Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses

Seattle Catholic ^ | July 4, 2003 | Peter Miller

[rogator]

"He wants us confused. He wants us to think the bishops are crafty evildoers subverting the faith when they aren't partaking in ritual rape. He wants us to believe that the Masons and Communists and Queers are running the show and that the New Mass is a product of their machinations to protestantize us."

You might want to ask Bsps.(emeritus) Weakland (Millwaukee), Ziemann (Santa Rosa) and Ryan (Springfield, Ill.) about this part of your statement.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

Actually, I have been thinking of going to an indult Mass. I will prepare first, if I go.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

You know, I missed that the first five times I read the article.

My apologies to the bishop. He has granted an indult Mass. Unless attendance is bursting at the seams, you are completely correct that he may decide not to inconvenience others my introducing additional indult Masses where they are not really wanted.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear CoD,

You have been badly, and sadly misinformed. There are some things in the Mass which are unchangeable, there others that may be changed. No pope may bind a future pope on things which are changeable in the liturgy. To the degree that you assert that one did, you are incorrect. And many popes made changes to the Mass after Pope Pius V.

But if you want to go down that road, with those arguments, then you've pretty much accepted the arguments of the schism. How sad.

In the meanwhile, THIS pope has specifically stated that to say the indult, one must have the bishop's permission. To say the old rite without it is to disobey bishop AND pope.

If you say otherwise, then you are in the SSPX camp, or worse. You are saying that there are multiple Magisteria. When you get to that point, you're already most of the way down the street to becoming a Protestant.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

No, you may not change my analogy without first answering. It was my analogy. But ironically, the bishop did nothing so harmful to the priest as a wife refusing use of the marriage, nor even a husband harming his wife's self-esteem.

The bishop PERMITTED the priest to say the old rite in private, and merely required him to say the new rite in public. The bishop judged that the pastoral needs of the priest's parish ruled out the use of the old rite, publicly. That is within the discretion of the bishop to decide.

Both rites are valid. Both rites are worthy. To say otherwise is to denigrate the new rite. Just ask narses. To insist on saying the old rite IN DISOBEDIENCE TO THE BISHOP, is to say that the new rite is unworthy, is not good, and thus justifies disobedience.

"The priest is in charge. It's his call to make."

No it isn't, not regarding the use of different rites. The pope has specifically reserved this decision to the Ordinary of the See. That's how it is. You can talk, or post, until you're blue in the face, that is the law of the Church. This priest was horribly disobedient. The bishop permitted him the faculty to say the old rite privately.

Frankly, now that I've re-read the article, and learned there is already an indult in the diocese, I'm much less inclined to have any sympathy for this disobedient priest at all.

"Every parish I've ever been priests have done this sort of thing, so with me that dog isn't going to hunt, point, retrieve or go to ground."

And when priests change the rubrics or otherwise play fast-and-loose with the liturgy without the permission of the bishop, folks like us, including you, scream bloody murder. The priest is disobedient! And we think the bishop ought to crack heads when it happens. Well, here, the priest uses AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RITE from that which he is authorized to use. Do ya think that's a bit of a change from the authorized rite? Do ya?

The bottom line, Desdemona, it isn't the priest's decision whether or not this or that rite will be used in his parish. The pope has given this discretion to the bishop, the Ordinary of the See. If you don't like it when "progressive" priests innovate with the liturgy, you ought not like it when priests like this take liberty with the rites. Or is making a small change to a rite a greater disobedience than discarding one rite altogether for the rite of one's preference, in abject disobedience?


By the way, my wife did not vow obedience. ;-)


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

Unless you're willing to concede that the new rite is valid, inherently good, worthy, sufficiently teaches Catholic doctrine, and cannot be the legitimate cause of this priest's disobedience, it seems to me that you are being grossly inconsistent.

If the new rite is not truly harmful to souls, then the priest was not justified in his disobedience. If you believe the new rite is sufficiently harmful to souls to justify the disobedience, then you are obligated to seek out the old rite, no matter what the cost.

"As for the Mass, maybe it is more my idea, to stay where I am and push for change there."

