Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« My General Christmas Present | Main | I Don't Like This Idea At All »

December 18, 2006

Comments

David B.

All right, when know *when* it will come out, the question is, why is he releasing it then?

David B.

Let me restate the question. Will Papa Ben demand that the members of SSPX, in order to be received back into the Church, publicly renounce their former beliefs?

BillyHW

TLM RSN.

Thomas E. Vaughan

I have some questions and observations. I am interested in any feedback that you guys here have.

(1) Is the Latin Mass typically celebrated in a way that can actually be followed? Archbishop Chaput of Denver apparently granted permission for a community to celebrate the Latin Mass every Sunday. About a year ago I attended with my family. Because we were unfamiliar with the common practice and because we have a large number of potentially obnoxious children, we sat near the back. Although I studied Latin in high school, although my wife is teaching Latin to my children in the home school, and although we had missals, we were unable to follow the Mass. We simply could not hear anything said by the priest or by the altar boys. I must say on the positive side that I was really encouraged by the modesty of dress at the church. And there was a real sense of the sacred in the liturgy. On the whole, however, it was really very unsatisfying compared to the novus ordo, at least compared to the novus ordo when there is no grave abuse going on. I wonder if this is a typical experience.

(2) At my parish, I sing in the choir. So I am involved to some degree in the music ministry. Our church has a choir loft, and we actually use it for the choir at one Mass on Sunday. However, at other Mass times, I am occasionally a member of a small ensemble that stands in front of the congregation. Our location really bothers me. I should prefer to face east with the congregation for the duration of the Mass. Maybe I'm just ignorant about what's right, but I feel that it would be more important for Church authority to recommend keeping the choir behind the congregation and to specify that the words that are sung not promote heresy than it would be for Church authority to specify that certain instruments are "inappropriate". Surely what instrument is appropriate for a solemn occasion varies from culture to culture, but having one's back turned to the priest during the consecration seems (at least to me) inappropriate in any culture. As a small protest, when I serve in the ensemble in front of the congregation, I turn around to face the priest during the Eucharistic prayer (except when I'm actually singing). Unfortunately, as the altar is in an alcove, and the ensemble stands to the side, I have to guess the precise direction to the altar, as it is obscured by a wall. I turn in approximately the right direction anyway; that's my protest against a perceived abuse.

(3) Our pastor usually conducts the homily via the socratic method. He walks around among the congregation asking questions. Pausing to see if anyone will blurt out an answer before answering it himself. Although one might argue that his comments are orthodox (though lacking emphasis on certain points that ought to be emphasized), I am wondering whether this is actually an abuse.

John

It has been rumored that the document allowing wider celebration of the older rite will say that the newer rite is the "ordinary" way of celebrating Mass in the Latin Church, while the older rite is the "extraordinary" way.

If this is true, then it should be obvious that any SSPX person will remain in schism if he continues to deny the validity of the newer rite of the Mass.

What is the point in using such language as, "will Papa Ben demand ... renounce" etc.? By now, you should know that post-1960 popes do not "demand" anything. Mankind is no longer in an era of authoritarianism (except within Islam and atheistic communist remnants like Red China).

David B.

Allowing excommunicated persons back into the Church does come with requirements.

The point of using those words was to express a question in the english language.

BTW, I thought 'renounce' wasn't an outlawed word. Aren't *you* being just a little authoritarian?

David B.

John,

One requirement should be to acknowledge the Pope's supreme authority concerning Faith and Morals.

Inocencio

Thomas E. Vaughan,

I would say my experience is very close to yours.

I would recommend getting a copy of a Latin-English Missal for the Tridentine Rite.

Here is what Musicam Sacram has to say about the choir placement:

23. Taking into account the layout of each church, the choir should be placed in such a way:

(a) That its nature should be clearly apparent-namely, that it is a part of the whole congregation, and that it fulfills a special role;

(b) That it is easier for it to fulfil its liturgical function;20

(c) That each of its members may be able to participate easily in the Mass, that is to say by sacramental participation.


Adorems is a great resource.

Redemptionis Sacramentum On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist paragraphs 64-68 concern the homily.

I hope these suggestions are helpful.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

What is the point in using such language as, "will Papa Ben demand ... renounce" etc.? By now, you should know that post-1960 popes do not "demand" anything. Mankind is no longer in an era of authoritarianism (except within Islam and atheistic communist remnants like Red China).

