my PS, a book I am most interested and might even interest you or suprise you:
Regarding Henri Cardinal de Lubac:
“In his (Lubac’s) first work, published in 1938, “Catholicism, the Social Aspects of Dogma,” he argued for diversity within the church.”
“He never shied away from questions posed by changing times, saying, “The church is a perpetual construction site.” He was an ardent defender of Teilhard de Chardin, whose evolutionist theses were condemned by Rome.”
“Father de Lubac’s writings drew sharp criticism from the Vatican, as Pope Pius XII hardened his stance on biblical and ecumenical research. After the publication of “Supernatural” in 1946, he was forbidden to teach for eight years. “Now I will have time to work,” he reportedly said.”
“Rehabilitated in 1958, he became a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Pope John XXIII asked him to help prepare Vatican Council II, then take part in the council itself, from 1962-65.”
Considering your other sources, I don’t think I’d be interested. But thanks for the offer.
I congratulate you on your choice of the adjective, “simpler”. It’s quite appropriate!
: not hard to understand or do
: having few parts : not complex or fancy
: not special or unusual
And let us not forget that Pope St. Pius X declared in his encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 1907, that Modernism, the guiding force at Vatican II, is a HERESY. It is not just some philosophy that is different or unusual, it is a HERESY. Not only that, Pope St. Pius X declared that Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies.”
That said, I am at the place no one wants to be when looking logically at a problem. If Modernism is a HERESY, and the current Pope seems to promote Modernism by what he says and does, then what? It is impossible to believe simultaneously two things that are diametrically opposed.
So, rather than “think” about the problem, I guess the only thing to do is pray about it. Otherwise, my head will explode.
Well, Christ’s Church was getting stale, doncha know?
At least you recognize the problem. Way too many people prefer to keep their heads in the sand. And point fingers at those who prefer not to.
I believe you intended to say the Latin Church. There are 22 churches that make up the Catholic Church. VCII proved to be a gift to the 21 Eastern Catholic Churches which were encouraged to restore their authentic liturgies. Meanwhile, the Latin Church progressed into the Novus Ordo liturgy that has caused so much consternation among the Roman Catholics here and around the world.
That is why at least there is both the NO and TLM rites in the Roman Catholic Church which gives Roman Catholics a choice.
No. According to Pope emeritus Benedict there are no two Roman rites; there are two forms of the same Roman rite, one quite ordinary (or as you say, “simple”) and the other extraordinary.
Choice? Ask the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate if they have a choice.
Still there are two. Case close.
Do you have to go to a TLM to find reverence? I have been to NO that have been very reverent.
That’s why I attend Mass all dressed up, even though it is a Novus Ordo Mass. Ours is very reverent, so I have no problem with it.
We also have a new Music Director and the chants and proper music is wonderful, and live by the way.
The Archbishop did a Novus Ordo for the Dedication of our new church on Saturday, and it was outstanding. He put in a lot of catechesis and evangelization in explaining the Dedication of a New Church.
If you ever have the opportunity to attend a Dedication, do so — even if you have to drive 100 miles!
I would hope you weren’t saying that the Archbishop’s Dedication Mass was not reverent and holy, because it was!!
There are not too many Sunday Masses in our area that are reverent. Our “daily” Masses are pretty good, though. They (6:15 a.m.) are Novus Ordo, and there are no Eucharistic Ministers (or any altar servers). The only strong distraction is the Sign of Peace. However, if there was a daily TLM in the area, we would switch and go there. The two different forms of the Mass (after one has attended for awhile) seem almost like two different faiths completely (in our opinion). How many TLMs have you been to?
I would hope you werent saying that the Archbishops Dedication Mass was not reverent and holy, because it was!!No, I'm not saying that at all. Surely there are reverent NO Masses. But the more we attend the TLM, the more we see the differences between the two forms, and the closer we become to Christ when attending the Tridentine. Our NO Masses are not very reverent in our area, sad to say. As my husband stated some time ago to me, they're difficult just to "get through."
Allow me to shove my nose in here for a few minutes. I live in the epicenter of reverent NO Masses: Greenville SC. Within screaming distance we have Fr. Dwight Longenecker at Our Lady of the Rosary, Fr. Jay Scott Newman at St. Mary's and Fr. Christopher Smith at Prince of Peace. Those three priests are known the world round for liturgy, theology and dedication to Our Lord. They're all three converts for that matter.
With all the rich options available to my family we choose the simple sung EF Mass at Prince of Peace because it's the only time and place we can be at Mass without being jerked back and forth between the sublimity of prayer and the banality of the new ritual.
I understand the NO has had a major revamp in language recently but that's not enough to fundamentally change the horizontal nature that's built into the rite itself. There's only so much window dressing you can put on the NO before it starts to look like a parody of the EF and therein (I believe) lies the problem: At its core the new ritual is not supposed to be "reverent". It's supposed to be exactly like it is in most places.
That's my 3 cents anyways.
The case is far from closed. Most Catholics, throughout the world, still do not have access to a TLM within an hour of their home.
So don’t tell me about “choice”. It sounds too much like Planned Parenthood’s abuse of the same word.
The answer is “no”, I do not go to a TLM, but is there a rule that it is only offered if there is an interest?