Well, then, that is wonderful! Then the new rite can be a source of spiritual help to the Catholic, and can be celebrated in a worthy way! And this priest could have done just that, couldn't he have? If YOU can help to make things better, help to move the parish where the Mass is celebrated better, imagine how much more so this pastor could do!

Being pastor, no one could stop him from celebrating the NEW RITE in a reverent, uplifting, spiritually-nourishing way.

That being the case, Desdemona, he had no right to disobey his bishop and say the old rite publicly.


sitetest

[TexConfederate1861]

I will tell you a fact just as horrifying....some years ago, my Grandfather, who was a devout Roman Catholic passed away, and at the Funeral mass that followed, I was invited by a nun to take communion...I am Orthodox Christian, so I questioned her as to what the Roman beliefs are on the Gifts, Real Presence, etc. and was told that "it really doesn't matter, it is whatever YOU believe it is!"....my Aunt, a RC all her life almost passed out when she heard that, and I didn't go to communion needless to say.

[narses]

"He wants us to believe that the Masons and Communists and Queers are running the show ..."

The FACT is that the hierarchy of the American Catholics Conference of Bishops is RIFE with sexual deviants and those willing to coverup the sexual molestation of young boys. Two out of three of them, according to an absolutely well documented database linked on my homepage here.

When 67% of the leadership of an organization that are called by God through His Church to celibacy either sexually molests people (including children) or deliberately conceals the sexual molestation crimes of subordinates, you have a de facto CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.

Governor Frank Keating, a trained lawyer, a trained prosecutor, a trained FBI agent and a devout, pius Catholic has compared some (pointedly NOT mentioning Abp. Mahony) of the hierarchs to MAFIOSO chieftains.

I understand your umbrage at what you see as attacks against the Church, I submit though you are being wilfully ignorant of the facts and the sad, sinful state of the USCCB. You may be enabling the very sodomites and criminals who have created this disaster by attacking and trying to silence legitimate discourse amongst the laity.

[sitetest]

Dear TexConfederate1861,

Though the nun had a poor understanding of Catholic teaching, nonetheless, Catholic teaching recognizes the validity of Orthodox holy orders and sacraments, and the correctness of Orthodox doctrine. Thus, Catholic law makes no bar to Orthodox to receiving the Blessed Sacrament in our churches.

However, the Catholic Church recognizes that this may not be permitted by the specific Church to which an Orthodox belongs, and our law encourages that Orthodox law be respected.

Thus, whether or not to receive becomes the judgement of the individual Orthodox, informed by those who give him spiritual direction.


sitetest

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes...I agree, and my Church forbids me to take communion, in ANY church other than Orthodox, but my point was that her statement was heresy, even to Roman Catholics!

[narses]

I look forward with great interest to your report, should you go and should you post such. Have you been to a Tridentine Rite Mass before?

If you want to see the liturgy at it's finest, my suggestion is to find from the schedule a Missa Cantata, or a Pontifical High Mass, if such is available. See http://www.unavoce.org/atlamass.htm for a personal account of such. They last much longer than a low Mass, but I rarely notice that (unless the arthritis acts up).

Preparation? A Missal with English translation is the only preparation I can think of, that plus appropriate dress. Women usually wear a dress or skirt/blouse combo as pants for women are not considered "modest" in most Traditional congregations, they also wear a chapel veil, but loaners are almost always in the vestibule and a dress hat or scarf are often seen as acceptable alternatives.

[sitetest]

Dear TexConferate1861,

Yes, I got the point. It's just that I don't have high expectations of folks to really understand teaching. If they get the practice right, that is often all that can be expected.

sitetest

[Loyalist]

Bishop Fiorenza had the diocesan vicar general call Fr. Zigrang's father and tell him that his son was mentally unbalanced.

It was standard Soviet practice to label dissent from the regime as a symptom of mental illness.

This practice has made its way into many dioceses and orders as a way to marginalize anyone who doesn't go along every liberal fad and trend.

Imagine if your boss called your parents and carried out a character assassination on you because you had a dispute with him.

[narses]

I should have added, though I'm sure it's unecessary, the spiritual preparations are the same, as the Church intends the Mass to be the same, the Holy, Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord.

Dominus Vobiscum.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

No, I haven't been to an old rite Mass, before. I have been to new rite Masses celebrated in Latin, and didn't really care for that.

