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

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

[Mershon]

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

"For a Mass offered only two Sundays per month in a hideous church?"

Oh, that's right. I forgot about all those poor "scandalized" trads. They want the former Novus Ordo adherents to be patient, petition, work behind the scenes, grovel and beg, then when it goes from NO TLM in the diocese under the old bishop, to two locations (one weekly) and another just increased to twice-a-month (plus once a week on Mondays), they will wait around and complain about the $5 million church, the pastor being Novus Ordo, the FSSP being "modernist sellouts," etc. etc. All as an excuse that they didn't get what they wanted, how they wanted, when they wanted it. Sounds like a bunch of crybabies who don't have the guts to fight to me. Never been on a sports team that has ever won anything, that is for sure.

I'm certain the SSPX chapels are attracting DROVES of Protestants (LIKE WE ARE IN GREENVILLE) who hear complaints and epithets against the Holy Father and how bad things are. I'm certain THAT is really evangelical. Instead, they get to continue behaving and believing like Protestants.

"a hideous church"? "only two Sundays a month..."

The invitation is rescinded. We don't need that poison in our growing and evangelical traddie community. We need people who will attract others to the Faith when fighting aginst the fundies--NOT people to drive them away.

[broadsword]

You are right that yours was clearly not a slur of any sort. Ignore his Unam Sanctimony.

Peace be with you, brother. (dominus vobiscum)

[TheStickman]

We started attending Mass at this church a few months ago. We haven't attended the Latin Mass yet but are hoping to soon.

As someone who had never attended Mass till about 3 months or so ago I can only say I don't know if I would have felt as drawn to attend regularly if the Mass was celebrated in Latin only. I like understanding what is being said. So as a person who's converting, I hope the vernacular is never removed from the Mass.

Just my 2cents.

[TheStickman]

Waving *hi* to you from our end of Taylors:)

[kstewskis]

Tell her that we all recognize he has been very busy with the child abuse scandal in his diocese and the accusations that he has been less than forthright in the matter of the number of priests involved as well as what he has done with them. There are allegations that several are still in hiding but active priests in the area.

Gee, and is it any wonder why Gibson might have wanted to protect his six boys from these monsters? I really have to question why he gets chastised by this in the first place.

You might also remind her that there are scholars who argue that the status of the the Pius X clerics is debateable but conclude they are not schismatic. Furthermore the members who attend may not be affected,no matter the status of the clerics.

I'm so glad you came along, sara! :). I know I can ask you this. I'm thinking her argument to that is this: (because the question came up in class)

-if their "status" is in question (depending who they were ordained under), do they have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into The Body and Blood of Christ?

Her answer would be no. But as someone mentioned earlier, (for example Fr. Stephen) he would not be in schism if he offered the Tridentine Mass at a SSPX (or other) Chapel, no?

But the bottom line is that there are canon laws about private chapels and other canon laws related to priests with authorization from the Pope to use the Tridentine rite, not exclusively,of course, that make the speculations of an ordinary catholic "religious" unwise and presumptuous, at the very least.

You'll have to fill me in sometime. Thanks!

[Maximilian]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that canon law CONFLICTED with Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

You are not even trying to be reasonable. A document from an ecumenical council, a letter from a pope, and canon law represent 3 entirely different types of documents, none of which are even comparable to each other. You can't take a doctrinal statement from Vatican I that says that the pope is the ultimate authority in the church and proclaim, "Ahah, therefore he is always right."

The church has a code of canon law that applies to all canonical cases. The pope cannot skip over that process any more than the president of the United States can declare someone guilty of a crime. The pope writing a letter saying that an action was canonically schismatic does not make it so. He is expressing his opinion, and he might be right. But it is a misunderstanding of the nature of the church and the nature of the papacy to believe that he can make black white or that even the pope need not follow canon law.

We cite authoritative documents. You cite opinions.

