www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pope offers up Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Missal of Pius V

Got this in the emai. I hope it is true:According to a report in the French Edition of Una Voce, a certain
> Father Blet, S. J. reports on the ongoing discussions between the
> Curia and the principals of the Society of Pius X. Within this
> report is the following sentence:
>
> Le R.P. Blet donne une information rest�e confidentielle
> jusqu'ici: � Le pape lui-m�me a c�l�br� cette messe
> durant ses derni�res vacances. �
>
> (my translation)
>
> The reverend Blet reveals what had been confidential until now:
> " The Pope celebrated this Mass himself during his recent vacation."

May Our Lord helps HH John Paul II in order to restore the Traditional Latin Mass fully throughout the entire Church.

And forget not the other Latin usages of Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Bragan.

Well y'all do know of the FSSP don't y'all? They celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but are in complete union with Rome. One parish, St. Francis de Sales, is just 45 minutes away from my town. This particular parish uses everything according to Tridentine tradition, from Baptism to Extreme Unction.

Soli Deo Gratia,
ChristTeen287

Has he not before?

Axios

Axios:

He is not normally able to offer up the Latin Mass because it is not the normal usage for the Roman Rite.

As a Bishop he could not offer it up without special permission from the Pope. The same goes for when he was cardinal.

As Pope, he can only do so with a private Mass.

The Holy Father offered the Mass of all time every day (except Good Friday) when he was a priest and even in his first few years as Bishop.

Joe Zollars

PS: This is the first time that the Holy Father has offered the Latin Mass since his elevation to the See of Peter. He has done ordinations for the Institute of Christ the King (a Traditional Order) but it was through a Novus Ordo in Latin.

Cardinal Ratzinger had a full pontifical for the FSSP in the Tridentine Rite last year. Several bishops in the US and Canada have performed ordinations and confirmations for the FSSP using the pontifical ritual of the Tridentine usage.

[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Bring back the Sarum rite! Bring back Gallic rites! Let a thousand liturgies bloom. But, let's make sure we don't continue to propagate the liturgical errors of the medieval and renaissance periods. Unless all these rites can be made consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium, their celebration is nothing more than an exercise in empty traditionalism.

Well, the Divine Liturgy of St Ambrosius is still celebrated in Milan, Italy; and the Mozarabic Rite (although it's celebrated in modern Spanish) is performed in a small parish of Toledo (and it sounds very much like a Greek Mass, according to my friends).

The restoration of the other rites (galician, bragan, sarum) would be a case of antropological pathology, an artificial re-creation of a dead thing, and it would be a false reality. As you know, there are many "independent" jurisdictions (some of them masquerating as orthodox) that offer those rites. Most of them seem to be do-it-yourself rites and not true rites.
The Apostolic Churches have always been very careful about this.

Joe Z:

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, or any Pope for that matter, has the authority and the privilege to celebrate the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) at any time in any of the rites extant in the Catholic Church, more so of his ouwn particular Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

The current rites in the Latin Church, as I have posted in another thread, are:



AmdG

Yes, he has the aurthority to do so, but this is the first time that this he has said a Tridentine Mass since the start of his pontificate.

The Bishops who perform confirmations, ordinations, or offer up a Pontifical High Mass for the FSSP do so with a very special indult from the Pope.

There is a Bishop here in Kansas who has recieved a very special indult to continue saying the Tridentine Mass until his death at St. Andrew's Catholic Church in Wichita KS. His name is His Excellency, Eugene Gerber.

To my knowledge, His Holiness has never offered up an Anglican Use Liturgy or the liturgy of one of the other western Rites during his pontificate.

Joe Zollars

Joe,

What is this "very special indult" from the Pope? I understood that each local Roman Ordinary (diocesan bishop) is to determine the pastoral necessity of allowing the celebration of the Mass according to the 1963(1964?) Roman Missal. The local Ordinary needs no "very special indult" to celebrate according to this Missal within his own diocese at least since 1988 with the issuance of the motu propio, Ecclesia dei.

it is the Missal of 1962 first of all, but secondly:

For a Bishop to offer up the Latin Mass or offer those Sacraments reserved to a Bishop in the Latin Rite according to the ritual of 1962, he must have permission from the Pope just as a Priest must have permission of the Bishop in order to offer the Latin Mass or any Sacraments (Confession, Extreme Unction, etc.) according to the Ritual of 1962.