As for dress, I assume that dress slacks, an open-collared dress shirt, and dress shoes are appropriate for my sons, age 8 and 6? Also, will I be too casual if I don't wear a jacket and tie? I have some respiratory problems (lingering results of previous illnesses), and churches are usually badly ventilated AND I NOTICE. As a Knight of Columbus, I must wear jacket and tie, or even a tuxedo, at Mass several times a year (including today, which is our Mass for Installation of Officers), and when I must dress like this, it's very difficult for me. Usually, I wear dress slacks, open-collared dress shirt, and dress shoes to Mass. Is this too casual for the old rite?

Chapel veil - I'm sure we can afford to acquire one for my wife. It oughtn't be too great a financial burden. ;-)

My wife is up for our Excellent Adventure, though my sons, age nearly-9 and 6, haven't been enthusiastic. Because of my involvement with the Knights of Columbus, we often must go to Mass in other parts of the state, and they don't like it.

There is a small parish in southern Maryland with an 11 am old rite Mass, and I think that will be the one for which we aim. The pastor assures me that, unlike the old rite at Old St. Mary's in downtown Washington, DC - which is usually filled to the rafters, this Mass is sparsely attended, which will be more comfortable for me, respiration-wise, and more conducive to good behavior for my sons.

After Mass, we can go down to Solomon's Island and enjoy the rest of the day by the water. In this way, I think, my sons will be mollified.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Let's take your points one by one.

1. You say it is a lie to claim the Mass is harmful to souls. Yet statistics show two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence--a dogma formerly confirmed by the Old Mass, but suppressed by the New. How is this not harmful for souls? You insist there is no connection--but the weight of the evidence is against you. Catholics today show no difference in doctrine or morality from their Protestant counterparts. Even worse, they abort and use contraception and otherwise behave just as their secular counterparts. Statistics show, in other words, that they are Catholic in name only. You would claim there is no connection between this and the new liturgy--but the claim is implausible. These profiles began to emerge just after the institution of the New Mass. To claim there is no connection would be a stretch--just as is the claim there is no connection between the passionate support of the Novus Ordo by bad bishops and the Novus Ordo itself. It all ties together: we believe as we pray--and Catholics today believe what they choose to believe--and bad bishops do likewise.

2. You claim Satan wants to divide us--and indeed he does. But it is not I who follow his lead, but the modernists who have broken free from two thousand years of tradition. Traditionalists believe nothing new, practice nothing new, invent nothing whatever. It is the modernist revolution which has been "in your face", not traditionalism which simply wishes to be left alone and given an opportunity to worship as conscience demands. Every wacko liturgical innovation imaginable is given wide approval by the bishops--gay Masses, polka Masses, teen Masses, liturgical dances, you name it. The Traditional Mass alone is viewed with great alarm--why? Is it not because it affirms the old faith and a Catholicism which flourished up and until the nineteen-sixties? And does not this prove that it is the revolutionists who divide us from our heritage and seek to impose a new faith--and not traditionalists who affirm what had always been affirmed until recently? How can the refusal to follow such radically new doctrines and practices be explosive and divisive? It is the innovators who are divisive, not those who follow tradition. They will deny us the right to kneel for Communion, for instance--clearly intending to restrain the inclination to adore the Eucharist--and then claim that it is we who would kneel who are divisive, are troublemakers, are disobedient--when it is they who are playing an elaborate game of bait-and-switch, substituting a Protestant faith for a Catholic one.

