Sacrificium Laudes

Musings on Liturgy, Lived Catholicism, and Traditional Religion

This is such an important sermon to me (Sirena)

I just listened to a sermon on the lives of Sts. Cyprian and Justina.

The lives of Sts. Cyprian and Justina are truly jaw-dropping.

When I listened to this sermon, I thought I’d be more drawn to Justina’s story than Cyprian’s but there was a part of Cyprian’s story that spoke to my heart. It was when Cyprian had his conversion.

The devil was so furious that he had lost a follower who had led away many souls from God.

He was so furious, and did what he is known to do. He put thoughts into Cyprian’s mind. Thoughts telling Cyprian that he will never be good enough for God. That his past life will never be forgotten and he will never be a saint. The devil reminded Cyprian of his sins and the evils he committed.

I think many fallen away Catholics who have reverted to Catholicism experience these temptations and attacks from the devil.

The devil wants you to go back to your old life. He is so angry that were freed from his hold on you!

We go back again to scrupulosity.

The devil “was trying to tempt Cyprian to despair…to give up. To quit.”

And I think it’s very dangerous, if you do not pray, fast, and go to Mass, because if you don’t you may just give in to those thoughts because you will let the devil convince you that you should just go back to your old ways!

St. Michael, protect and pray for us!

God is Mercy! His heart is Mercy! Love His Son’s most Sacred Heart, and throw yourself into the ocean of His Love!

By the power of Jesus Christ on the Cross, be gone Satan!

Click the link below to listen to the sermon! Such an important sermon to listen to!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2kBDQCJJc&list=UU3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ

The Sin of Pride and Lessons from St. Paul’s testimony to King Agrippa

20131012-203601.jpg

“No matter the wrong, do no violence to your neighbor,
And do not walk the path of arrogance.
Odious to The Lord and to men is arrogance,
Dominion is transferred from one people to another
Because of the violence of the arrogant.
Why are dust and ashes proud?
Even during life man’s body decays;
A slight illness- the doctor jests,
When a man dies, he inherits corruption;
Worms and gnats and maggots.
The beginning of pride is man’s stubbornness
In withdrawing his heart from his Maker;
For pride is the reservoir of sin,
A source which runs over with vice;
Because of it God sends unheard-of afflictions
And brings men to utter ruins.”
(Ecclesiasticus 10: 6-13)

I was listening to a sermon on Video Sancto on reasons why the traditional movement isn’t moving forward as fast as we want it to, and the priest ultimately points to the sin of pride.

The priest was saying that a lot of us who are hurt and angry about the crisis we are in have fallen into the sin of pride.
We often forget that this treasure of tradition that we have found must be shared and defended charitably as St. Peter suggests.
Especially to our brothers and sisters who do not care to understand the importance of Tradition.

St. Paul had to approach nonbelievers in this way in order for them to truly hear his side of the story.
As you know, he’s had many successes in the way he preached the Good News.
And one event in Paul’s life that I found very useful is his testimony to King Agrippa.
Paul’s choice of words and approach is completely awe-inspiring!

“I think myself happy, O king Agrippa, that I am to answer for myself this day before thee, touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews. [3] Especially as thou knowest all, both customs and questions that are among the Jews: Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. [4] And my life indeed from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews do know: [5] Having known me from the beginning (if they will give testimony) that according to the most sure sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”
Acts of the Apostles 26: 2-5
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51026.htm

If you noticed, Paul didn’t jump in with guns loaded, ready to fire Agrippa with stinging words along the lines of “I’m right. YOU’RE WRONG!”.
He seriously humiliated himself by bringing up the first thing about himself which he was most ashamed of- a Pharisee who hated Christians with a passion, and killed them!

What a sight!
Oh, how I wish that one day, I may be as charitable and humble as my dear St. Paul.

And we haven’t even reached the coolest part of this story of St. Paul and King Agrippa!
Read the last part of Paul’s testimony to Agrippa. Agrippa says something very shocking! Well, since he was talking to one of the best communicators of all time, maybe it’s no surprise.