Joe Zollars

Shlomo Amado,
You missed the Lyonais or Gallic Rite of the Roman Church.

One of the things that is happening is that these rites (the correct usage for a change ) are spreading, especially the Mozarabic rite. More and more Spanish speaking priests, many from the New World, are learning it. In Spain, more parishes are using it, and if I can find the article, the Spanish Bishops Conference plans on having that rite become the predominate one of Spain.

In closing here is the Mozarabic Morning Prayer for the board. I hope to post the entire Liturgy for you soon.

The Mozarabic Morning Prayer

As watchmen wait for the morning, so do our souls long for you, O Christ. Come with the dawning of the day, and make yourself known to us in the breaking of bread; for you are our God for ever and ever.
Amen.

Yuhannon

The Mozarabic Tradition was also brought to New Mexico (at that time part of Spain, then of Mexico until the angle invasion in 1847). This tradition also existed in many towns of Mexico, but there, the baroque architecture prevailed over the Mozarabic one.
If you go there you'll see those churches in a very Eastern Style, pure "adobe" is used for their construction, and they used to have icons. New Mexicans, as well as some Mexicans from the cenrtre of the country have a lot of Mozarabic blood. The rite was used in Taos, New Mexico (Puebla de Taos, San Fernando de Taos)and Guanajuato, Mexico, until the 1800, this rite is been rescued by New Mexican nationalists in the seminaries.

As you said many Spanish priests want to restore it, as well as Bishops and here in the New World too, but there is a problem:

if this rites are retored, but the Novus Ordo culture with its music and its inherent liberalisms is incorporated, the rite will not have its original purity and there'll be a mess of identity (just see what is happening with the Antiochian. Western Rites).

I am sorry if I have deviated the original topic in this Byzantine forum, but there are a lot of things that Eastern Christians have to say about this interesting thread.

It is normaly celebrated in a Vizigothic form of Latin, not Spanish. All of the offical books are in this dialect. Everything was in Latin when I was there earlier this year. The music does sound very "Greek" (Byzantine).

Michael


"...the Mozarabic Rite (although it's celebrated in modern Spanish) is performed in a small parish of Toledo (and it sounds very much like a Greek Mass, according to my friends)."

I am indeed glad to hear that the Mozarabic Rite is spreading. There are also FSSP Priests who offer the Ancient Dominican Mass, these even here in the good ole US of A. There are also FSSP Priests who offer the Sarum Mass in England.

The FSSP has apparently taken it upon itself to bring back tradition in all its forms. Deo Gratias!!!!

I believe it is important for Latins to support the FSSP (www.fssp.org [fssp.org], www.fssp.com) [fssp.com)] and they are a truly wonderful order.

In pray for the return tradition,
Joe Zollars

PS: I am most eager to see the Mozarabic Rite ritual. I am also interested in seeing the rituals for these other Rites.

Joe, the bishop does not have to have an "indult" from the Pope to say an accepted and promulgated Rite of the Latin Church. The Bishop, as the chief pastor of his territory, can decide that and can delegate that indult to individual priests who request it. An individual bishop could also theoretically give approval to an Ambrosian or Mozarabic celebration if he so desired.

Any Latin bishop, in accord with Ecclesia Dei, can offer the 1962 Mass himself and give permission to others to use it. As regards the FSSP, they have to be formally invited by a bishop into a diocese, not the Pope. Once again, that is the local bishop's call to invite them in or not.

While there is a Latin Mass in Wichita, the FSSP has not yet been formally invited there. In some of the dioceses surrounding you, namely Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and the Archdiocese of Kansas City (Kansas) the FSSP has been invited.

Archbishop Kelleher in Kansas City has performed three full pontificals so far for confirmation of the Latin Mass faithful. And in Lincoln, Nebraska where the FSSP seminary is located Bishop Bruskewitz regularly celebrates pontificals using the 1962 missal and performs ordinations for the FSSP.

Diak:

After more research, you are correct.

They have not been invited into this Diocese because the Bishop does not want to have a full time indult parish.

