The Gravest Consequence of the Novus Ordo Mass

Hey, it is not I saying these things.   (I am happy to read, though, that Father Don Pietro Leone agrees with my thinking. )   🙂

The full article is posted at Rorate Caeli:

“The gravest consequence of the New Rite is, however, the dishonour of God.

He is handled clumsily

“The gravest consequence of the New Rite is, however, the dishonour of God[10]. The iconostasis of silence has been dismantled. The Lord is called forth in a vulgar tongue, in words composed by His enemies. His Presence is ignored, His Person is demeaned.

He is handled clumsily: if He falls, it does not matter. He is placed on unblessed tables, segregated from His friends. His garments have been reduced. He, The King of Kings in the state of Immolation, is placed in vulgar, primitive vessels. As the people stand or sit, and think that they are listening to a mere tale, He is crucified and dies before their eyes. He is raised above their heads: “Behold the Lamb of God!”: they stand and stare. He is delivered over to them: He, Almighty God, their Creator and their Highest Good. He is placed in their unclean hands. They receive Him into their darkened hearts, they brush Him off their hands, they trample over Him unwittingly, they take Him home. He is consigned to their caprice or their malice.”

_______________________________

Isn’t that the truth!

Here is part of a comment made about two years ago, and which I found on another   blog but which is still most relevant today.

Professional liturgists and singers tried to force us to learn a new liturgy and new songs.

“I was around during the liturgical upheavel of the 1970’s, I remember vividly the first NOvus Ordo Mass on Palm Sunday 1970, and the disapointment of the people, as we had been told that the adjustments to the Old Rite made in the years between 1965 and 1970 would be the final changes, that THIS was the Liturgy that the Council Fathers wanted. THen came the Novus Ordo with the outlawing of Latin, the disapperacne of Chant, the enforced break-up of choirs, vestments, statues, communion rails, altars and of whole sanctuaries. Communion by laypeople, standing, even on the hand, followed.  Professional liturgists and singers tried to force us to learn a new liturgy and new songs, but to no avail: catholics remained from then on forever silent.

Find the nearest TLM,  and there, alongside our Blessed Lady,  all the saints and the angels.  properly worship the Most Holy Trinity with all the due reverence, solemnity, and awe that we can give God.

The Traditional Latin Mass, the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven!

My God! My God! I love Thee in the Most Blessed Sacrament!

Posted in See, I told you so! | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Who Understands Latin, Anyway?

Here Father James Fryar, FSSP  counters two objections most  often made against the TLM.

Do you ever wonder why the TLM is celebrated in a language most people can’t understand?  Is this what keeps you from attending one?

Father also responds to the question of why  the priest has his “back to the people”.

 

 

Posted in See, I told you so! | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Blessed Roses

(Thank you,  Justin, for the lovely photograph! )

For those of you who obtained a sacramental rose, blessed by Father at the Mass for our Lady of Guadalupe, I post here a suggested prayer to recite in making use of the blessed rose to obtain bodily cures.  This is a prayer composed by St. Pius X, but with an interjection by me for the specific intention of physical healing:

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mystical Rose, make intercession for the holy Church, protect the Sovereign Pontiff, help all those who invoke thee in their necessities, [make efficacious the blessing bestowed on this rose for restoration of good health to……]  and since thou art the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of the true God,  obtain for us from thy most holy Son the grace of keeping our faith, sweet hope in the midst of the bitterness of life, burning charity and the precious gift of final perseverance.      Amen.

Posted in Feast Days | Tagged , | Leave a comment

In Honor of My Heavenly Mother….

(since I will not be posting in the next few days) on her Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception, from Kelly’s

Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

St. Thomas, the Angelical Doctor, acknowledges that Mary brought the blessings of heaven to earth by making us children of grace and heirs of heaven.  St. Idephonsus honors her with the title of reconciliator of men, whom she has delivered from the bondage of Satan and restored to the peace of God.  St. Lawrence Justinian glorified God in Mary, and bursts out in thanksgiving to God for calling her for His glory and our happiness…the repairer of the world, the light of the universe… Endless would be our task were we to cite all the eulogiums, all the expressions of admiration, gratitude and love uttered to the Blessed Virgin by the saints, the Holy Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church.  We shall merely in conclusion cite once more St. Bernard, who says:  “If Eve was a poisonous thorn, which wounded us to death, Mary has been a rose, which has wonderfully and with sovereign power cured us. He rejoices with Mary, and proclaims her the object of the praise and blessings of all creatures, who acknowledge her as their repairer, since in her, with her and by her, has the right hand of the Most High restored what had been destroyed.