Ecclessia Dei Adflicta was not an authoritative document on the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. It was authoritative on the subject it addressed, which was the establishment of the indult. The situation of Lefebvre was mentioned, but such a letter could not, nor did it attempt to, by itself authoritatively decide the canonical status of any person.

Every SSPX adherent is a canon lawyer, whose opinion surpasses that of the reigning Pontiff.

I think it's the other way around. Every SSPX adherent is someone who by definition has put their loyalty to the traditional Catholic faith and the traditional Latin Mass ahead of legal issues. They recognize that there are conflicts, but have decided that the faith must take precedence over man-made laws. Maybe they are wrong to do so. But the fact is that it is the enemies of the SSPX who harp on only one subject, the legal status of the SSPX, because that is their only argument. They have no leg to stand on regarding any other point. An argument between a traditionalist and a neo-Catholic goes like this:

Trad: Every possible measure of Catholic life, practice, and belief has declined precipitately since Vatican II.
Neo: You're schismatic.
Trad: Since instituting the New Mass, 80% of Catholics have voted with their feet and fled the Catholic Church.
Neo: You're schismatic.
Trad: Since introducing the new approach to sin and morality, the vast majority of Catholics both clergy and laity have fallen into lives of decadence and vice.
Neo: You're schismatic.

So one must wonder: who is obsessed with canon law?

I guess it is easier to fight outside the Church than inside of it.

If one is willing to defend the Catholic faith even with one's life if necessary, then one takes a stand wherever possible and wherever necessary, so we should be grateful to all those who have spent the past 40 years defending the faith at the cost of their lives. While every aspect of Catholic faith and practice and liturgy were under attack and being destroyed, there were a few brave souls who stood up and were counted while the rest of us took the easy way out. It would be criminal to not appreciate how much we owe them. I recognize my incalculable debt to those brave pioneers, and you also should recognize that your Mass would not exist without Archbishop Lefebvre.

[Maximilian]

I forgot about all those poor "scandalized" trads. They want the former Novus Ordo adherents to be patient, petition, work behind the scenes, grovel and beg, then when it goes from NO TLM in the diocese under the old bishop, to two locations (one weekly) and another just increased to twice-a-month (plus once a week on Mondays), they will wait around and complain about the $5 million church, the pastor being Novus Ordo, the FSSP being "modernist sellouts," etc. etc.

Look at the amount of bile being spilled against your fellow traditionalists. Please point out to me where anyone has said any of the things that you accuse traditionalists of saying. Where has anyone said you should be patient, petition, work behind the scenes, etc., grovel and beg? I think you must be confusing traditionalists with someone else. Who said anything about your pastor? Could you please show me where that was mentioned by anyone, traditional or not? Who said the FSSP were modernist sellouts? I don't recall reading that on this thread or anywhere else.

This makes it look like you are willing to make reckless, false and unsubstantiated charges against your fellow traditionalists, people who may have been fighting for the Latin Mass and the traditional Catholic faith before you even knew there WAS a Latin Mass.

Sounds like a bunch of crybabies who don't have the guts to fight to me. Never been on a sports team that has ever won anything, that is for sure.

You're mystical abilities grow more and more impressive. Now you psychically know the athletic abilities of some unnamed "trads" who are supposedly accusing you of things that no one ever said. There are people who have been fighting this battle for 40 years now. It's pretty gauche for a johnny-come-lately to feel free to attack them as "crybabies who don't have the guts to fight."

As a matter of fact, the Latin Mass still exists, and traditional Catholicism is on the rebound, while the "spirit of Vatican II" is beginning to flee the scene, all due to the efforts of these people whom you are willing to denigrate as "crybabies." I take no credit. I was a "JPII we love you" neo-Catholic while these others were keeping alive the traditional Catholic faith until the time when I would wake up and wish to return to it. For that they will have my eternal gratitude and I will never call them "crybabies who don't have the guts to fight."