+Olmstead loves the ancient traditions of the Roman Rite, but he does not want to have to give up one of the regular diocesan churches to the FSSP.

Also, in a newsletter sent out about a year ago from the North American province of the FSSP, they stated that they have recieved hundreds of requests from the Bishops in North America to begin new apostolates in their dioceses. The FSSP will not fill these requests at once. The FSSP believes in their Priests living in community. Therefore there are always two or three Priests at each apostolate, or at least there are supposed to be.

In years to come we will see Latin Mass Apostolates springing up all over the country. Our Lady of Guadalupe seminary is full to the gills and turns away more than a hundred people a year who qualify for the FSSP and they are not an easy order to qualify for. According to one of my contacts in the FSSP, they have at least one request for information a day.

There has also been another order, Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, that was just founded within the Last two months.

According to one of my contacts in the FSSP, they also have several Fransiscans from Mexico City studing in their seminary in order to be able to offer the Ancient Latin Mass.

Of course all this pales in comparison to the European Province and particularly to France where the Latin Mass is booming and the Fontgomboult Benidictines are establishing Monastery after Monastery and their Fontgoumboult abey is overflowing.

Our Lady of Clear Creek here in the US is also expanding and once they get a proper abey built they will expand even more.

One archbishop in France, whose name escapes me at the moment, remarked "Most of the people in France who even bother to go to Mass anymore, go to the Latin Mass."

Deo Gratias,
Joe Zollars

Back to the OT, I am still surprised John Paul has never once pontificated at a Tridentine Mass as Pope until recently. Why so reluctant?

Axios

Axios:

The reason is: liberalism.


Could you imagine how scandalized the latin-american bishops of the liberation theology would be if the Pope celebrates a Tridentine Mass?

The promulgation of Ecclesia Dei and the indults were a "pain in the nose" for the liberal factions who wanted that rite to be totaly supressed.

On the other side, for hundreds of traditionalists, the indult itself and the status of the indult, is a humilliation for one of the most ancient rites of the Universal Church.

John Paul II, as well as Cardinal Ratzinger seem to be totaly in favor of the full restoration of the Traditional Mass, but the Pope's authority is very limited in that issue (since the New Mass was made mandatory by a Council, they can't do anything to modify it) and that restoration would cause distress among many bishops (it would be in detriment of the New Order).

[ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

Hey guys you'll love to read this, it's a little bit old, but...

A Sarum Mass was celebrated in England

http://www.unavoce.org/sarum_rite.htm

Dear Joe,

Why does he not want to have to "give up" a parish? Don't parishes administered by religious orders still fall under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary? Why would this be seen as losing a parish? I would think that if there was a demand for the old Mass, he would love to see more people come to church. What am I missing?

because he barely has enough Churches as it is in Wichita the churches are packed to the gills for the Novus Ordo and he needs that Church to still say the Novus Ordo.

Joe Zollars

If the Pope truly has as little authority and power as Remie suggestions, I think we can have re-union almost immediately. We have clealry overestimated the papal role.

Axios

Axios:

True Orthodoxy cannot be in union with the Current RC. Thank God for this. Liberalism has poisened the waters in RC. We should notsubject the Orthodox Christians of the world to the liberalism. You see, liberalism is like a cancer. It spreads and spreads and spreads until eradicated by chemo therapy or stopped by death. In this case, the Chemo Therapy is the prayers and devotions that have filled the RC for centuries and were taken away just over 3 decades ago. They continue on in the Tridentine and Anglican Use parishes, but they do not continue on in most, if not all, Novus Ordo parishes. What I am talking about is Tuesday Night Our Lady of Perpetual Hope devotions, Thursday Night Benediction, Friday Stations of the Cross (now only done during lent in most places). etc, etc, etc.