The works of God are all perfect and adapted to the ends for which He created them.  The woman whom He had selected to second Him in the incomparable work of the Incarnation… was therefore to be perfect, and to correspond worthily to so high a destiny.  She should be such that it would be impossible to find her equal in heaven or on earth.  Then, in order that there might be some proportion or resemblance between the Son and the Mother, it was necessary that she should be, in the natural order, absolutely superior to all other women.  It was necessary too, that her soul should be perfect, and worthy to receive that superabundance of graces which the Almighty was to pour out upon her.  But for her to be such as God wished her, it was indispensable that God should Himself prepare and form that privileged creature by extraordinary means, and this God actually did…

“God,” says he [Cornelius Lapide] “created the heavens thinking of that animated heaven, where the divinity in all His glory was to dwell corporally.  He resolved to make [Mary] more beautiful, to enrich her with greater purity, charity and sanctity than the very heavens.  He created the air and the fountains of waters, and he had in His mind Mary, who was to be a sweet restoring zephyr over the miseries of the sons of Adam, a never failing fountain of grace, and He prepared to lavish His favors upon her.  He created the sea and enclosed it within its limits, thinking of that immense sea of divinity which was to be enclosed in the Virgin’s womb; He destined her to be herself a boundless sea of goodness.  He created the earth, and setting it as a centre towards which all gravitates, he thought of Mary to make her the centre of the perfections and prerogatives of men and angels.  And that this work of His predilection should be incomparable, God stamped on every creature that came from His divine hands an image as it were of the graces which He blended in her.  The angels recall her virginity, the cherubims her wisdom, the heavens her purity, the stars her splendor, the fields and flowers her beauty, the ocean her greatness.  But the chosen Virgin unites all these perfections in a supreme degree.  Hence that excellence, that superiority of Mary over all creatures, which makes St. Bernard style her “the masterpiece of all ages.”

In the celebrated epistle of the priests of Ahcaia, an epistle which narrates the martyrdom of St. Andrew, we are told that the apostle, proclaiming his doctrine before the proconsul Egeus, uses this expression with regard to the Virgin:  “And because the first man had been created of an immaculate earth, it was necessary that the perfect man should be born of an immaculate Virgin, in order that the Son of God, who had previously formed man, should restore the eternal life which they had lost by Adam.”

 On this stormy sea where the billows of the passions incessantly arise and threaten to swallow us up, we all have an utter need of God’s graces.  If we wish to obtain them certainly and abundantly, let us have recourse to Mary, our good Mother.

+++

Oh, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Posted in Feast Days | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Festividad de Nra. Sra. de Guadalupe – Feast of our Lady of Guadalupe

Today is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe!

A couple of days ago my brother asked me if I had heard of the candlelight processions that have been taking place annually for some years now, and which converge in Des Plaines at a shrine of O. L. of Guadalupe.  He further added that TV news reports projected crowds of over 100,000.   Strange.  Living not far from Des Plaines, I had never heard of this.

Well, this morning I checked  the news and, indeed, what my brother told me was correct.  It seems that over 140, 000 souls arrived at our Lady’s shrine, including over 200 brave souls who came on bikes.   And we all know what Chicago weather is like at this time of the year!

I wonder how many of us will be in attendance at the Institute’s shrine this evening.    I pray many.  If I remember, I will bring my camera.

REMINDER:

Monday, December 12            

Shrine of Christ the King Sovereign Priest

 6415 South Woodlawn Ave.

Chicago, Il — Tel: 1-773-363-7409

++++

7 P.M. High TLM with sermon in Spanish/English

Followed by the traditional Blessing of the Roses: “…by the sign of the Holy Cross let these roses be endowed with such blessing that the sick to whom they are brought and whose homes they adorn may be healed of their infirmities; and let them drive away in fear and trembling the devil with all his followers, nevermore to molest the people who are Thy servants.”