[26] For the king knoweth of these things, to whom also I speak with confidence. For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him. For neither was any of these things done in a corner. [27] Believest thou the prophets, O king Agrippa? I know that thou believest. [28] And Agrippa said to Paul: In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian. [29] And Paul said: I would to God, that both in a little and in much, not only thou, but also all that hear me, this day, should become such as I also am, except these bands. [30] And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them.

[31] And when they were gone aside, they spoke among themselves, saying: This man hath done nothing worthy of death or of bands. [32] And Agrippa said to Festus: This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar.

Acts of the Apostles 26: 26-32
Though we do not read that Agrippa converted to Christianity, his respect of Paul was very high indeed.
That last part about Paul wishing Agrippa to be just like him except for the chains he was wearing was pure saintliness. Amazing,
That is how we should approach people.
Read the Acts of the Apostles, and maybe we can then learn how to reach a solution with our brothers and sisters who are lacking knowledge of the importance of Tradition for the restoration of our Holy Mother Church in the crisis we see today.

In Jesus and Mary,
Sirena

The Catholic Wedding of the Year

(This article was copy and pasted from http://reginamag.com/a-new-american-archduchess/)

Cathwedding1

Archduchess Kathleen of Austria is everything a princess should be – poised, graceful, elegant, articulate, God-fearing, humble, and virtuous. She is also an American with a passion to defend the poor, the lonely, the pre-born and their mothers.  I know about this passion, because I was blessed with this inspiring friend when we worked together in the pro-life movement in Washington, DC.

Let’s just say that it was no surprise to any of her friends when Katie married Imre. A few of us knew from the beginning that she had met her match – they shared a common Faith, goals, and very importantly, a sense of humor, constantly challenging and supporting each other. One thing was clear: they loved each other. Katie, our ‘Anne of Green Gables’ fan, had met her “Gilbert Blythe.”

Imre is a Hapsburg – a descendent of the centuries-old family of the Holy Roman Emperors. Officially ‘His Imperial and Royal Highness of Austria,’ this young, serious man solemnly wed his American Kathleen on September 8, 2012. The couple chose this feast day of the Nativity of Our Lady to be wed at St. Mary, Mother of God Catholic Church in Washington, DC.

It was both a sentimental and significant choice. Kathleen and Imre had met here at the Latin Mass they attended months before. The church had recently been dedicated as a shrine to Blessed Karl of Austria – the last emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Imre’s great-grandfather.

A private ball in the new couple’s honor the night before was a thing out of a fairytale.  Truly, the evening was everything I dreamt a royal ball could be. As we entered, a string quartet could be heard playing a waltz.  I found myself seated alongside several dukes, archdukes, and a soon-to-be archduchess. (Never in a million years could this Pacific Northwest girl, who grew up playing kick-the-can with the neighborhood kids in the summer, have imagined such a scene!)

At the first notes of Strauss’s Kaiser-Waltz, they walked to the dance floor, swinging their clasped hands and gazing shyly at each other. As the movement in the waltz changed, so did their dance and likewise, their reenactment of their courtship – walking a bit closer to one another, he spinning her a few times until finally, a twirl found her in his arms and they set off waltzing effortlessly around and around.

cathweddingtwo

Their dance was a reenactment of their courtship – walking a bit closer, he spinning her a few times until finally, a twirl found her in his arms and they set off waltzing effortlessly around and around.

It was simply, breathtakingly beautiful. And I must say, the innocence of their love and their fulfillment of their call to chastity was evident to all who attended. (I might have pushed a tear aside at this point.)

And what a party! Our DJ, who stepped in for the string quartet, rocked the American pop classics. Until the wee hours, we all — Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Chileans – danced and sang in our varying accents. Yea, verily, it was Twist ‘n’ Shout almost to the next morning, which came all too quickly.