Joe Zollars

Joe, I have attended RC Masses in Wichita and you are right that the churches are full. But for that matter, so are the RC churches here in Topeka. If the state of the RC Church is so bad, as you allege, then why are the churches in this area so full? Also here in Topeka, most parishes have large RCIA programs and receive many new members every year. That does not sound like a sign of illness to me? As for your theory that those old devotions are needed to fix whatever you may feel is wrong with the RC Church. I remember those devotions and I personally miss them and feel they have a place in a parish's life. However, I would much rather see a church packed for Mass, than to stress non-liturgical stuff like that. Times have changed my friend and in non-essentials the Church has too. Modern people need to be fed spiritually and they need the meat and potatoes of the Mass, Scriptures and Eucharist, not a spiritual snack like novenas. Also, I don't think you should be putting words in your bishop's mouth about why he may or many not invite FSSP to your diocese. If he has publicly stated, or even privately to you, that he won't do it because he doesn't want to give up a parish to them it is one thing, but if you only assume this is the reason it is another. You made it sound like as if you have direct knowledge of his intentions. If so, clearly state it, if not then you should make it clear this is only your opinion. As for your comment about "True Orthodoxy", I'll let that one slide for the moment. Don

In other words, it was the venacular devotions that saved the Catholic Church during the time of the Latin Mass?

Axios

Tantum Ergo and O Salutaris Hostia as well as just about all the hymns for the 40 hours devotion and many of the other prayers were said in Latin.

Don, you are correct this is my opinion based on several conversations I have had with my Bishop.

Joe Zollars

Most catholics think that the Orthodox Churches are extremely divided (in jursidictions), but it's healthy to see how divided the Roman Catholic Church is. I've visited many catholic parishes, attended services there, and it has amazed me that each parish seems to have a different mass. The sense of catholicism now is very divisive.

The problem of the inter-juridictional dialogue and the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in general (for example, between Melkites and Antiochians) could not fulfill what was expected (common sacraments, concelebration of Divine Liturgy) because of the same reason: for exapmple, melkites and antiochians have the same liturgy, same structure and a theology that was in proccess of re-unification, but the Orthodox Churches oppose to recognize the common sacraments as there is not a full unity in faith. Anyway, melkites and other eastern catholics have Orthodox Liturgies, and Orthodox theologies, but in many things, they still depend on the same liberal and modernist bishops of the Latin Church, and they are in full communion with them (so you won't have the Othodox Sacraments).
I'm sure that many things would change if the RC returns to orthodoxy and discipline in her faith and her liturgy, eliminating all the non-catholic (therefore, non-orthodox) elements of the modernized Church).

May the good Lord help His Holliness John Paul II to fully restore the Traditional Mass throughout the World. I'm sure that God will hear our prayers (catholic and orthodox).

Dear Johanam,

"True Orthodoxy cannot be in union with the Current RC. Thank God for this."

Your comments have me confused.

You are in communion with a Roman Catholic Bishop if I understand correctly. He is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, his Patriarch and is a member of the Bishop's Conference. Are you not then in communion with true orthodoxy in the Roman Church?

Have you broken communion with her? I don't understand.

Steve

Dear Remie,

"I'm sure that many things would change if the RC returns to orthodoxy and discipline in her faith and her liturgy, eliminating all the non-catholic (therefore, non-orthodox) elements of the modernized Church)."

This comment has raised a couple of questions. Here's why.

From what I've read here in discussions on the Forum, there are few doctrinal issues which separate the Catholic Communion from the Orthodox Communion. One which does separate the Communions is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Is this what you refer to when you suggest that the Roman Church has left orthodoxy? Certainly many Orthodox believers hold that position.

If that is not what you mean, what do you mean when you say that the Roman Church needs to return to orthodoxy?

As part of the Catholic Communion in union with the Pope, the Roman Church is catholic and orthodox. What are the non-catholic elements of the Roman Church that make it non-orthodox?

Who determined that the Roman Church has left orthodoxy and needs to return to orthodoxy? On the basis of what evidence and authority do you assert that it has non - catholic elements that make it non-orthodox?

Thanks for hearing me out. I look forward to hearing what you mean by saying the above.

Steve

There is much liberalism in the Roman Church. Many Bishops are promoting modernistic (for the Roman church) ideas like married priests and standing for Communion.

There are a lot of problems with the Current Roman Church and therefore reunion cannot exist between a body that possesses no heresy and is predominatley (if not entirely) free from modernism like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and a Church that is riddled with modernism like the Roman Church.

Don't get me wrong, I wish very much for a reunion between east and west, but before this can happen we Latins got to get the broom and dustpan out and do some cleaning up.