Give Blessed Roses to Sick People

Posted in Feast Days | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Beware of Those Who Advocate a Married Priesthood!

They oppose the will of God, and thus, are of the devil.

I just had to post the following after reading the comments of one poster on a popular trad blog.  This fellow actually advocated a married clergy as a remedy for the scandals of clerical perversion!  What made it worse is that his comments were way off topic. Some people just don’t have their head screwed on right and the devil has bent their ear.

From the Manual of the Holy Catholic Church:

Catechism on the Church’s Prohibition of Married Clergy

Q.  Does the Church oblige all those in sacred orders to live single and chaste?

A.  This she requires of them in the strictest manner, so as to decree the severest penalties against those among them who violate this law;  having sometimes ordered them to be deposed, sometimes to be excommunicated, sometimes to be confined in monasteries, to spend their whole life in penance.  And the great Council of Trent pronounces excommunication upon any one that shall dare to affirm, that, notwithstanding this prohibition of the Church, it is lawful for any in Sacred Orders to marry, or that such marriage would be valid in the sight of God, Sess. xxiv. can 9.

Q. On what grounds does the Church proceed in so strictly prohibiting marriage to her clergy?

A.  Upon these following grounds, laid down in the Holy Scripture:  First, Because a life of purity and chastity is more excellent, more perfect, and more acceptable to God than the married state. [Do you understand? We are not all “created equal”.] This is asserted by St. Paul in the plainest terms:  “Concerning virgins,”  says he, “ I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful – art thou loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,”  I Cor. vii 25,27; and, after several arguments on the subject, he concludes in these words:  “Wherefore, he that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, and he that giveth her not doeth better,” verse 38.  This is also manifest from the special reward promised by our Savior, and bestowed in Heaven, upon those who lead a chaste life:  Our Savior says, “Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house or parents – or wife – for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting,” Luke xviii.29.  And the singular privileges which shall be bestowed on them in Heaven, are described by St. John, where he tells us, that “they have the name of the Lamb, and the name of His Father, written on their foreheads,” to distinguish them in a special manner from all the other saints; that “they sing a new song before the throne of God, which no other can sing but themselves,” and that ”they follow the Lamb withersoever He goeth,” always attending His sacred person as His chaste and beloved spouses.  And, describing those to whom such honor belongs, “these are they,” says he, “who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins,” Rev. xiv. 1, 3, 4.  Seeing, then, the office of the priesthood requires the most angelic purity, and the most sublime sanctity in those who are admitted to it, therefore, the Church has judged proper to oblige all who enter into that office to embrace the more perfect state of chastity.

Second, …Now, as the very office of the priest is daily to attend unto the Lord, “to give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word,” Acts vi. 4; as they “are appointed for men in the things that appertain to God, to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins,”  Heb. v. 1; therefore, the Church wisely judging, that it is for their profit, and highly becoming, and a means to make them attend to the Lord, and to their holy functions without impediment, that they should always live continent, obliges them, by a strict and positive command, always to do so.

Third, St. Paul, explaining more minutely the advantages of a single life, especially in regard to the concerns of the soul, says, “I would have you to be without solicitude; he that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God; but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the word, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.  And the unmarried woman, and the virgin, thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but she that is married thinketh on the things of the word, how she may please her husband.” 1 Cor. vii.32.

Here, again, the Church wisely considering, that it is the very essential duty of those who enter into the priesthood to be solicitous only for the things of the Lord, and not for the things of the world; that ”they are chosen by Jesus Christ out of the word,” John xv. 19;  and “appointed for the things appertaining to God.” Heb. v. 1; that, therefore, they ought “not to be divided,” but to  “be holy both in body and spirit;” on this account, she obliges all those of the priesthood to live a chaste and single life, as being declared by the Apostle to be more proper, and conducive to the end of their vocation.

Fourth, …they are chosen by Jesus Christ, and separated from the rest of mankind for the service “of the gospel of God,” Rom. i.1; that they “may go and bring forth fruit, “…they are obliged to give their whole attention to the good of their people’s souls; to instruct them, to administer the Sacraments to them, to comfort them in their distress, to assist them in their sickness, and especially when death approaches; and, for this purpose, to answer their calls at all times, by night or by day, even though at the risk of their own life, when the good of their people’s souls requires it.