Outside St Mary’s gray stone eminence, the procession of ladies’ hats and men in elegant day suits astonished passerby. It was clear that this was no ordinary event. For this reporter, the hats were a revelation. Never before, save for TV coverage of England’s royal wedding, had I seen such luxury. Online fashion blogger The Sartorialist would have been delighted. As an avid Downton Abbey fan, I was thrilled by the European men in their dashing morning coats. (This might be a men’s fashion that needs to re-cross the Pond.)

McVicker

I found myself seated alongside several dukes, archdukes, and a soon-to-be archduchess. An avid Downton Abbey fan, I was thrilled by the European men in their dashing morning coats.

Presided over by Monsignor Charles Pope, in the presence of Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde, their Latin Nuptial Mass was glorious. There was not a single moment where it was not evident that it really does take three to get married.

While a beautiful bride and her handsome groom stood before the altar, the Mass itself centered on God; our attention was never drawn away from the sacred.  An hour and a half flew by in minutes, and soon the new husband and wife walked to the shrine of Our Lady to consecrate their newly-created family. Finally, the church echoed to the strains of “On This Day, O Beautiful Mother” – the favorite Marian hymn of Kathleen’s late grandmother.

wedding

Truly, the day was everything that I dreamt a royal wedding could be.

To be honest, I still cannot believe that I witnessed this deeply sacramental marriage.

More than the obvious “commoner- meeting-her-Prince-Charming” storyline, it was the beautiful culmination of another, rarer story in our fallen world, where ‘holy and virtuous girl meets holy and virtuous boy’ and they fall madly in love – keeping Christ at all times at the center of their relationship.

latinmass

The Latin Nuptial Mass was glorious. I still cannot believe that I witnessed this deeply sacramental marriage ceremony.

Even in these ‘progressive’ times, theirs is the kind of fairytale that each and every Christian woman dreams of – whether they will admit it or not.

May God bless Their Imperial and Royal Highnesses Imre and Kathleen of Austria and grant them a long and joyous life!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lucy McVicker worked for the pro-life movement in the Washington DC area and currently resides in her hometown of Portland, Oregon where she is active in her parish community. In her free time, she can be found sewing or knitting, kayaking, running, or hiking.

Masculinity and the Liturgy

The Catholic Gentleman

Today, I want to broach a controversial topic, knowing full well that I may cause a ruckus. I want to talk about masculinity and the liturgy. (Fair warning: This is going to be long.)

communionI will start with a few caveats. First, I do not believe the liturgy should ever be a controversial issue. It shouldn’t be a matter of politics, factions, personal preference, or cultural fads. But sadly, many have made the liturgy their personal plaything, making these conversations all but impossible to avoid.

Second, all of the following opinions are just that—opinions. I am an uneducated layman. I am not a theologian or a liturgical scholar. If you want an in depth treatment of the liturgy, read Pope Benedict’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.” That said, I am a man, and I want to share my personal observations on why I believe the liturgy is now less masculine.

Finally…

View original post 2,459 more words

The Danger in Being a Merely Conservative Catholic

Modern MassOne unpleasant fact that we have to face as Catholics is that there truly are better and worse eras through which the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, sojourns in her earthly travail. As the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught us in the constitution ‘Lumen Gentium’, the Body of Christ imitates her Head by existing in two elements, the heavenly and the earthly. In her heavenly element, which some call the Church Triumphant, she cannot be assaulted by the attacks of hell; in her earthly element, however, she knows better and worse times, times when heresy is rampant, when accordingly even her clerics cannot be trusted, and times of great orthodoxy and stability. In the Church Militant, the Body of Christ’s earthly element, the Catholic Church soldiers on in the Passion of her Divine Spouse; in this path she encounters throughout history a great variety of persecutions, taking on many different forms as the ages go by. The strength of the assault of the evil one mercifully ebbs and flows according to the Lord’s inscrutable Providence. Some historical examples may be of use to us as we examine the Church’s own Passion which she suffers together with her Lord in our endeavor to understand the dangers of being a merely conservative Catholic:

  • The first major persecution is the bloody, worldwide one that the pagan Roman Empire initiated in the sustained war which it waged against God and His Christ. This lasted roughly three hundred years, and produced countless martyrs while the Church was yet in her infancy. Among these are the great heroes of our Faith, including Sts. Peter and Paul, Chief of the Apostles, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Justin the Martyr, St. Agatha of Sicily, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St. Catherine of Alexandria, as well as many others. Time would not allow for the heroic memoirs and narratives of all the martyrs to be recounted, nor for their names to be commemorated here. Truly the Spirit of the Father sustained His children in Christ throughout this bloody period, and in this is the double nature of the Body of Christ manifested powerfully.
  • The next important persecution of the evil one came in the form of the great Christological heresies of the first millennium: Arianism (A.D. 300), Pneumatomachianism (A.D. 370), Nestorianism (A.D. 410), Monophysitism (A.D. 430), Apollinarianism (A.D. 500), Monothelitism/Monoenergism (A.D. 600), and Iconoclasm (A.D. 740). Each of these seven major heresies was opposed by the Catholic Church in the great Ecumenical Councils of the first eight centuries of Church history, which preserved authoritatively the essence of the identity of the Son of God, and of the Spirit of God. In each of these heresies, scarcely a single diocese was spared and kept uncorrupt. During Arianism in particular, nearly the entire Catholic world, save for the Patriarchates of Rome and Alexandria, fell to the spread of the heresy. Bishops fell left and right, earthly rulers were corrupted in the profession of a false religion, and the ordinary Catholic experienced tumultuous times with little indication of who to trust other than the Church of Rome and her Bishop, and each Ecumenical Council convoked in full communion with Rome. Even Rome herself, in the case of Pope Honorius I (A.D. 630), experienced a time in these great persecutions when her theological guidance on the informal level could not be trusted. Though Rome has never officially taught absolute error in her solemn Magisterium (her official, formal teachings to the world in Encyclicals, Letters to Ecumenical Councils, he ex cathedra definitions, and so on), in Honorius she did unofficially guide some toward the heresy of Monothelitism; for this terrible deed, Pope Honorius I was anathematized by Pope St. Agatho and the sixth Ecumenical Council. All of this chaos and confusion occurred in the earthly element of the Body of Christ, the societal element, while in her heavenly element she remained as inviolate and pristinely pure as the Mother of God herself, dwelling perfectly in Christ.
  • Another important persecution came with the advent of Islam around A.D. 690. After the death of Muhammed, Islam was forcibly spread by the sword through the Middle East, Palestine, Northern Africa, Iberia (Spain), and eventually, by the fifteenth century, Asia Minor and parts of Greece as well. Although Christianity was largely tolerated after the initial conquest, Christian influence on society all but ceased and the glory of the Eastern Roman Empire almost entirely vanished. Christians were subjected to a false religion, contrary to the reign of Christ, and her evangelism was inhibited. The seventh great Christological heresy, Iconoclasm, may have actually been precipitated by Islamic influence over Christianity in East and its opposition to statuary, and images in general, as idolatry. Christianity under Islamic rule in the East managed to survive, even to this day, but its glory and influence has never been the same. Such would have been the fate of Europe, had it not been for Latin Catholics in the West who drove back Muslim forces at various times throughout the Middle Ages, keeping Rome from falling under Islamic control. We are still dealing with this persecution to this day.
  • The next great historical threat to the Catholic Church was the Great Schism, which was a gradual process of alienation between the Latin Church in the West, and the various Eastern Churches in the East between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1700. Though 1054 symbolizes this whole process and is often used to represent the Great Schism, the actual separation took centuries and was not even completed by the 1700’s, which is when the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch declared their full communion with Rome after centuries of ambiguity and became the Melkite-Greek Catholic Church. Throughout this process of prolonged pseudo-schism the Catholic Church was greatly wounded, not in the sense losing her unity, sanctity, catholicity, or apostolicity, her four marks from the Creed, but in the sense of being greatly inhibited in her evangelism and, as Pope Leo XIII noted in his Encyclical ‘Orientalium Dignitas’, a loss of the practical expression of her catholicity in the multitudinous traditions inherited from the Fathers. For this reason the devil inspired the pride and stubbornness of men during this period, with ebbs and flows in its severity over the centuries, to push the sui iuris Churches away from one-another and leave the Latin Church the only one manifestly united to the Pope of Rome and capable of exercising the authority of the Magisterium. The result is the tragedy we are currently faced with and the continuing hierarchy of the Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Apostolic See, which is both terribly sad and violently opposed to God’s will. As is the case with Islamic influence, we are still enduring the effects of this persecution of the Church of God by the devil to this very day.