Joe Zollars

HMMMMM These practices seem familiar.... HEY, we do that in my OCA parish as part of our Eastern Christian tradition!!!

Dear Johanam,

Thank you for your quick response. It has raised more questions and I am not sure that it answers the question that I asked. I have quoted your remarks and then raised the questions.


"There is much liberalism in the Roman Church. Many Bishops are promoting modernistic (for the Roman church) ideas like married priests and standing for Communion."

Do you really believe that there is no place in the Roman Church for liberals as well as those who hold a more conservative view? You say that many bishops hold the position that there should be married priests? Who are these bishops?

By modernistic do you mean new? The Roman Church has a rich history of married priests and counts a number of married men as members of the priesthood today.

In the United States, receiving the Lord in the Eucharist standing is the norm as far as I know. This is hardly new? Even in the Tridentine Liturgy, there is a prayer that is for those "circumstantes," those standing around the altar. Standing during the Liturgy is not new to the Roman Church.

"There are a lot of problems with the Current Roman Church and therefore reunion cannot exist between a body that possesses no heresy and is predominatley (if not entirely) free from modernism like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and a Church that is riddled with modernism like the Roman Church."

Liberalism is not a doctrinal heresy. What teachings or practices of the Roman Church constitute heresy? Who decided that they were heretical? When was heresy declared?

I take it that you remain in union with the Roman Church. Are you then in union with a heretical body?


As you can see, your response raised many questions?

Thanks for hearing me out. I look forward to reading your response to these and my original questions.

Steve

Joe,

if anything these are practices of the early Church, so I would hardly call them "modernistic ideas". BTW, when did body posture become the qualifying sign of orthodoxy? Receiving the Eucharist while one is standing is hardly the sign by which one establishes orthodoxy. (The apostles reclined at table for that first celebration of the Eucharist.) IMHO,I think the bishops see the insistence to kneel for the reception of the Eucharist as an act of defiance, not one of communion. Those who kneel while the bishop has mandated that standing is the norm seem to contradict the meaning of the Eucharist, communion as the Body of Christ in partaking the Body of Christ.

John

Dear Inawe:

When I said that the RC should return to orthodoxy and discipline, I didn't exactly mean that the RC would return to Orthodoxy (the Orthodox Church), but at least to a right believing according to the Catholic dogmas, and orthodoxy in its common practice and liturgy.

It is easier to dialogue with people who share the traditional catholic doctrine, although different from the Orthodox in many things such as Papal infalibility and filioque, than with people who have modernist and liberal doctrines from Protestantism.

About the way of the communion in the RC, what you said about standing for communion (and communion without both species) made me a little bit confused (that doesn't surprise me, if the RC's mas changes from parish to parish, it must be quite different from country to country).

From what I've seen here, when there are not so many people in the Church, the man or the woman who gives the communion puts part of the host inside the chalice, and then gives it to people who take communion (standing, but generaly in the mouth).

And when there are too many people, those who are to receive communion pass the vessell with the hosts hand-to-hand and people just pick the host (communion was given this way during Pope's Mass in the Stadium), in this case there's no time to give both species.

Dear Inawe:

I shall endeavor to answer your questions below:

there is no place in my opinion for those who regect some form of doctrinal truth. This is what I call a liberal, someone who tries to either superimpose foreign traditions (standing for communion, married priests, etc.) on the Roman Church or denies some form of doctrinal truth (such as cardinal malohney who supports married and women priests).

"By modernistic do you mean new? The Roman Church has a rich history of married priests and counts a number of married men as members of the priesthood today. "

By modernistic I mean the heresy of modernism as defined by Pope St. Pius X. The encyclical in which he defined the heresy of modernism is available in the library of papal encyclicals at www.ewtn.com. [ewtn.com.]

I am well aware of the fact that protestant clergy are now being recieved into the Roman Church and ordained to the Priesthood. I applaud this as it opens the way for many new converts to the Catholic faith. However, what I meant was having married priests as the norm in the Roman Church.

"In the United States, receiving the Lord in the Eucharist standing is the norm as far as I know. This is hardly new? Even in the Tridentine Liturgy, there is a prayer that is for those "circumstantes," those standing around the altar. Standing during the Liturgy is not new to the Roman Church."