Apparently, when you consider the actions of those who pretend to submit to and abide by the Catholic Faith, yet, remain ever disobedient to the Catholic Church itself and contradict all manner of teaching regarding the Church and the Authority of Peter and his successors, as presented to us historically by the ancient Church, the passages of Holy Scripture itself, and the teachings of the Church Fathers throughout history, and even the Doctors of the Church; what point is there for the Pope to use any verbage that reflect any such authority or, more to the point, for us, ourselves, to submit to any authority whatsoever, even to the likes of Scripture itself, when all is said and done, we tend to follow our own authority, and not even that of Jesus Christ, our Lord himself!

Michael

Is the Latin Mass typically celebrated in a way that can actually be followed?

It takes more than one experience with the TLM to catch on. My first experience with it left me somewhat angry because I did not know everything that was going on. Looking back that was a brattish attitude. Yes, many of the prayers are said quietly and cannot be heard by the congregation. They can be followed in the missal but it will require some time before you learn the flow of the TLM. It is a tremendous learning experience though.

Esau

Here below lies the real heart of this matter, as "POPE" Sanborn has put it so 'authoritatively' by his infallibly declaring B16 as a heretic.

What's as ridiculously absurd is his mentioning by continuing to hold fast to what we have received from our ancestors as the Catholic Faith., when his very actions happen to contradict the principle tenets that comprise the very foundation of the Catholic Faith he pretends to subscribe to!

Here is what he says:

SUMMARY
• Ratzinger is a heretic principally because of his stance on ecumenism and the new ecclesiology, both of which have been condemned by the Church.

• Ratzinger is an evolutionist with regard to the very nature of the Church, which shows a heretical attitude toward the Church, as it is an object of our faith.

• Ratzinger says that Catholics do not have the whole truth about God, and must dialogue with non-Catholics in order to find it.

• We need to persevere in our resistance to Modernism by holding Ratzinger to be a false pope, and by continuing to hold fast to what we have received from our ancestors as the Catholic Faith.

(MHT Newsletter, May 2005)

Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

Rector, Most Holy Trinity Seminary

bpsanborn2002@yahoo.com

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=63&catname=15

J

John,

One requirement should be to acknowledge the Pope's supreme authority concerning Faith and Morals.

*snicker*
Okay, Okay, i'll give you what you want, but you have to acknowledge that i'm the one runnin things around here.

Arieh

I would second what others have said about the TLM; one experience is not enough. If you have a good missal you will learn to follow along even when the prayers are said sotto voce because the missal will give you clues such as: making the sign of the cross... , bowing down... , receiving the thurible he incenses... , etc.

After attending several Latin masses I came to really appreciate the sotto voce and long for the silence when I attend a Novus Ordo mass. I also find that following along by reading a missal I can really internalize the prayers (think "active participation"), whereas when everything is amplified in English sometimes the prayers become routine and I find myself mentally drift, even while reciting them.

whosebob

Thomas wrote: (1) Is the Latin Mass typically celebrated in a way that can actually be followed?

Thomas, was the TLM you attended a Solemn High Mass, a Missa Cantata, or a Low Mass? See the Missa Cantata article in the Wikipedia, and the articles it links to, to read about the particulars which differentiate a Low Mass, High Mass, and Missa Cantata.

Low Mass would typically be the hardest to follow along with -- might be best to meditate while it is being offered, rather than trying to follow along prayer-by-prayer in your hand-missal.

At the other two types of TLM, the best thing might be to concentrate on singing/reading the parts of the Ordinary which are assigned to the choir+congregation, and reading the Propers for that particular Mass in your hand-missal. You may want to reflect, with your family, on the English translations of the other parts of the Ordinary outside of Mass itself -- as you become familiar with those prayers, you will then recognize and appreciate them when they are being offered by the priest or altar boys, even if you can't hear them or perfectly understand the Latin words as they're being spoken by them.

Maureen

Re: choir arrangement

If you're in front of the congregation, it's better not to be turned directly toward them. Facing the altar isn't good acoustics, but facing the congregation isn't good liturgy. The usual solution (which goes back to medieval times, at least) is to stand or sit at a right angle to the altar. (Sort of like being attendants to a king.) Like this:

c c c c c c
h h h h h h
o o o o o o
i i i i i i
r r r r r r

ALTAR

--------------------------
pews
--------------------------

Or like this:

ALTAR

c c c c c c
h h h h h h
o o o o o o
i i i i i i
r r r r r r

-------------------------
pews
-------------------------

In other words, the choir stall effect.

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/s/syrlin/stalls1.html

It would work even better if the choir was on both the left and right of the altar, but good luck being able to set that up in a modern church. Also, a bit hard on the director.

