SOLEMN PONTIFICAL MASS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM FOR THE FEAST OF THE PRESENTATION

SOLEMN PONTIFICAL MASS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM FOR THE FEAST OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE LORD AT THE NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE INFANT OF PRAGUE

Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa celebrates Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the National Shrine of the Infant of Prague in Prague, Oklahoma. LIVE.

Bishop Slattery on Prayer, the Mass and New Vocations

You’ve made public statements about problems with the liturgy. What changes would you like to see?

I would like to see the liturgy become what Vatican II intended it to be. That’s not something that can happen overnight. The bishops who were the fathers of the council from the United States came home and made changes too quickly. They shouldn’t have viewed the old liturgy, what we call the Tridentine Mass or Missal of Pope John XXIII, as something that needed to be fixed. Nothing was broken. There was an attitude that we had to implement Vatican II in a way that radically affects the liturgy.

What we lost in a short period of time was continuity. The new liturgy should be clearly identifiable as the liturgy of the pre-Vatican II Church. Changes, like turning the altar around, were too sudden and too radical. There is nothing in the Vatican II documents that justifies such changes. We’ve always had Mass facing the people as well as Mass ad orientem [“to the east,” with priest and people facing the same direction]. However, Mass ad orientem was the norm. These changes did not come from Vatican II.

Also, it was not a wise decision to do away with Latin in the Mass. How that happened, I don’t know; but the fathers of the Council never intended us to drop Latin. They wanted us to hold on to it and, at the same time, to make room for the vernacular, primarily so that the people could understand the Scriptures.

Yes, in our cathedral and a few parishes where the priests ask me to. Most of the time, I say Mass facing the people when I travel around the diocese or when I have a large number of priests concelebrating, because it works better that way.

A few priests have followed my example and celebrate ad orientem as well. I have not requested they change. I prefer to lead by example and let the priests think about it, pray about it, study it, and then look at their churches and see if it’s feasible to do.

And it’s positive when people are thinking about and talking about the liturgy.

When people make the liturgy part of their conversation, it is a good thing. As priests and laypeople discuss the liturgy, they’ll see how important it is and how it is a work of God and not our own.

But we must approach the liturgy on bended knee with tremendous humility, recognizing that it doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to God. It is a gift. We worship God not by creating our own liturgies, but by receiving the liturgy as it comes to us from the Church. The liturgy should be formed and shaped by the Church itself to help people pray better. And we all pray better when we are disposed to receive what God has offered, rather than creating something of our own.
Read More

“,,,what we call the Tridentine Mass or Missal of Pope John XXIII, as something that needed to be fixed. Nothing was broken.”

Exactly. That’s what’s so puzzling to me. When the Catholic Church became so powerful, esp. in the United State, with the election of a Catholic President and Abp. Fulton Sheen who was more popular than Milton Berle on TV presenting Catholic THEOLOGY, no less-—WHY would they “fix” anything and destroy that momentum-—unless the whole calling of Vatican II was a ruse to destroy the Church from within-—which is the immediate effect of Vatican II.

What Vatican II did —was Marxism actually and a “wishy washy” Catholicism——ditching the most beautiful and longest Traditions-—FOR WHAT-—Protestant ideas?????????? which created thousands of denominations over a period of a few hundred years where they now have sodomites as pastors???? WHY?

The Logic of Vatican II defies Reason. And any Thomist knows how sickening that is to any Catholic theologian.

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying, but while many of the Modernist problems that have driven the Church into the ground over the past 50 years are correctly traced back to the “spirit” of the Council, as opposed to the action of the Council itself, there is much that went on in the actual Council that should be of concern.

Specifically, their formulation or restatement of the doctrines of Religious Liberty; Ecumenism; and Nostra Aetate, are very troubling. Additionally, although the “subsists” in substitution for “is” matter has been arguably addressed by the bishops as not meaning what it appears to mean, I still am not convinced that there isn’t much more to it.