Now, it is evidently incompatible with the cares of a wife and family to discharge all these duties properly; and therefore, St. Paul says, “No man being a soldier of God, entangleth himself with worldly business, that he may please Him to whom he hath engaged himself,” 2 Tim. ii. 4.  Now, the Church, well knowing that no kind of worldly business so much entangleth a man and withdraweth him from the duties of the pastoral charge as the cares of a wife and family, therefore, she expressly requires her Pastors to abstain from a state so inconsistent with that charge.

Fifth, In the Apostles’ time, when the Church began, there was a necessity for taking married people into the Priesthood, because, for want of laborers in the vineyard, there was no room for choice; and therefore, the Apostles did not make any express law against doing so; yet we find the strongest injunctions in their sacred writings, that all who were admitted into that holy state, should live chaste and continent lives.  Thus St. Paul affirms, that “ a bishop must be – sober, just, holy, continent,” Tit. 1.8; and writing to Timothy on the virtues proper for his state as a Pastor, he says, “be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity, 1Tim. iv. 12;  and again, “I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels – keep thyself chaste,” 1 Tim. v. 21, 23; and giving a full list of the virtues belonging to the ministers of Christ, he says, “In all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God in much patience – in chastity,” 2 Cor. vi.4.

Sixth, In consequence of this, we find, from the earliest [documents] of antiquity, that, even when married people were admitted into the sacred ministry, they generally abstained from all cohabitation with their wives ever after; till in the process of time, when the number of the faithful increased, so that there was no difficulty in getting plenty of young people trained up to the service of the Church, the law was made, for all the above reasons, obliging all who entered into Sacred Orders to observe a perpetual chastity.

Q.  Is it not a great hardship on human nature to be obliged by such a law?

A.  …none ought to enter into it but such as “are called by God, as Aaron was.”…and, as the law is founded, as we have seen, on the clearest and most evident principle of holy Scripture, when God Almighty calls one to that state, he never refuses the necessary helps of his grace to enable him to accomplish all the obligations annexed to it. Continency is, without doubt, a gift of God; for his Holy Word assures us, that “a man cannot otherwise be continent, except God give it,” Wis. viii. 21; and our Savior after enlarging a good deal on this subject, adds, “all men receive not this word, but they to whom it is given,” Matth. xix. 11; and St. Paul, after saying, “I would that all men were even with myself,” with regard to their leading a single life; he immediately adds, “but every one hath his proper gift from God,” 1 Cor.vii. 7.

This grace, then, is given to some; and to whom will God be more ready to give it, than to those whom He calls to that state, to which His Holy Church, from the principles He himself has laid down in the Sacred writings, He so solemnly annexed this obligation?  And, indeed, nothing more admirably shows the finger of God, than to see such vast numbers as embrace the ecclesiastical state, living in the strictest purity, [One could arrive at the conclusion that the scandals in the  Church by pervert and non-celibate clergy have arisen due to infiltratration by robbers of souls whom God never called into His  ministerial service. It is these pathetic souls  whom  the commentator I mentioned at the beginning, wishes to accomodate by giving them…. a woman!] even amidst the many dangerous occasions to which their necessary communication with the world, in their charge of souls, so frequently exposes them. It is not by the strength of nature or constitution that they live a virtue which is so opposite to all the most violent inclinations of flesh and blood.  It is the grace of Jesus Christ alone which bestows this gift upon them;  and the chaste and continent lives they lead is a manifest proof of the interposition of God, and of His divine approbation of the conduct of the Church, in requiring the faithful observance of this virtue from her ministers.

Posted in Keeping the dogma of the Faith | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

St. Andrew Prayer Begins Today!

I no longer make a petition.  Rather, I pray this prayer as a most apt Advent devotion to help open my heart to the graces of this Holy Season.

That is not to say that I deny the efficacy of this prayer.  On  the contrary, there have been two occasions when I did get what I desired.  *Actually, I got way more than I had asked.  Once, I asked to be able to make a trip to Mexico.  What I got was a pilgrimage led by an Institute priest.  This pilgrimage was an historic one in that we assisted at the first TLM  in over 40 years, at the main altar of the ancient Cathedral of Mexico City.  As if that were not enough, Fr. Moreau also celebrated Mass for our group at the little chapel that sits at the very top of the mountain where Our Lady appeared to St. Juan Diego!

