Controversy in California Parish, Traditionalists Asked to Leave

Here's a fun little controversy occuring in the Diocese of Orange, California.  St. Mary's by the Sea Church, Huntington Beach, was once led by an old-school priest, Fr. Daniel Johnson.  He was  obedient to his Bishop, the, for want of a better term, liberal Tod Brown, but managed to keep his parish quite traditional for many years.  This included a Tridentine Mass he loved to celebrate at noon each Sunday.  Fr. Johnson's health gave out and he retired a few years ago.  The Bishop has since sent in two Administrator priests with directions to make it more compliant with a liberal interpretation on Vatican II.  A group of the St. Mary's people were unhappy with the Bishop's directives, which included the discontinuation of the Tridentine Mass.  The group has made a lot of noise, picketing the Bishop's house (if I remember correctly), and distributing newsletters objecting to things after each Mass.  The current parish administrator, Fr. Tran, in accordance with the Bishop's wishes, has asked (by name) those connected with the dissident group to leave the parish.

Any thoughts?  Tod Brown is certainly a disappointment as a Bishop--poor intellectual formation, a poor head for theology, a product of the 60's generation--but I wonder if this group's tactics are really wise.  Generally, I have a preference for quiet negotiation and friendly persuasion rather than the confrontational approach.  (When I was younger, I used to be the other way around.) Confrontation leads to polarization, the hardening of both sides' positions, and ultimately the group not in power (the traditionalists) loses.  On a broader issue, I wonder if Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX group might have been more successful if they had used such tactics.  I await your comments...

Comments

[Rich]

This is an unfortunate situation for the parish community in particular and the diocese in general. However, the bishop has authority over his church (the Church is apostolic) and we as faithful laymen are obliged to obey our bishops in matters concerning faith and morals. We also have certain rights in Canon law and perhaps there is some remedy in this approach. The prayers of the parish for the bishop and the Church will bring about a greater sanctification.

[A Simple Sinner]

1) Extreme measures over diplomatic (and sometimes painful) negotiation leads to isolation, error, further schism, and loss of the faithful.
2) Isolation, as a result of extreme stands, leads to a seclusion that is cut off to the fullness of the faith and can be fatal because it is prone to error that will go uncorrected.
3) Needless division is destructive, counter-productive, wasteful & sinful.

It is really tough to say - since I am NOT an insider in the least - what the SSPX eleventh hour negotiations were like. Much has been written and much more has been speculated, but I don't think we will ever know much. The Archbishop and JPII have passed, memories fade, and accurately separating conjecture from fact is not easy.

I will say that I feel the SSPX actually lost a good deal of negotiating room with the consecration of bishops and the rupture of regular relations. When this was done - as with any act of disobedience by a group on the brink of separation or censure - well an important threshold was crossed. The trump card was played

What is that threshold? Well it is like an old car that you paid off and want to get a few more years and miles on. If you have to replace some parts - you might keep doing it to avoid a car payment... $300 here, $125 there... well it is better than locking into a 36 or 60-month loan and having a regular payment right? Better than trying to buy another used car you don’t know as well, isn’t it?

But when the engine just blows up, it is REALLY HARD to keep going - things just look too far-gone to mess with. MAYBE you will (I replaced an engine on a car once) or maybe you will call the St. Vincent DePaul Society to donate the “scrap metal” that USED to be a car. Maybe it is easier to just walk away from it – curse at it, call it a day, and walk away.

EXTREME MEASURE BEFORE RESOLUTION

I know the analogy is not perfect, but I kind of feel it is the same way with the SSPX. Apologists for the Archbishop feel that there was no other way and that the FSSP and the like would not have been able to be established without them. Far from the Fraternity (Peter) occupying and enjoying a position they Society (Pius) would have enjoyed, SSPXers argue the Fraternity is like "Tridentine Uniates."

But here is the thing: The 1962 Missal is being celebrated by priests in parishes & missions in full union and contact with Rome in ever greater numbers almost weekly. Over 20 groups (orders, fraternities, monasteries, convents) are forming members and praying in the old rite daily.