Standing sideways or even diagonally to the congregation makes it abundantly clear that your music is directed primarily to God and not to the congregation. (It also helps with stage fright, which is a nice fringe benefit.)

SteveL

What kind of instruments would be considered inappropriate? What culture is that determined from? I'm not trying to be jerk here just understand. Are drums bad, a guitar, a piano? I really enjoy all those in my worship of Christ.

RW

Would an "authentic instrument" rendition of "Silent Night" constitute use of an "inappropriate" instrument? Why or why not?

(According to legend, Silent Night was written for and originally rendered on guitar for a parish whose organ had just broken on Christmas Eve morning. Thus, to "authentic instrument" purists (or snobs, take your pick), a guitar is the only instrument it should be played on.)

bill912

That's not a legend, RW. It happened in 1818, at St. Nicholas Church (How appropriate is that!) in Oberdorf, Austria. The parish priest, Father Joseph Mohr wrote the words and asked the organist, Franz Gruber, to set them to music. He did, and played guitar at the Christmas masses that year.

St. Teresa of Avila played guitar, too; I hope to see her acclaimed the Patron Saint of Pickers.

Fr Martin Fox

May I point out that it is erroneous to refer to the old rite of the Mass as "the Latin Mass" -- because the current rite is also "the Latin Mass." Yes, I realize the current rite is seldom offered in Latin, and that is one of the problems we hope the Holy Father will help us deal with.

But it serves the polemics of both the disobedient "traditionalists" as well as the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd to posit "The Latin Mass" = "the Mass celebrated prior to Vatican II."

It would be far better to say, "old rite/new rite" or "Pian Rite/Pauline Rite" or even "Tridentine Rite/Vatican II Rite" -- or, if you absolutely must, "Tridentine/Novus Ordo" ("Novus Ordo" is a polemical term that does not, so far as I can tell, appear in the documents that promulgated it, or the Missal.)

Ed Peters

Or, as I've tried to get people to remember, "Latin is a language, not a Mass."

John L

I was also surprised at not hearing much when I first went to the Tridentine Mass. However, it then sank in that 'the priest isn't talking to me', and as a result, that 'that's because it's not about me'. When I got this point I decided to keep going, and have been attending the Tridentine parish ever since.

whosebob

Fr. Martin Fox wrote: It would be far better to say, "old rite/new rite" or "Pian Rite/Pauline Rite" or even "Tridentine Rite/Vatican II Rite"

Fr. Fox, how do you feel about use of "Traditional Latin Mass" or "Traditional Roman Rite" to refer to the "old rite" and "modern Roman Rite (of Mass)" to refer to the Mass of Paul VI?

Realist

An brief op-ed:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ His..._Jesus#Literacy "The only evidence that Jesus was literate is a verse in the gospel of Luke. Since scholars of the historical Jesus regard the gospels as fallible, they do not find this evidence convincing. Most people of Jesus' time, place, and social standing were illiterate. This issue is debated among those attacking or defending biblical inerrancy".

Illiterate or not, Jesus did not speak Latin, the language of the oppressor. A Mass in Yiddish and/or Aramaic? Why not!!!!

"Jesus apparently spoke Aramaic, as attested in the gospels. If he was literate, he almost certainly knew Hebrew, though most peasants were illiterate. He may have known at least some Greek as well."

Are Greek Orthodox Masses said in Latin?

SteveL

"St. Teresa of Avila played guitar, too;..."

I had no idea! I'm studying her writings. What a saint!

Tim J.

Have fun while you can, Realist. The Church is beginning to recover from the pernicious influence of the ME generation. Your tired old heresies are falling out of fashion as you speak.

They will, doubtless, come back in some other form - all new heresies are really just the same old heresies, warmed over again - but their falsehood will become apparent, as always.

JW

Our priest is a good straightforward man who as a late-ish vocation from being a shop counter-hand needed extra educational help before he began his priestly studies. There is no way that he could read or pronounce any foreign text - he has enough trouble with some English words.

He is already in charge of 2 parishes and is likely to get a third within a couple of years. He has already had two breakdowns, and is terribly vulnerable. Just to suggest he should say mass in a different rite and in another tongue would put him under colossal strain. Nothing doing there.

Do the enthusiasts who long for these esoteric anachronisms rejoice to follow the apostolic tradition of opting to "send them away" ? OK. They'll go.