Here is the St. Andrew prayer:

Hail and blessed be the hour and moment in which the Son of God was born of the most pure Virgin Mary, at midnight, in Bethlehem, in piercing cold.

In that hour, vouchsafe, O my God! to hear my prayer and grant my desires, through the merits of Our Savior Jesus Christ, and of His Blessed Mother. Amen.

(It is piously believed that one’s petition will be granted when praying the above 15 times daily until the 25th.

____________________________

Note:  Be patient.  A gift asked of God may be delayed even some years.    There have been years when not receiving immediately what I had asked for, I would forget what I had requested.

* I should add that when I told my daughter that I wanted to go to Mexico, she told me she would pray for my intention.  So maybe it wasn’t just my praying the St. Andrew prayer.   Perhaps she obtained this grace for me.   Pray the St. Andrew prayer anyway! 🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

After All That Hype…..

this is what they got at the typical Novus Ordo Mass this past week-end:

A Visit to a local Parish

The New English Liturgy
A Cleaner Translation of a Protestantized Rite

By John Vennari

 

The First Sunday at Advent saw the mandatory introduction of the new English translation of the Novus Ordo into the nation’s parishes.

G.K. Chesterton once noted that the closer a man gets to sanity, the closer he gets to orthodoxy, that is, to the Catholic Church.

If the new translation is closer to accuracy of the original Latin, then it is closer to sanity, and thus at least closer, in this aspect, to a Catholic approach. The post-conciliar upheaval is of such colossal dimension that a fix in any of its broken structures can be viewed as a step in the right direction.

That being said, there is still a long way to go to restore sanity to parishes nationwide.

I visited a local parish church this morning for the purpose of observation. I wanted to see and hear the new translation, and take note of parishioners’ reactions.

The old pastor opened by announcing the imposition of the new translation, saying he has seen three responses to it.

The first: those who anticipate it with much enthusiasm. The second: those who view it with grudging acceptance. The third: those who simply ask “will it make the Mass longer?”

It is the first Novus Ordo Mass I’ve seen in a while, as I attend only the Latin Tridentine liturgy, so I came to the parish as an outsider.

One thing was immediately evident: the new translation may have somewhat improved the language, it has done nothing to improve the Novus Ordo atmosphere.

It is still the same New Mass with its banality, slovenliness and limp vestments. It is still a liturgy that appears to be drained of nobility and genuine reverence. It is still a liturgy that transforms the sanctuary into a high-traffic area of concelebrants, Eucharistic ministers, lay-lectors and music ministry.

Some of the most prominent changes in the English are as follows: The response to “The Lord be with you” is no longer, “And also with you”, but “And with your spirit.

Through my fault through my fault, through my most grievous fault” is returned to the Confiteor.

The Creed now speaks in the first person “I believe” instead of the communal “We believe”. Our Lord Jesus Christ is now proclaimed in the Creed as “consubstantial with the Father.”

Of course, the most notable change is the accurate words of the Consecration of the wine from what was “for you and for all” to “for you and for many.

At Communion, the translation now says, “but say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

Outside of the various new translations, it is very much the same Novus Ordo we have seen for the past 40 years. There is no real sense that much has changed. This was especially evident when I saw the three Eucharistic ministers (one male, two female) receive Communion in the hand from the old pastor before they branched out to offer Communion under both kinds to the congregation. Many parishioners received in the hand. Two men walked up the center aisle to Communion side-by-side chatting with each other.

The music was a combination of traditional Advent hymns (O Come, O Come Emmanuel), and new numbers, such as a sappy, dead melody in 6/8 time I had never heard before. From what others tell me, the church I attended is typical of the parishes in Buffalo.

The old pastor closed the Mass by announcing from the podium two pieces of advice for us:

1) “Don’t criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. That way, he won’t hear your criticism from a mile away, and you’ll at least have his shoes.”

2) “The principle ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try again,’ does not apply to sky diving.”

 Thanks, Father.

“A Striking Departure…”

As for parishioners’ reaction to the new translation, there wasn’t anything worth a mention. It was a sparsely populated morning Mass. I saw only a handful of people using the “Seasonal Missalette Worship Resource” supplied in the pews.