Standing for the reception of the Most Hly Eucharist is not the norm in the Roman Rite. Last time I checked it was the our Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, who was to decide liturgical matters, not a group of Bishops in one part of a particular Church. Standing in the Tridentine Rite during Mass was not common in the old days but it certainly is now. I recently attended a Latin Mass in Nebraska where more than one hour before Mass the people were already standing outside unable to get into the Church for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, even in these most crowded circumstances, the people would take turns kneeling at the Altar Rail to recieve Our Lord. The Priest would simply go back and forth along the Altar Rail until everyone had communicated that was going to. Those who could not kneel due to health problems and Eastern Catholics typically stand at the gate of the Altar Rail.

"Liberalism is not a doctrinal heresy. What teachings or practices of the Roman Church constitute heresy? Who decided that they were heretical? When was heresy declared?"

Liberalism is another name for the heresy of Modernism which was defined by Pope St. Pius X. Read his encyclicals on modernism to answer the rest of this set of questions.

"I take it that you remain in union with the Roman Church. Are you then in union with a heretical body?"

Yes I remain in communion with the Church of Rome. I am united to the Magisterium of the Church and not to the local bishop unless he is part of the magisterium. The Magisterium is both temporal (here and now) and Eternal (has existed throughout time). The magisterium can basically be defined as the Pope of Rome and all the Bishops in union with him. This would include past popes and past Bishops.

Joe Zollars

Dear Friends,

From watching several masses, canonizations mostly, broadcast from St. Peter's in Rome, I am struck by the facts that they seem to use the Novus Ordo Liturgy and that the people mostly receive the Eucharist standing in the crowd. Thus the norm for Liturgy in the Church of Rome would seem to be the Novus Ordo and include Communion while standing. The Pope does not seem to have problem with this.

This would seem to define standing for the Eucharist as an acceptable method, as far as the Magisterium is concerned.



It seems to me, that since most of our USA Bishops have been appointed by Pope John Paul II, and he has not seen fit to limit their authority to make rules for the American Church, or to overrule their decisions, that they are effectively functioning as part of the Magisterium.

Thus the magisterium supports the post Vatican II reforms. Though I will concede that there are excesses in some places, this is a far cry from any legitimate claim that our Bishops are mostly "modernist" heretics.

Where the Bishop is, there is the Church. When multiple Bishops agree on a common set of rules for the conduct of Liturgy, they are the authority for the Faithful.

I suggest that rather than say that Joe is right and most of our Bishops are heretics, It is closer to reality to say that the the Bishops of the USA represent the authority of the Magisterium and that the unfortunate problem is a state of REBELLION within the flock. Some of these rebels are indeed "liberals" and some are "traditionalists", but they share a common veiw -- that the Bishops don't know what they are doing.

Servants of God who have gone on to eternal rewards, our past Popes and past Bishops, pray for us, that we may be strengthened against the forces of rebellion and division in the Body of Christ.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Joe,

Would you consider Pius X a "liberal" for superimposing the innovation of receiving the Eucharist prior to the reception of Confirmation? Until Pius X, the traditional order of the sacraments of initiation- Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist- had been maintained. The traditional order of reception is still maintained for converts coming into the Roman Catholic Church during the Easter Vigil.

John


John

"Would you consider Pius X a "liberal" for superimposing the innovation of receiving the Eucharist prior to the reception of Confirmation?"

John,

And wasn't that "innovation" actually a temporary practice allowed?

That innovation was brought about through organic development.

In Rome their are too many people to use the altar rail. Even in the Tridentine people were allowed to stand under such circumstances. Such circumstances were rare and they did not occur until the canonization of Maria Goretti in the 1950's.

Of course the Novus Ordo is the Norm in Rome and througout the Roman Church. Therefore the whole point of this thread and the point of the existance of such things as "indult parishes."

Two lungs:

I guess all those people who resisted the Latinizations with all their might were simply "in a state of rebellion."

Joe Zollars

Dear Joe,

"Married priests and standing for Communion."

Why are you so "Anti-Orthodox" Joe?