JW

Forgot to say - the parish, and its pp, would prefer a Vatican football team to a pride of sanctuary servers lynching the Latin tongue

Josh

Thomas,

I, too, have to concur that it takes more than one attendance at the TLM to learn to follow it. The orientation of the TLM is different than the modern rite. When I first atended the TLM, it was a Low Mass, and I found myself being a little frustrated trying to follow along in my Missal (and I was a Latin major)! But, like others have mentioned, the priest is not talking to the congregation for most of the Mass - he's talking to God. I actually found it helpful to familiarize myself with the prayers outside of Mass, so that when I am at a TLM, I don't even use a Missal - I simply enjoy the amazing quietness of the Mass and pray silently, trying to unite myself and my prayers with the priest's offering. I actually have come to enjoy the TLM more than the modern rite; I find the community-orientation of the modern rite distracts me from joining my prayers to the prayers at the altar. Nevertheless, I understand how others might find their spiritual nourishment in the modern rite.

Michael

I actually found it helpful to familiarize myself with the prayers outside of Mass, so that when I am at a TLM, I don't even use a Missal.

And that is something you never would have done with a vernacular NO. I found myself studying the mass, learning the prayers, becoming more intimately familiar with what is transpiring than I ever was while mindlessly mouthing the responses in English just following along with everybody else.

Brother Cadfael

And that is something you never would have done with a vernacular NO. I found myself studying the mass, learning the prayers, becoming more intimately familiar with what is transpiring than I ever was while mindlessly mouthing the responses in English just following along with everybody else.

And so you, Michael, have become the measure for the rest of us? What an incredibly arrogant, ignorant statement to make. You may not have been inspired to study the mass, learn the prayers, or become intimately familiar with what is transpiring during a N.O. Mass, but to proudly proclaim that no one else would have either is, well, let's just say mistaken.

David B.

'J',

Catholics should acknowledge the Pope's infallibility concerning Faith and Morals. If you do not then you ain't Catholic. Maybe you consider that as a compliment.

Tim J.

"...while mindlessly mouthing the responses in English just following along with everybody else.".

Everyone has experienced this from time to time. But just because one is "mouthing responses" does not mean that one must do so mindlessly.

One of the criticisms levelled at Catholic devotional practice is that the prayers are often repetitive. But I find, looking back, that most of the prayers I heard in the Protestant churches in which I grew up were repetitive, too, only in a different way. I mean, how many different ways can you say "God be with us as we gather to worship" or some such? It was usually just a matter of choosing interchangeable phrases from a sort of mental catalog.

So, the trick isn't in saying exact words, or in the language spoken... the trick is to MEAN what you say. One could hardly improve on the Our Father.

Josh

And that is something you never would have done with a vernacular NO.

Well, actually, I have, in Latin, English, Spanish and German. I prefer to know as much as possible about what I've decided to dedicate myself to. I think there are people who parrot mindlessly, and there are those who are deeply attuned to the ritual responses. Just as at TLMs throughout history there have been those fervently dedicated to praying along with the Mass, and those who probably have their mind anywhere but at Mass. People are people, no matter the rite!

John

Thank Goodness we seem to have a start to the return to sanity, and I applaud B16 for reforming the reform of Paul VI and JPII let become a free for all

It may take a few more decades, but this may be the begining, I just saw a news release that "for many" will now be replacing "for all" in the Novus Ordo mass as per Cardinal Arrinze

Inocencio

John,

Jimmy posted about this on November 20, 2006 here.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael

And so you, Michael, have become the measure for the rest of us? What an incredibly arrogant, ignorant statement to make. You may not have been inspired to study the mass, learn the prayers, or become intimately familiar with what is transpiring during a N.O. Mass, but to proudly proclaim that no one else would have either is, well, let's just say mistaken.

I certainly did not mean this in the manner it was taken by you and want to take exception to the hateful tone of your post. But instead, I will bear your scorn with grace.

Tim J.

Yeah, Brother Cadfael, I didn't really take Michael's post to be that arrogant or superior. More like he was just relating his experience.

There isn't any shortage of people who really ARE arrogant about their choice of Mass. Save your ammo.

Esau

There isn't any shortage of people who really ARE arrogant about their choice of Mass. Save your ammo.


Reminds me of:

Praise God & pass the ammo!!! ;^)

Brother Cadfael

Michael,

You have my apologies. I should indeed have read your post more charitably. And I certainly should not have overlooked the great fact that you are now, for whatever reason, studying the Mass and immersing yourself in what is transpiring there. Would that we all do more of the same.

Peace.