As for the new translation, it is simply a cleaner translation of a Protestantized rite – of the New Mass that was written with the help of six Protestant ministers.

Vatican Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, in their famous Letter to Pope Paul VI on June 5, 1969, (that accompanied the Critical Study) rightly warned that the New Mass “represents both in its whole and in its details a striking departure from the theology of the Mass as it was formulated by Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The ‘canons’ of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.”[1]

The Critical Study of the Roman Theologians on the New Mass, otherwise known as the “Ottaviani Intervention”, spotlighted the many deficiencies inherent in the New Mass: Here are some of the defects they noted:

• A new definition of the Mass, as an ‘assembly’ rather than as a sacrifice offered to God;

• Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins, a teaching utter rejected by Protestants;

• The reduction of the priest’s role to a position approximating that of a Protestant Minister;

• Implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation;

• The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere narrative retelling the story of the Last Supper;

• The fragmentation of the Church’s unity of belief through the introduction of countless options;

• Ambiguous language and equivocation through the rite which compromises the Church’s doctrine.[2]

Further:

• The Study said “It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes ‘supper’ and ‘memorial,’ instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.[3]

• The Study points out that in the New Mass, “the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed”.[4]

• The Study accurately noted thatthe New Mass “has much to gladden the heart of the most modernist Protestant”.[5]

Mind you, as I have stressed many times throughout the years, this is a critique of the New Mass in the original Latin – in it’s “purest form” – as it was originally released by Paul VI in 1969. The other abuses and bad translations came later. The Critical Study didn’t even talk about these, though the Study could foresee these aberrations. Thus the new “more accurate” English translation of this New Mass, over which there is now much rejoicing, will serve little to repair the flawed Rite itself.

The New Mass – at its best – is not really a Catholic liturgy. It was not made for the worship of God that is His due, but was constructed for the sake of a modernist ecumenism that is contrary to reason, and that has always been condemned by the Catholic Church.[6] As early as 1933, St. Maximillion Kolbe rightly declared, “Ecumenism is the enemy of the Immaculata”[7] – the enemy of Our Lady herself!

The reason I never attend the New Mass has never been the question of validity: is the consecration valid or not? To me, that’s not the issue. The reason I only attend the Tridentine Mass and never the New is because the New Mass is not really a Catholic form of worship. It is at its best – in its purest form – a modernist and Protestantized liturgy constructed to serve the false gods of liberalism and ecumenism.

And it is the architects of the Mass who have told us this.

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini admitted, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”[8]

Likewise, Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confident of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that its was the direct aim of the Pope to protestantize the liturgy. In a radio interview in the 1990s, Guitton said:

“The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but was is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord’s supper… there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too catholic, in the traditional sense, and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[9]

Thus we better understand why Cardinal Ottaviani and the Roman Theologians say in the Critical Study:

“It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.”[10]

Many of us choose to have nothing to do with this New Mass because it is not truly a Catholic form of worship.

After observing the Novus Ordo Mass this morning, I shook off the dead weight of its proceedings and drove directly to attend the Latin Tridentine Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary in South Buffalo.  Here was the sanity, orthodoxy and Catholicity of true worship. Here the true Mass was celebrated, a gift from God for which this day I was especially grateful. 

 

Notes:


[2] Summery from The Ottaviani Intervention, p. 4.

[3]Ibid., p. 35.

[4] Ibid., p. 40.

[5] Ibid., p. 33.

[6] For a summary of the Catholic Church’s perennial teaching against modern ecumenism, see the magnificent encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, “On Fostering True Christian Unity”, January 6, 1928.

[7]The mission St. Maximilian entrusted to his Knights of the Immaculata was that of converting the whole world to the Catholic Church. He said, “Only until all schismatics and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata have reached its goals.”    “… In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted, there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy.We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” From Rycerz Niopokalenz, 4 (1922), p. 78. And Entry of Diary dated April 23, 1933. Cited from The Immaculata Our Ideal, Father Karl Stehlin [Warsaw: Te Deum, 2005], p.3

[8]L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

[9] Quoted from Michael McGrade, “Redemptionis Sacramentum, DOA, RIP”, Christian Order, August, September, 2004 (emphasis added).