And as far as the sports team goes, I'm afraid that shows a non-Catholic way of thinking. This isn't a football game. And it's not about being a "winner." That's Americanism. Catholicism is about being a faithful unto death, even if that means being a "loser." Some Catholics were willing to stick with the Latin Mass and the pre-Vatican II faith even when it was the losing side. But their faith will ultimately triumph.

[Mershon]

"Ecclessia Dei Adflicta was not an authoritative document on the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. It was authoritative on the subject it addressed, which was the establishment of the indult."

Oh, do you have the official document that tells the Pope he was wrong that came from some Vatican official or future Pope? You cite your SSPX canonical hijinx all you want. You guys attract NO new adherents other than those "scandalized" by the Novus Ordo abuses. Got lots of evangelical/fundie converts coming your way, do you?

As one with theological training (NOT by SSPX, mind you), I can assure all concerned that the most relevant and authoritative documents on this matter are Vatican I (which has not yet been overturned, but AFFIRMED by Lumen Gentium 25) and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

The rest is just SSPX adherents grasping at straws to show their knowledge of canon law (Which one? 1917 or 1983?)

Two, four, six, eight, all you do is obfuscate. They have to harmonize. You have CITED no one's opinions but your own. That is called Protestantism, sir. The SSPX is not Protestant, but you are an example of why the Vatican "does not recommed" laymen attending their chapels, even if it fulfills their Sunday obligation.

[Unam Sanctam]

You counsel disobedience to the Pope. You falsely accuse him of being unorthodox. You call him a "Novus Ordo authority". It is quite clear that your intent is schismatic. You do not fit within the permission.

[Mershon]

http://www.diocesereport.com/guest_col/sspx_mershon_april03.shtml

The point about the sports teams was that the attitude of most "extreme traditionalists" is so single track, that "taking one for the team" (with the example called SACRIFICE, get it) would be wholly foreign to them.

See the link above for everything I'll ever have to say about "separating from Rome in order to 'maintain the Faith.'" Even the Baltimore Catechism, of which you should be a big fan, explains it quite precisely for children to understand.

[Unam Sanctam]

I myself DO attend an SSPX chapel rather than an indult Mass and do so from necessity--since the Indult parishes of themselves do not provide the necessary support for my family, for small children especially, that is needed to live a fully Catholic life.

Thanks for demonstrating that your intent goes far beyond assisting at a Tridentine mass in conscience. You in fact wish to promote the SSPX, a schismatic organization and the subvert the legitimate authority of the Church. That is schismatic intent and does not fit within the permission. It is just balderdash for you to say, in effect, "I recognize the legitimate authority of the Pope, only I will not in any meaningful way pay any attention to any legitimate exercise of that authority, I will slander the pope as unorthodox and I will promote schism and disobedience and encourage others to do so as well." You are no different from the Chines Patriotic Church, you acknowledge some theoretical primacy of the Pope, but acknowledge no authority in practice over you. The Pope is not unorthodox. He is not heretical. Therefore is not necessary in any way for you to practice or preach disobedience to the lawful authority of the Pope.

[Maximilian]

Clearly it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you. If your position is questioned in the least, you immediately launch into uncharitable ad hominem attacks. Does that trouble your conscience? And what does it say about the strength of your position?

You guys attract NO new adherents other than those "scandalized" by the Novus Ordo abuses. Got lots of evangelical/fundie converts coming your way, do you?

You have no idea where I go to Mass or how many converts we are attracting. So your willingness to engage in this sort of personal detraction based on nothing more than your own ignorance is troubling.

As one with theological training

You've mentioned your unpublished dissertation at least once already on this thread, but you'll learn if you stick around FR that it's not all about you, and that you're not going to impress anyone with that kind of egotism.

Two, four, six, eight, all you do is obfuscate.