  • Another monumental challenge to the Church came with the advent of Protestantism in the sixteenth century. In this persecution, the evil one severed enormous numbers of Catholics from our Holy Mother, the Church, and enabled simultaneously the ongoing development of heresies in the West in such a fractured form that today we face thousands upon thousands of sects all tracing their existence back to a few revolutionaries in the sixteenth century. Many individuals in these sects have been validly Baptized, and are therefore Christians with an implicit connection to the heavenly element of the Body of Christ, while being yet outside of her societal, earthly element, which is a monstrosity and terrible to behold. Because this ongoing heresy entails the alienation of the Baptized from their supernatural Mother, it entails a kind of tension and a wound, a contradiction which never should have happened, and thus is quite naturally and obviously a facet of the Body of Christ’s own Passion, just as the alienation of particular Churches sui iuris from the Apostolic See of Rome in the gradual Great Schism is itself a kind of wound to the Body of Christ, though on a larger scale to be sure.[1]
  • Finally, the latest and potentially the most pervasive persecution of the evil one has ever brought against the Body of Christ in her sacred history is the modern conglomeration of heresies that has found a foothold and conveniently discovered various opportunities to attack the Catholic Church through the weakness, inaction, or heresy of clerics of the Church, which assault has been termed ‘Modernism’ by Pope St. Pius X and his Successors. In fact, to be perfectly frank, the Modernism that Pope St. Pius X vigorously opposed is less diverse and less dangerous than what Modernism quietly and subtly evolved into between the first decade of the twentieth century and the seventh, during which time it also merged with many heterodox elements of the Liturgical Movement of the nineteenth century and other ideologies that hopped along for the ride. This conglomerate monster, dreadful to behold, sprung itself upon the Catholic Church by influencing the  documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and subsequently using these ambiguity-ridden documents to interpret the Catholic Faith in an altogether heretical way in subsequent decades. The manner in which this combined movement of Modernism and the Liturgical Movement ended up influencing the documents of the Council was primarily by forming a theologically heterodox minority party within the Council that opposed the majority party, the latter of which tended to toe the line of the Supreme Pontiffs who came before in the twentieth and nineteenth centuries. After a rough attempt at synthesizing these two warring parties, the final product of the Counciliar texts was, in most cases, a trustworthy exposition of the Catholic Faith in ancient terms and a different style from scholasticism; in some cases, such as Lumen Gentium 8, it’s actually brilliant and a fascinating doctrinal development on the previous teaching of Mother Church. However, because the synthesis of the two parties within the Council was done poorly and rashly, without strong guidance from the presiding Popes of Rome, in many cases the Conciliar documents are frighteningly at war with each other, with the majority and minority contributions to the text standing in seeming opposition or at least severe tension in the middle of paragraphs clearly designed to be read as a whole. While all Ecumenical Councils form their ultimately orthodox text from the comprise of two or more parties, one or more of which may be heterodox or borderline so without sufficient balancing out by another party in a given Council, the lack of cogency in the Council texts in this case is on an entirely different order of opposition. My opinion, which I candidly submit to you today, is that this is precisely the crux and breaking point, the attack which Modernism conducted on the Church. The heresy’s most profound assault was not properly heresy at all, but a deliberately engineered chaos and ambiguity, masked by feelings of naive optimism and an almost piously pelagian[2] view of future progress, both of which dominated the Conciliar period in the history of the Church. It was this chaotic ambiguity in the texts of the Council and the sloppiness with which both the Council Fathers and the Pontiffs of Rome approached the promulgation of the documents. The heretics wasted no time; the ambiguities were exploited so vigorously that just three years after the close of the Council, Pope Paul VI had this to say regarding the state of the Catholic Church in 1968:”The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety; a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even be better called self-demolition. It’s an interior upheaval; acute, and complicated, which nobody expected after the [Second Vatican Ecumenical] Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering; a serene expansion of conceptions, which matured in the great sessions of the Council, but… one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.”This unfortunately is not hyperbole being used by His Holiness, but a grim-faced acceptance of the reality of the situation. Indeed, that late 60’s was the heyday of Modernism’s influence, but my, was it ever enough to alter the course of history and affect the Church even to the present day and into the future. This effort was curtailed in some select instances under the pontificates of John Paul II and to a larger extent under Benedict XVI, but their Successor in Francis seems to be rather unaware of the reality of the true Modernist heresy still affecting the Church to this day, and its authentic danger.