And yet you like to hang out with Orthodox - isn't that a contradiction?

But promoting a "married priesthood?" Who, what and where?

I thought the U.S. bishops would like it very much if some of there priests had a healthy attitude toward women . . .

Alex

Most good orthodox (small O) Priests do have a good, extremly healthy view of women.

I am not anti-Orthodox. I am anti-Byzantinization of the Roman Rite.

You don't like it when I say you have to have celibate Priests, Iconless Churches, stations of the Cross, etc. etc. etc. And well you shouldn't.

These are latinizations of the Byzantine Rite. Therefore it is just as inappropriate for Easterners to tell me I have to have married Priests, vernacular liturgies, and standing Communions.

As for who is promoting married Priests, just open your eyes. Cardinal Mahoney and numerous Bishops from accross the country and several cardinals have called for a "Vatican III" in order to consider women's ordination and a married Priesthood for the Roman Rite. If these things come into being, I will run not walk to the nearest FSSPX Chapel.

Joe Zollars

Joe,
Here again you are wrong.

I have shown you the documents from the Vatican and the Pope which gives the USCCB the right to determine posture during the Mass.

I think it is time you go and reread the posts and documents, the GIRM and the Code of Canon Law. When you do you will see that the Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, has give some power to the local bishops/churches to determine some liturgical matters, one of them being posture.


David

Yes, but we are not to be denied the ancient heritage of the Latin Rite, including posture. AT the Tridentine Mass the complete rubrics of the 1962 Mass are to be maintained. However at more than one Tridentine Mass I attended recently the local Bishop had ordered the people to no longer kneel. At one Mass this resulted in everyone staying in their pews and only the Priest and Altar Boys recieving Communion. I have even heard of one instance where the Bishop demanded this and everyone in the parish got up and walked three blocks down the street to the FSSPX chapel.

I care not about the GIRM for the new rite, I do not follow the new Rite. I seldom if ever when in attendance at a new Mass will go up for communion. Those I do communicate at are where I am personally aquainted with the Priest and he allows me to kneel.

I respect the venerable traditions of the East, yet there is nil respect on this board for the venerable traditions of the west. Well there is respect for the traditions of the west among those who are heavily involved with other boards.

In any account this thread is not about the ancient Roman Tradition of kneeling for Communion but rather about the fact that the Pope may have offered up the Ancient Latin Mass.

Joe Zollars

[ 09-16-2002: Message edited by: Johanam ]

Joe,
I respect the traditions of the west very much.

I must admit some confusion here. I was not aware that you have been talking about the Tridentine Mass in all of your posts about the kneeling. As far as I know, standing being the norm is only in the new GIRM. I thought, as you say, rubrics of the 1962 Mass are to be maintained.

Which is done here in the Diocese of Rochester, NY.

Please forgive me for my confusion on this matter.


David

It is quite alright, in hindsight it was my posts that caused the confusion.

I shall endeavor to be more clear in the future.

Actually yes. According to Ecclesia Dei the Rubrics of the 1962 Missal are to be maintained at the ancient Latin Mass.

In any event, I have it from reliable sources that this decision by the USCCB and the ramifications from it as regards the Tridentine Mass has placed one more roadblock between Rome and the FSSPX.

Joe Zollars

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Joe, that reminds me of when the bishop of Arlington held a Mass at Christendom College. At COmmunion he stepped out side of the Altar Rail to give the communicants the body of Christ. Instead the choir went to the altar rail and kneeled.

He walked back and went up and down the altar rail and gave them communion on the tongue while they were on their knees and then he went back to the middle outside the gates of the altar rail.

The next group that went up did the same thing, going up to the altar rail and kneeled. The bishop stayed put and the priests concelebrating instead gave communion to each row as they did the same thing even with the bishop standing to give them communion in the Novus Ordo Mass style.

After the Mass he told them that the norms in America are to receive standing and that in the future they should that way instead. God Bless you traditionalists!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

I knew I should have gone to Christendom!!!!!!!!

Joe Zollars

Dear Joe,

But the Latin Church already admits married priests in the person of Anglican and Lutheran ministers who have left their respective communities on the very grounds of modernism for the Catholic Church.

They are allowed to keep their wives.