As I type this at 7:30 am I am confident the Old Mass is being celebrated in a dozen places. A comforting thought to be sure – that throught the world the miracle of the Mass occurs all day while we eat, sleep, work! The FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, the French Abbeys, the Carmelites in Wyoming, the diocese in Brazil and numerous other smaller growing groups already now count well over 500 members. (300 priests & seminarians in the FSSP, 100 in the Institute of Christ the King, 180+ in the French abbeys, 30 priests in St. Jean Marie Vianney Fraternity…)

ERRORS THAT BEFALL ISOLATED COMMUNITIES

Negotiation – which is not always the equivalent of compromise – is beneficial as it can prevent some of the pride that can render a separated group in a grave state. Cleaving to Rome, while never popular and frequently tough, is protection! Obedience may hurt. Error may kill.

Certain heresies – especially (for example) christological heresies – are sometimes so complex in the details they are hard to really grasp the nuances. Any one religious community or national church or movement might not have all the faculties to tackle it. The nuances are important because as Catholics we know and affirm that truth is important.

BUT, if one group with one school of thought and a certain mindset and predispostion were separated from the communion of the Universal Church and the See or Rome, it could be very easy for these errors to gain sway.

Consider in the east churches in the Far East that were rather isolated – the piety and tradition of those communities are (to this day) rather remarkable, laudable and worth imitation.

However in the east Nestorianism, Monophositism, Eutychianism, Arianism, to name just a few “isms” were rampant and are sometimes still problematic. Pious, ancient, traditional liturgies alone did not preclude these communities from succumbing to error.

Isolation from Popes (& Councils) only further exacerbated these problems because rejection of the Holy See and, by implication, communion with the Universal Church community precluded that these national churches and communities could drink deeply from the rich well of theological debate and scholarly activity that has always and will always occur ALL OVER the world with secular priests, laity, religious orders, celebrating various rites and traditions through the ages. Pain some traditionalists as much as it might to admit it, there has to be more than one priest out there celebrating the 1970 missal creating work that bears examination!

Consider in the west the “Old Catholics of Utrecht” once a separated community of stalwart Jansenists. Today the “Old Catholic Communion” (which is neither old nor Catholic!) is a hodge-podge of churches that ordains practicing & promoting homosexuals, married persons, and women. They bless gay unions and ANY remarriage. (Do I need to spell out their abortion policies?) They are in full communion with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Anglican Communion and (as a result of the Anglicans) a good number of Lutheran bodies worldwide. From stalwart Jansenists to a community that, in theory, could have a re-married lesbian Bishop who works at an abortion clinic in good-standing. My what 300 years can do to some Jansenists!

TIME WASTED REINVENTING THE WHEEL

Many of the members and supporters of the SSPX (and various other groups) are often some VERY smart people. In matters of philosophy, theology, linguistics, history and liturgical scholarship many of them could skate circles around me. I mean marathon speed-skate circles all day and night without ever letting me get close. Scholars.

Now to whom much has been given, much will be expected. He who wastes much, will have much to answer for.

The SSPX has done those of us that love the old rite and tradition little favor in one real sense – the isolation they have incurred has precluded the involvment of many of these scholars and spiritual men and women in the greater life of the Universal Church.

Men who should have been teaching at Catholic colleges were put to work renovating small chapels down the street from an old parish church that needed a priest. Men who should have been teaching in seminary were building new grade schools a block from one that is closing. Society priests who could have offered much friendship and fraternal love and support to parish priests and priest of other orders were isolated in their own rectory. Liturgists who should have been making a case before Rome for the old rite, were reduced to writing tracts against Rome and the new rite.

[Tony]

Can a Bishop ask someone to leave a diocese or parish without formally excommunicating them?

[John]

Obedience to anyone teaching false church doctrine is not required, as St Peter and St Paul have clearly defined in scripture, as they are to be "publicaly rebuked:.

As far as following the church after Vatican II, it was the church that changed, not SSPX. They wanted to "hold fast to tradition" as scripture clearly taught, it was the liberals who infiltrated the church, among whom were upwards of 50% homosexual as many conservative seminarians were turned away in order to get the bastion of liberalism that is rampant today.

I have always questioned why a Bishop or for that matter the church who are in the business of saving souls want to have a liturgy, catechism, canon law, interpretation of the bible, customs, etc-liberal and loose knowing mans penchant for sin instead of just the opposite. Are these men evil or sinister?