Why then do I recall, in great detail, the travails of Mother Church throughout history? Precisely for this reason, that I might be able to better situate the current crisis in the Catholic Church in the historical context of her sacred history, which allows for us to somewhat make sense of the madness. It is absolutely critical that we attempt to do this, all of us Catholics, because although this crisis is unique among all of them in that it used a valid Ecumenical Council’s ambiguities to accomplish its goals, it nevertheless is not qualitatively different from the previous Passions the Body of Christ has endured in her earthly element. You might be wondering what this long introduction has to with being a so-called conservative Catholic in the modern era. Usually when we speak of conservative Catholics, it’s in contrast with traditional Catholics. This dichotomy is used by many in order to distinguish a certain specific kind of ‘orthodoxy’ found in Catholic conservatism with a more objective and historically rooted orthodoxy in traditional Catholicism among so called ‘traditionalists.’ Leaving aside the fact that this distinction is illegitimate on its face, for there cannot be two orthodoxies with varying degrees of faithfulness and loyalty to sacred Tradition, the most troubling aspect of the conservative Catholic mentality has more to do with a certain downplaying of or even denial of the reality that the Body of Christ, in her earthly element, undergoes such tribulation that even the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in some locales or even many locales cannot be trusted absolutely and blindly followed without circumspection and humble, frank questioning. The conservative Catholic mentality of the modern era tends to follow after the recent Magisterium to the exclusion of earlier Magisterium, ignoring or deftly reinterpreting the earlier Magisterium, and following the Bishops and even the persona and innocuous, unofficial comments or actions of the Holy Father without any reference to our first loyalties and to the exclusion of sacred Tradition. The problem with this has to do with precisely these first loyalties and the denial of the reality of serious crises that occasionally strike the Body of Christ, as well as the common blithe, naive acceptance of the modern era of Catholicism as inspired by God whole and entire. The problem with this is that, from time to time, the hierarchy of the Church, apart from the Church’s official Magisterium, cannot be trusted blindly and must be actually held in some suspicion and vetted cautiously against sacred Tradition. This is simply the reality, whether we like to believe it or not. The primary loyalties as Catholics are themselves hierarchical, and descend as follows:

  • Sacred Scripture
  • Sacred Tradition, chiefly among that Tradition the Liturgical Tradition
  • Sacred Magisterium, chiefly among that Magisterium infallible teachings and definition, and then less weighty Magisterium after that.

After these supreme loyalties, coming in a very distant fourth, our loyalties are beholden to the hierarchy, including the Pope of Rome insofar as he is a private theologian, a catechist, a social commentator, an actor on the world stage, and a homilist. All of these facets of his office, together with the various other offices in the hierarchy of the Body of Christ’s earthly element, are subject to the three chief loyalties listed above.

This used to be common sense to us as laity. There is a legend that during the pontificate of Pope St. Gregory the Great, the faithful of the Church of Rome threatened to take his life for altering the Roman Canon by adding a single word to it. Whether this is literally true or not is not important; what is important, however, is that it is illustrative of an attitude which did in fact hold sway among the laity for the greater part of the history of the Church. Compare that to today, and you’ll realize that our primary loyalties have been entirely skewed; this is the culprit and the cause of the modern phenomenon of ‘conservative’ Catholicism and its self-distinguishing from ‘traditionalists,’ who are simply those few Catholics who retained the proper hierarchy of loyalty. Take for instance the Missale Romanum (1970). Pope Paul VI didn’t just add a word to the Missale Romanum’s canon, he presided over a removal of a phrase and a mistranslation of ‘Pro multis’ into ‘For all men’ among the various European languages into which the Missal was translated after its promulgation, which just covers the changes made to the Roman Canon, and does not mention the thousands of other changes to the broader text of the Mass, often inspired by heterodox or even heretical ‘Liturgical experts’ who near totally contradict the Magisterium of Pius XII and other Supreme Pontiffs prior to the 1960’s.  Where were we, the majority of the laity, when this happened in 1970? Did we care enough to whimper a protest? The answer is dreadfully simple, and predates Vatican II by decades: we had become merely conservative Catholics.

 

– Jonathan

 

Modern Reception of Holy Communion

[1] Just to be clear, when I speak of wounds to the Catholic Church, I don’t mean in any way that would necessitate a loss of her four great Marks, which would be unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Rather, I mean it in the sense that Dominus Iesus means it:

“The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but ‘in that it hinders the complete fulfillment of her universality in history.'”- Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus 17, A.D. 2000

This quote applies both to the division among Protestants, who, if they are validly Baptized, are Christians, but in a preeminent sense to the division of entire portions of the hierarchy from the Apostolic See in the societal element of the Body of Christ, as is the case in the Orthodox Churches of the East.

[2] This phrase ‘pious pelagianism’ is hyperbole originally used by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to signify the incredibly over-optimistic and naive attitude which permeated much of the Council regarding especially the necessary progress of man away from the disorder of sin and the chaos of misunderstanding and violence and seeming inevitable improvement of societies; it is not literally the heresy of Pelagianism, but something that reminded Cardinal Ratzinger of the ancient error. This naivete is distinct from the actual potential of the thought of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which Ratzinger later as Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged as a legitimate excitement. It is an excitement that I fully concur with, if once we ever work up the will to strip away the accretions that grew to overshadow the Council itself, and actually clarify the internal tensions in Vatican II’s documents.

Traditional Latin Mass in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvAkMI-A5D4

According to the commentary, the high altar has not been used for over 45 years, until this blessed day.

And as you will see in the video, many women are wearing chapel veils.

I (Sirena) highly recommend to those who want to know more about the Extraordinary Form to watch this video. The commentary is very informative.

Pray that our priests will be more willing to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, so that younger generations may be able to see and experience and participate in the mass in a more solemn, unworldly way.

Pray and also, don’t be afraid to ask your priests to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Description on video:

Pontifical Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form. 5th Anniversary of the Inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI. Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, D.C. Saturday April 24, 2010. Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP is commentating along with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.

With approximately 4,000 of the Catholic Faithful taking part, and for the first time in almost half a century, a Solemn High Pontifical Mass was celebrated at the majestic High Altar of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., honoring our beloved Holy Father.

Few have ever seen anything like it! And none has been captured and televised live worldwide as this Mass was.

Celebrated by His Excellency Edward J. Slattery, Bishop of the Diocese of Tulsa, the Mass commemorated the fifth anniversary of the inauguration of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

One more video: RebornPureAdmin’s How to Love that Boring Latin Mass

Reborn Pure says, “Let the Mass change YOU!”