As for "ancient tradition," quite apart from "creepy Byzantinization," the Latin Church has always had a married parochial priesthood and its cancellation occurred late in the Church's history.

St Patrick himself was the son of a married Latin Catholic priest and there are many others.

Women priests are another issue.

I'm just wondering whether your calling married priests etc. "Byzantinization" is doing justice to the full range of Latin Church history?

And if it can be shown that standing for Communion and married priests obtained in the West for a long period of time, which it can, then what does this make of your Byzantinization argument?

Alex

I'm sorry to be rude, but I get queasy at the mere thought of priestesses. The Church has not authority to ordain women as priestesses anyway, right?

ChristTeen287

No one has suggested women be ordained priestesses.

Axios

Alex:

Married priests are not the norm in the Roman Church.

However, there are special indults. The Priests who are clerical converts from Lutheranism and Anglicanism as well as some other Protestant Denominations, recieve a special indult direct from the holy father himself who allows them to be ordained on a case by case basis.

One of these men, a very holy Priest and a good friend of mine, continuously tells me and many others that married Priests should not be the norm in the Roman Rite. The demands on a Roman Priest far exceed what a married man is capable of undertaking.

This Priest gives one very personal example of why this is so. He was called to give Extreme Unction at the very time that his wife was going through an extremely difficult childbirth and nearly died.

Also the parish can not support an entire family, they can barely support a single priest, and therefore he has to take on three jobs: that of a parish priest, spiritual director for a Catholic High School, and pastor of the newman center at a local state university. With all three of these jobs he is barely able to keep a minimum of food on the table and I have been to their home in the middle of winter. I can assure you that if the heater was on, it did not go beyond the pilate light. And I don't neccisarily live in sourthern climate.

There are several other stories involving this Priest that I don't feel I have the liberty to share with you.

Married Priests are a Byzantine Tradition. Celibate Priests are a Roman Tradition with a few exceptions in extroidinary circumstances.

In the Early Church the Holy Mass was joined with a meal known as the agape. The Church has said we should not revive this because it represents a false thinking of the nature of tradition in the Roman Rite. we have something called organic development. Through organic development, we have knelt for centuries.

Now once again, I must say that this thread was not about kneeling for Communion. If you want to discuss this, why not post in the other thread I had regarding kneeling.

Post wher you will, but since there is nill respect for the venerable traditions of the Christian West on this board, this is my last post/visit to this forum.

Christeen:

The Church does not have the authority to ordain women "priests". It is a theological impossibility, yet there are many American Bishops (from South America too) along with several Bishops from Europe (including Cardinals) who support Women's ordination. This is a cause of prayer, but we should not be too concerned. There will always be a faithful remnant.

All:

If anyone here wishes to carry on an actual fruitful discussion please contact me via email:

joe_zollars@hotmail.com

I sincerely hope to see ya'll in the Life to come, but I shall not see ya'll until then.

Joe Zollars

Axios:

Cardinal Mahoney has avowed to bring the issue of Women's ordination up to the pope. Three days after dedicating his new Cathedral he went to Dallas for a women's ordination conference.

There are numerous dissenting organizations such as call to action that also have women's ordination as their chief objective.

The Bishop of Saginaw has refuse to ordain anyone until he can ordain women.

I could give you more examples, but what would that accomplish. You insist on continuing to support the homosexual agenda despite the wise advice and fervent prayers of many on this and other boards.

I hope you come to your senses,
JOe Zollars

Joe Zollars wrote:

Mr. Zollars,

Since all you have done in the time you have spent posting on The Byzantine Forum has been to attack the Roman Catholic Church because it does not conform to your personal agenda it is no wonder that others are not all that interested in discussing these issues. I do find myself wondering why you have come to a Byzantine Forum to discuss your problems with the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps you might be happier participating in a Roman Catholic forum? There are lots of them on the internet.

As Byzantine Christians we have a great deal amount of respect for the traditions of the Latin Church. But we are not Latin Catholics so it should not be surprising that as Byzantines and other Eastern Christians our main interest would be to discuss topics about the Christian East.

I again advise you to consider spending less time attacking your wonderful Church and more time in prayer and study under the direction of a good spiritual director.

Admin