[10]The Ottaviani Intervention, p. 53.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Communion Under One Kind Explained

In view of the outcry against Bishop Olmsted’s decision to eliminate receiving Communion from the Chalice – and his subsequent reversal – I thought it good to post the traditional teachings of our Faith as to why receiving under two form is not necessary.   At the TLM where there is certainly no agitation for receiving under both kinds, we receive the whole Christ under one form, and that is enough for us.

I know of a woman, who with child in arms, went to take from the Chalice.  At the moment when the Eucharistic minister offered her the Precious Blood, her child made a grab for the cup, and the sacramental Wine spilled all over her.   She told me that she popped the dress into the washer and that was the end of that.  No big deal, right?

Communion under the species of Wine should be banned.  Bishop Olmsted was right  the first time.

  THE MANUAL OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH:

INSTRUCTIONS ON COMMUNION IN ONE KIND

Q.  In what does the Sacrament of Holy Communion, properly speaking, consist?

A.  In receiving Jesus Christ, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, HIS SACRED BODY, HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD, HIS BLESSED SOUL, AND HIS ADORABLE DIVINITY, INTO OUR SOULS; who by this Blessed Presence within us, communicates to our souls all those heavenly graces which are the effects of Holy Communion.

Q.  So we receive the full and perfect Sacrament under one kind only?

A.  Yes; for, as we have seen, Jesus Christ, God made man, his body and blood, his soul and divinity are contained whole and entire, both under the form of bread, and under the form of wine, and is the self same in the one kind as in the other.  So that when we receive Holy Communion under the form of bread, we receive Jesus Christ into our souls, whole and entire, a full and perfect Sacrament;  when we receive it under the form of wine, we receive the same Jesus Christ whole and entire, the same full and perfect Sacrament; and, though we should receive the Communion under both kinds, at the same time, we would not receive two Christs, nor two different Sacraments; but the same Jesus Christ, as in the former cases, only under two different forms instead of one, and the same Sacrament.

Q.  Did not Jesus Christ command all to receive in both kinds?

A.  Jesus Christ commands all to receive His body and blood; because this is what the sacrament of Communion essentially requires, and this is perfectly accomplished by receiving in one kind only; but there is no command to be found in the whole scripture for all to receive it in both kinds.

Q.  But does not our Savior say, “Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you?”  And does not this expressly command both eating and drinking; and, therefore, receiving in both kinds, otherwise there is no life for us?

A.  This, indeed, expressly commands the receiving both his body and blood; but the stress of the command by no means lies upon the manner of receiving it by the separate actions of eating and drinking; and this is manifestly explained by Himself a little after when He says, “He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me,”  John vi. 58; and “he that eateth this bread, shall live forever,” verse 59, where we see that eternal life is promised to the eating alone: Which evidently shows, that, by eating only, we perfectly fulfil the command given in the former text, where both eating and drinking are mentioned, and obtain that same life to our souls which is there spoken of; because, by eating alone, we receive both body and blood.

Q.  When He gave the chalice to His Apostles, did He not say, “Drink ye all of this?” Matt. xxvi,27.

A.  He did:  but who were the all here spoken to?  Surely the Apostles who were present with Him, and to whom He was speaking; and accordingly St. Mark tells us, that “they all drank of it,”  Mark xiv.23.  This, indeed, may imply a command to the priests who actually celebrate the Holy Mysteries, to receive at that time under both kinds, but by no means contains a command for all the people, nor even for the priests, who are not actually celebrating, to do so.

Q.  Are there any grounds from scripture to authorize the giving Communion in one kind?

A.  There are most manifest grounds in scripture for it:  First, Because our Savior Himself assures us, as we have just seen, that Communion in one kind is a full and perfect sacrament, by which eternal life is procured to the souls; “he that eats this bread shall live forever.” Second, Because it is evident from the scripture, that under either kind, we receive Jesus Christ whole and entire, both His body and blood, in which the essence of the sacrament consists.

Third, Because St. Paul says, “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord,” 1 Cor.xi 27.  Where, by saying, “eat or drink“, he manifestly shows, that it was the practice in his time to do the one or the other, to receive either by eating or drinking.  And the force of this text is so strong in favor of Communion in one kind only, that in all ages of the Church it had been accepted as such and practiced.