Esau

Brother Cadfael,
Don't take it too hard. It's hard, especially on a blog, to actually read people properly since you are without any body language or facial expressions whatsoever.

I'm sure Michael will be forgiving (at least, I hope so).

God bless all.

Dr. Eric

Realist said: "Are Greek Orthodox Masses said in Latin?"

The Greek Orthodox do not celebrate Mass. They celebrate the Divine Liturgys of St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. During "Lent," which they call the Great Fast, they celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during the weekdays (which comes from St. Gregory the Great.)

The Latin Catholics celebrate the Novus Ordo in Greek and follow the Orthodox liturgical calendar, or at least as far as Easter is concerned.

Maureen

The Greek Orthodox do celebrate Mass, just as they do have the sacraments, though they call them mysteries. I think what you meant was, "The Greek Orthodox call their rites of Sunday Mass 'the Divine Liturgies of...'"

We're far enough apart on a lot of issues. So it seems silly to use language to make us sound even more different, on issues where our beliefs and practices are in fact the same thing.

Fr Martin Fox

Whosebob:

No, those terms seem clear enough.

To the rest of you: why feed the trolls?

chris K

As far as understanding what's being said ... our pastor says an "instant mass" - 15min. weekday and maybe 30 on Sun. He slurs the words so fast that one is caught responding too late or being surprised that he has to stand when he just knelt. The visiting priest adds soooo many personal expressions that one never knows what to expect and couldn't follow along with any program even if he had one!

and ...

One could hardly improve on the Our Father.

How 'bout "for Thine is the Kingdom, etc."?!

Steve Cavanaugh

Realist wrote:

Illiterate or not, Jesus did not speak Latin, the language of the oppressor. A Mass in Yiddish and/or Aramaic? Why not!!!!

"Jesus apparently spoke Aramaic, as attested in the gospels. If he was literate, he almost certainly knew Hebrew, though most peasants were illiterate. He may have known at least some Greek as well."

In fact, it is quite possible that Jesus did speak Latin. As a "tekton" (which doesn't mean carpenter, but artisan) he may well have worked on the large public works of nearby Caesarea Phillipi during his working years before his public ministry; it's unlikely that Joseph was supporting a family on the odd bit of carpentry to be found in a small village like Nazareth, nor could Jesus have done so. If he did such work, picking up some Latin would have been natural, and advantageous, just as Latino immigrants to the U.S. find English advantageous.

We just don't know (hence the term "the hidden years" for the time between the visit to the Temple and the Baptism of the Lord); making definitive pronouncements is not wise, and doesn't help in a discussion about Latin in the liturgy of the sui juris Latin Catholic Church. As for what other sui juris Churches use for language, that varies. Some use Old Church Slavonic, others koine Greek, still others Syriac or Coptic. Few of the Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Churches use the vernacular, at least in their homelands, although in the diaspora they do use more. And it is contentious among them.

Esau

Illiterate or not, Jesus did not speak Latin, the language of the oppressor.

How can anyone who have become subject under Roman rule even function in lands that have become part of the Roman Empire if you're unable to communicate with those who have come to rule the land?

Jesus spoke to Roman soldiers. That very fact might suggest that he perhaps spoke Latin, the language of the Romans.

Even in the time of Alexander the Great, the precursor to the Roman Empire, when he had come to rule far and beyond, those people who had come under his rule could not help but learn Greek!

John

Note

The "John" post above is NOT the REAL "JOHN" but someone again using my name. Possibly they truly believe in what they posted but are using my name for some reason

I am sure you can tell my posts and volleys with Esau and Inocencio from imposters

John

My post is the Dec 19th post and not the Dec 18th

Esau

Note

The "John" post above is NOT the REAL "JOHN" but someone again using my name. Possibly they truly believe in what they posted but are using my name for some reason

JOHN:

Did it happen to occur to you that YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY JOHN in the whole, wide world???

Now, do you know why I wanted to refer to you by some other unique identifier like JTNOVA or your email address???

guest

Italy Off!

Jordan Potter

Personally I don't see how the "WORD" Made Flesh would not know Latin, or every other human language.

In any case, it's certain He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and all but certain He spoke Greek. Odds are He spoke Latin too. That's just based on what we know about life back then in the Holy Land, apart from the fact that as God Incarnate He could speak all languages.