3. You claim I want the Pope to be ignored and calumnied. That is itself a lie. I criticize the Pope for his inaction, for introducing novelties such as Assisi I and II, for his harsh put-downs of traditionalists while he tolerates all sorts of abuses from the left--but I have never calumniated this pope, I have never stretched the truth about him, I have never claimed he is in heresy, I have never denied his supremacy in the Church. If he causes scandal at outdoor papal Masses which have become occasions of unthinkable liturgical abuses, how is it calumny to point this out? If he kisses the Koran and apologizes to Islam--how is this not scandalous to those who remember the aggressions of Islam against Christendom? How is it not shocking to see a Buddha displayed on top of a tabernacle during one of his pan-religious rallies? How is it not profoundly upsetting to see this Pope affirming the very modernism preconciliar popes condemned? My major criticism has always been that this Pope has not used his awesome powers to defend tradition as he is obliged to do as pontiff, as preconciliar popes had always done, and he has not disciplined the enemies of traditional Catholicism as he has likewise been obliged to do, but has actually done the opposite--even elevating to the cardinalate a man who has openly doubted the historicity of the Resurrection as well as Christ's divinity. I didn't make up this shocking fact--it is on record and is stunning in its mind-boggling audacity. Why is it wrong to question why a pope is REWARDING apostasy? How is it "calumny" to question these things? They are shocking and out of keeping with the whole of Catholic tradition.

4. A lie is intended to deceive. It is non-conformity of the mind to reality. For instance, it is a lie to say the Novus Ordo is a traditional Mass that is a "reform" of the old Mass when all the weight of the evidence is that it is a new concoction which never evolved from the previous rite but was fabricated by a committee of doubtful orthodoxy. But it is not a lie to speak unpleasant truths. Of course the New Mass is not traditional and is therefore a danger. Paul VI himself called it a "liturgical innovation" (which, as a novelty, the First Vatican Council warned would not have the protection of the Holy Spirit). And Cardinal Ratzinger openly ascribed to it the modern crisis in the Church: "I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." (La Mia Vita, quoted by Michael Davies in the Latin Mass, Fall 1997.) One of the greatest of all liturgists, Klaus Gamber, openly expressed shock regarding its harmful effects. So have a host of churchmen and liturgists in very high places. Moreover it was precisely this form of the Mass that had been condemned by Trent. So I make no apology for what I say.

[ultima ratio]

You are incorrect in claiming traditionalists believe the Pope is a heretic. Some few of us do. Most don't. Sedevacantists--those who claim the pope has abandoned the chair of Peter due to heresy--are few and far between. This notion that traditionalists believe such a thing is flat-out wrong.

You are also wrong to suppose traditionalists believe the Novus Ordo is not valid. Most don't claim this. Many kinds of liturgies are indeed valid but unCatholic--for instance, the Orthodox Church has a valid liturgy. Even the Black Mass may be valid. So validity is not the question--only whether or not the Mass is properly supportive of the Catholic faith.

Both a new Mercedes and a 1990 Chevy are valid cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the latter cross-country. So it's not a matter of validity, which merely means Transubstantiation has taken place. It is the rest of it--especially those features already condemned by Trent--which are problematic for traditionalists.

[ultima ratio]

You are not being consistent. You claim Bruskewitz WELCOMED the SSPV. When I pointed out this couldn't be, you stuck to your claim. Which is it? Has Bruskewitz indeed embraced sedevacantists, as you say? Are you ready to admit you got it wrong--that it was the FSSP, an indult fraternity, that he welcomed?

[ultima ratio]

1. The Pope cannot tamper with Tradition. He is the supreme lawgiver for one reason only: to protect the deposit of faith and Sacred Tradition. The Novus Ordo was a violation of this trust. Power is given for a reason--not to lord it over others, but to guard the revelation and practices handed-down from the apostles. The question as to whether a pope has the authority to actually invent a Mass has, in fact, never been resolved. A pope, after all, is not an absolute monarch. He is hemmed in by Tradition itself and many great liturgists believe the question of whether or not he has the power to innovate a Mass is open to dispute.

2. The argument is not that the N.O. is contrary to the faith, but that it SUPPRESSES the faith and SUBVERTS the faith. Communion in the hand, proscriptions for kneeling, the emphasis on the commemorative meal aspect of the Mass which undermine its sacrificial elements, the removal of references to expiation for sins--all these, whether in Latin or in the vernacular--have done great damage to the Catholic faith. The old faith cannot find proper expression in such a negative liturgical environment.

[ultima ratio]

"About a week ago, UR was pontificating (it's the only word that applies) in the political arena--he's a GWB absolutist, by the way--and I decided that he is an insufferable ass."

I am an insufferable ass for supporting George Bush? Does that go also for the other 63% of Americans who think he's doing a good job? Seems to me the ass is yourself for stating such nonsense.