Fourth, Because our Savior Himself, when He discovered Himself to the two disciples going to Emmaus, communicated to them in one kind only; for, on receiving that divine Bread from His hands, “their eyes were opened, and they knew Him; and He vanished out of their sight,” Luke xxiv. 31.  Now, that this was the Holy Communion which He gave them, is clear from the manner in which He gave it to them, which was the same as at the Last Supper, “He took bread, and blessed, and broke and gave it to them,” verse 30.  And still more from the effect it produced in them of opening their eyes, that they knew Him, which surely common bread could not do.

Fifth, Because the Apostles themselves followed the same practice, as occasion required, which appears both from the text just now cited from St. Paul, and also of the account given of the first Christians, in the Acts:  “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Acts ii. 42

Q How does the Church look upon this?

A.  She considers the giving Communion in one kind only, or in both, merely as a point of discipline, which may be varied according as circumstance may require; and, in consequence of this, she has, on various occasions, sometime given it in one kind, sometimes in both, as is evident from all monuments of antiquity, even from the earliest ages.

Q.  But if one kind alone was sufficient for a full and perfect Sacrament, and if our Savior did not intend that all should receive it in both kinds, why did He institute it in both kinds?

[Read carefully.  The answer is terribly important for the faithful to understand.]

A.  Because this Holy Mystery was ordained not only as a Sacrament, but also as a Sacrifice.  Now, though one kind alone be sufficient for a true and perfect Sacrament, yet both kinds are required to make it a Sacrifice; for this reason, because the nature of this holy Sacrifice consists in representing the death of Jesus Christ, and offering Him up to His Eternal Father under the appearance of death, which could not be done but by both kinds,… 

 

 

Posted in Keeping the dogma of the Faith | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Feast of the Presentation, November 21

               Taken from T. Kelly’s The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary                

THE PRESENTATION OF MARY IN THE TEMPLE

From  the giving of the Mosaic law, it was   customary with the Jews to consecrate themselves to God, and to make vows of consecrating their children to Him for a time, or irrevocably forever…

The infant Mary was doubtless the sole consolation of her aged parents, who regarded her as a special gift of the Most High….they are now to be deprived of this darling object of their love.  This sacrifice which they must accomplish is a great one, and it surely touches them in the tenderest spot of their hearts;  but their piety is solid and their religion ardent…they preferred God’s glory and pleasure to their own content.

Mary , says St. Gregory of Nyssa, lively, agile, bounding with joy, though scarcely three years old, runs to the temple more willingly than the maiden enamored of a young monarch to the abode of her royal spouse. 1

Templo trima praesentata

Bendicta Virgo nata; Templo trima presentata

At the presentation of Mary in the temple, which according to the opinion of some, took place during the solemnity of the Encoenia, there assisted, according to St. Germanus, Nicephorus, and others, not only the parents, but also, by the will of Heaven, many of the noblest persons in Jerusalem, while thousands of invisible angels around her reveled in joy.

Assured, moreover, of the memorable fact of the sacrifice of herself which Mary made to God, and which the pious couple made of their beloved daughter, without entering into any details as to the exterior circumstances which attended that sacrifice, admirable and extraordinary as they were – we will say, that never had there been made in that temple an offering greater or more agreeable to God..while amid joyous chants, mingled with the sound of the sacerdotal harps, the young Virgin, admitted into the interior of the temple, accomplished the great sacrifice of herself.

…[Y]ou might behold in the divine enclosure the young Virgin consecrated to God and chosen from all eternity to give to the earth the Desired of the Nations, the promised Messias.  By this event was accomplished the prophecy of Aggeus:  “Great shall be the glory of this last house (in which the Saviour of the world shall enter) more than of the first.”

_______________

1.  It is the common opinion that the Blessed Virgin was presented in the temple soon after the conclusion of her third year.  Such is the assertion of Evodius, St. Grgeory, St. Germanus, Theodotus bishop of Ancyra, St. John Damascenus, St. Andrew of Crete, Gregory of Nicomedia, Nicephorus Callixtus, Bartholomew of Trent, Theodoret de Castro, Baronius, and others.

Posted in Feast Days | Tagged , | Leave a comment