Abberblab

Fr. Martin Fox,

It may be true that Church documents may not refer to the Novus Ordo as the "Novus Ordo", but Pope Paul VI
sure seemed to use that phrase to describe it. For example--

Peculiari autem modo id eo gravius censendum est, quod illuc divisio inducitur, ubi congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, scilicet in Liturgiam atque in Eucharisticum Sacrificium, cum denegetur obsequium normis de re liturgica statutis. At vero, nomine ipsius Traditionis Nos ab omnibus filiis Nostris atque ab omnibus catholicis communitatibus postulamus, ut cum dignitate pietatisque fervore renovatae Liturgiae ritus celebrentur. Usus novi Ordinis Missae minime quidem sacerdotum vel christifidelium arbitrio permittitur. Instructione autem edita die quarto decimo mensis Iunii anno millesimo nongentesimo septuagesimo primo provisum est, ut Missae celebratio antiquo ritu sineretur, facultate data ab Ordinario, tantummodo sacerdotibus aetate provectis vel infirmis, qui Divinum Sacrificium sine populo offerrent. Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur post maturam deliberationem, atque ad exsequendas normas quae a Concilio Vaticano II impertitae sunt. Haud dissimili ratione, Decessor Noster S. Pius V post Concilium Tridentinum Missale auctoritate sua recognitum adhiberi iusserat.

--http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/
speeches/1976/documents/
hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro_lt.html

You could say he was just calling it the "new Ordo",
but that's exactly what Novus Ordo means.
How do you like them mala?


SDG

Hm. What was he going to call it, the Paul VI Mass?

I think it's safe to consider Paul VI's usage a special case, and take our bearings from Church documents.

Patty

Warm greetings in the True Christmas Spirit!

I hope all is well, you seem very knowledgeable. I read through your blogs--very sharp indeed! Do you have a Doctorate in Divinity or Philosophy?

Anyhow, I was wondering if you could give some priceless advice. I am thinking of buying some good old Catholic theology books for some family members and loved ones, and well, I recently received an advertisement for this very interesting book called "Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion of non-Catholics" by Mr. William J. DeTucci.

I was wondering if you have seen any book review on this book? I could not find anything on the author. It seems the book talks about the Role of Vatican II in the Modern World and how some Traditionalists have resisted many of the Modernistic teachings of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and the New Mass, as opposed to the old Latin Tridentine Mass. However, I also recently read Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio ( www.vatican.va), which seems to be give the Liberty of "Open Communion" to so-called Traditional Catholic Groups who dissent from Vatican II, i.e. Marcel Lefebvre's SSPX, Mark Pivarunas' CMRI, Clarence Kelly's SSPV, Br. Michael Dimond's Most Holy Family Monastery, the various Saint Benedict Centers, Jason Spadafore's Raphael Society, Patrick Taylor's Society of the Virgin Mary, and so many other Independent Bishops at Large)--all who promote Intercommunion Latin Mass Ritual, of course! I think the Spirit of Vatican II is really being recognized now by many of the Traditionalists who once followed Bishop Lefebvre in resisting Vatican II Conciliar Reforms, but since the Motu Proprio Latin Mass Ecumenism has been widely promoted and it has been "well received" by many of these same various Traditionalists Sects and also by many Liberal Bi-Ritual Bishops who offer both the Latin Mass and Ecumenical Modern Liturgies.

However, breaking the rule of judging a book by its cover, and only peaking its table of contents, it seems to me this book is an itchy reaction to this Neo-Ecumenism that both Greek and Latin Churches have been involved with. Not sure if you have read the book, or know of some theologian who has written a review? Here is the link to the contents that I browsed:

http://www.lulu.com/content/1431544

and also here:

http://www.vladcatholic.com

I would most greatly appreciate any book review that you or a theologian has done. This book seems to have positive merit in as much it claims to be "a Compendium of Roman Catholic Doctrine on the subject of Intercommunion with non-Catholics. This book produces the overwhelming theological consensus for the Dogmatic Teaching condemning Intercommunion with non-Catholics, putting together a treasury of Sacred Scriptures, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, and Popes who have written on the matter."

However, I just wanted to verify that before I make my last minute shopping for this Christmas & New Year Season.

May God bless you all!

Kind regards,

Patty

Brian

Hi all! Does anyone post here? hahaha...

The book by Mr. DeTucci on non-Catholic Communion was actually better than I thought. The quotes and backed up sources were unreal. I did not realize just how scholarly of a book this really is. Not to mention the various photos and that it really takes on the CMRI and SSPX and calls them: Heretics!

I recommend the book but it is a little ridgid on Vatican 2, etc.

Communicatio in Sacris by Mr. DeTucci

2 Thumbs up!

God Bless!

Brian

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31