There are many other less-significant though still problematic issues that were created within the four corners of the 16 documents of the Council that cannot be passed off as the fault of zealous Modernists who ran with the “spirit” rather than the language of the Council. In any event, if there never was a “Council”, there would never have been a “spirit” of the Council.

But savagesusie is certainly on the mark when he, essentially, notes that the Church was at its zenith in so many respects when the Council was called, and there were no pressing issues to address. So why then was it necessary? And, of course, it wasn’t; it was plainly and simply the diabolic move of the Modernist bishops at the time.

IMHO

You sound a little like the SSPX, although I will say that if the language in the Vatican II documents were “wishy washy” than the letter gave “root” to that “Spirit”. There used to be no “wiggle room” for error prior to Vatican II.

Popes had been warning the Church of “Modernism” for a century (or more) so they had to know exactly what they were doing with the “wording” in the Document.

You are right-—the “Spirit” turned deadly, but without the ambiguous “Letter” of the Law-—it couldn’t have happened.

I like what the SSPX stated——that Vatican II was like the Vatican took the Catholic Canon and placed it on a tall, steep slide. There was only one direction for the Catholic Church to go.

It is such a shame, since the beauty and Traditions of the Catholic Church were exceptional and timeless. Such a beautiful legacy for our children to connect them to the time of Jesus. I actually just got a Latin course and going to relearn Latin. Such a beautiful language. I want to read some Cicero and Boethius in Latin.

I have no doubt that you are a well-meaning individual that dearly loves our Catholic Church, but I would strongly and respectively suggest that you learn what our bishops have done to it. Compare the Vatican II Catholic Church of today (the “Church of Nice”), to the Catholic Church of the first 20 Councils whose mission was to “lead all mankind to salvation”. If you did you would not be writing as you do.

The pope and bishops of today have all but abandoned preaching about the evil of sin. They focus exclusively on social justice, the mercy of God, and the redistribution of wealth. Do you not see that? Do you not realize that this pope and these bishops no longer profess the dogmatic truths of the Catholic Church? Talk to other Catholics and ask them about our Church. They know nothing about the faith.

It was understandable why the faithful dutifully went along with the “changes” in the 1960‘s without a whimper. They believed they were being told the truth. Up until that time, the Church had always spoken with one voice, and they always spoke the truth. The faithful were taught that there was only one true Church and that all other religions were false––all other religions. Period. That is not what they hear today.

The bishops, at the time, ordered all Catholic newspapers to either print what they were told or cease being a voice for the Church. Virtually all did. Those that refused were banished. The national media was completely in sync with the progressive views of the the Second Vatican Council and they only reported the modernist/liberal point of view. If Catholics even realized there was a Council going on, they never understood there was any opposition to it at all. Surely, you must be aware of how capable the secular press is at doing that sort of thing. As a result, most all, at the time, were fooled.

But when the internet came along in the 1990‘s, those who saw things going so wrong in our Church and our society made the effort to read about what had really happened in the 1960‘s. They learned that great men like Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre and many others were simply ignored at the time. Most Catholics never heard of those men until long after they had died, and even today they are pilloried by the liberal media and the Modernist bishops.

Curious Catholics also learned that the Council, which should never have been called at all, was hijacked by the Modernists and they did everything they possibly could to subvert the Church into the Protestant domain that it is with their ecumenism, nostra aetate, redefinition of religious liberty and much more.

But while it may be somewhat understandable as to why there was not the pushback from the faithful Catholics at that time, there is no excuse today. The internet has truly “opened the windows” to the Church for all who would make the effort to read about our Catholic faith. Faithful Catholics should make that effort.

So repeat, if you wish, those the empty nonsensical statements that our Modernist bishops feed to the foolish in the pews today, but understand that you are subscribing, not to the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, and not to the sacred teachings of almost every pope that lived before John XXIII, but to the Modernist teachings of men who you probably haven’t even heard of like Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar Karl Rahner, and the list could go on.

The woes of the Church, our government and our society may all be tied directly back to the Modernist bishops of today who have abandoned their flock and are following the Modernist teachings of the Second vatican Council. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.