I would be willing to accept this as an attempt at humor, which would be a good sign that you hadn't entirely lost your balance, except that the entire rest of the post was filled with so much anger.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. The SSPX, by practically denying the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter, despite all your double talk about recognizing that authority in theory, is denying the oneness of the Catholic Church. It is in no way fully Catholic, since it has separated itself from the visible Church of Christ. And so now you are saying that the Holy See is not fully Catholic. You are setting yourself as a judge of the magisterium. I guess God has specifically appointed ultima ratio infallible Pope of the ages. I have explained to you countless times, that the Pope is fully orthodox. Your claim to the contrary is slanderous. Whether this or that cardinal meets your specific standards of orthodoxy is beside the point, since you include many reformable customs in the category of irreformable teachings of the deposit of the faith. You may have the right to go to an SSPX mass if there is no indult mass available to you, but you have no right to promote that schismatic organization and throw contempt onan orthodox Pope and the undermine in practice his legitimate authority. The Catholic Church is a visible Church. By separating yourselves from that, you are exiting the fullness of communion. Problems within the Church, which we all recognize and are working to correct, although on earth with fallible human beings they will never be completely corrected, do not justify rebellion against an orthodox Pope.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You could show your nun friend these pictures of Mahony's madness and ask her if she considers this Roman Catholicism. I'd be interested in her response.

These pictures are from the children's play area and garden.

The dog or wolf ready to devour the sheep is my personal favorite.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

More here

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=209132;article=12170;title=Traditional%20Roman%20Catholicism

[sinkspur]

But the bottom line is that there are canon laws about private chapels

Yes. And Canon Law says that private chapels cannot be built without the permission of the local bishop.

[thathamiltonwoman]

I wish I could go to a Tridentine Latin Mass where I live but my bishop will fight it tooth and nail.

[royalcello]

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

I am moving to Charlotte, NC because that is where my new job is. If I decide to formally pursue my interest in Catholicism, I will be looking for a church within an hour's drive which offers the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday. The SSPX chapel in Mount Holly meets this description perfectly as no diocesan church does, and since the arguments of traditionalists on this forum and elsewhere have convinced me that Catholics do not cease to be in union with Rome by attending SSPX masses, as a mere inquirer I see no reason not to at least make an exploratory visit there.

[visualops]

Have you seen the Prince of Peace Church in person?
Have you attended Mass there?

I personally love older churches, and have been to many in France and Italy, and some nice ones here in the States such as St. Patricks in NYC and the National Cathedral.

Prince of Peace's new cathedral is somewhat modern, but it has beautiful lines and many wonderful details. The enormous wood main doors are spectacular. The real pleasure though is when you are inside and attending Mass.

[ultima ratio]

"The SSPX, by practically denying the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter, despite all your double talk about recognizing that authority in theory, is denying the oneness of the Catholic Church."

Bull. There is no such thing as "practically denying." You either deny JPII is the pope or you don't. You either recognize his authority--or you don't. This attempt to damn by claiming more than is true is typical doublespeak from the Novus Ordo--meant to demean and disparage those who disagree with modernist policies--which, under this pontificate, have effectively wrecked the Church in the West. It is for this you rail against traditionalists--because they dare to speak the unvarnished truth, despite the obvious failures at the very top. As for the Church's being one, holy and apostolic--it is the Vatican crowd that has introduced the revolution that has demolished unity and and holiness and has brought the apostolic succession into disrepute, no other. When since the corrupt Renaissance have so many bishops been found wanting, do you think?

As for my being infallible--nothing I profess is new--it is very ancient and very Catholic, the teachings of the Catholic Church for two thousand years. I do not deny the authority of this pope either--though I believe he is a very bad pope. What sticks in the craw of people like you is that I dare to say this openly--even as I profess exactly the same Catholic truths that have always been believed--nothing more and nothing less. You would like to use my criticism of the Pope to claim I am not a Catholic. But you would be wrong. I may even be a bad Catholic--but I am still a Catholic. This is more than what many in that gang in Rome are, in fact. I have never doubted the Resurrection, for instance, the way a certain cardinal has done--actually rewarded by the pope for his heretical views and given a red hat. Before you sling slurs my way--try dealing with that papal anomaly, if you dare!