As far as the Gates of Hell prevailing, as theologians have made clear even as long as there is 1 Bishop holding fast to the faith (hence the need for the consecration of those 4 bishops-who needs to negotiate with the church when she is teaching and professing error as Archbishop Lefebvre came to realize) then the gates of hell will not prevail. The church will soon stop teaching that Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, Moslems should be held in "high esteem" while they kill Christian, along with standing to receive our Lord in the hands, dress, manners, and all of the liturgical innovations that have crept in, there will be a Pope who will be the true Vicar and speak as Christ and clean up the mess that these past popes have created, we should all pray for this

[Vivian]

Negotiating with who or for what? A little eucharistic hosptiality there, and maybe a Traditional mass there? Either you are the One True faith and adhere to the teachings of ALL past Popes and Councils and NOT just Vatican II (I have never heard JPII or B16 reference any document other than Vatican II or some post V2 encyclical like the first 260 Popes never existed or the first 20 Councils)

Either he church is ONE, HOLY, Catholic, and Apostolic or she is not and has defected and hence is not to be followed.

Would one consider the church to be ONE when one can go a few miles to another diocese under another Bishop and get a completely different mass, customs, and teachings, etc? I say not. What about allowing dance-is that ONE? One can go from diocese to diocese as friends of ours have done seeking out the correct Bishop to push forth an annulment.

SSPX should hold fast as it is they who have held the faith. The Indult mass will soon disappear all together and then the church attendance will shrink even further, as it has in Boston where they did away with it, and now in Orange county

[Tony]

SSPX should hold fast as it is they who have held the faith.

Actually, they haven't, Vivian. They caved into using the vernacular in the time of Pope Pius I. Originally the mass was celebrated in Greek, but they changed the language to the vulgate (which is why the Latin Bible is called "vulgata").

So things have changed time and time again over the centuries. People, like yourself, have resisted the change. They even "schized" over it (like the SSPX people did).

Let me say at the onset that I love the Latin mass. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, I took my daughter to a local indult mass as a "religious ed. field trip". She's 16 and has never seen the Tridentine rite.

I noticed something. At the parish where it was hosted, there was "the Latin mass people" and "the other people" and never the twain shall meet.

I think there has been a loss of reverence regarding the Blessed Sacrament. There has been a loss of the sense of transcendental mystery I used to find when I was an altar boy (not an "altar server").

I don't think we need to go all the way back to Trent to recapture that. I think we can start changing the music around. Inject some Latin into the mass such as the Agnus Dei or Sanctus. Reform the music to be less banal. Bring religious art, candles, incense and stained glass back into the church proper.

We are doing that slowly but surely at our parish.

[JDM]

We pray according to who we are. The old way of praying is so drenched in old ways of thinking. Are we just sinners or children of God? Should we bend over and beat our breast or confidently embrace our Father? I for one skip the ado and do not fear the new ways such as communion in the hand and such.
I was brought up a traditionalist but have woken up. No, the people of God shall never be perfect. No single man shall ever be perfect. I wish the "traditionalist" in CA and the whole world around would stop thinking there is a set way of doing things. Jesus shocked the Pharisees by not following "the rules" yet was always respectful to their traditions. Dear traditionalist: Seperating yourself, or causing disunity, or acting contrary to peace is not under true charity. Charity is God and does odd things sometimes. Dying on a cross is a perfect example. My point? Never be angry or scandalized at your poor bishop. Fr. Tran, the parish administrator, has every right to ask the non-participants to leave the parish. They are disrupting the peace. Let them find their own parish according to what they think is truth. So begins the disunity, which is the curse of mankind. There is only one Truth, but there are many people. May we each help each other in all charity to find that one Truth.

[jonathan massie]

Another example of the open minded and inclusive church. Vatican II did not do away with the Latin Mass and no Pope since that time has directed parishes to do away with the Tridentine Mass. I grew up in the area in question and for lack of better description, most Catholic Churches are dying. They are dying because, this bishop, as well as others such as Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles do away completely with kneeling and other Catholic traditions that in their infinite wisdom find offensive.

I want to note that I do not attend a Tridentine Mass. I attend, love and enjoy the current Mass. (at least here in San Diego). But I find the behavior of those who profess to love Vatican II are often the most close minded and restrictive Catholics that I have ever met. They cannot stand the thought that a Tridentine Mass is being said since they are deathly afraid of the impact that such a Mass will have on the parishoners. Maybe we will go back to the dark ages - or maybe Catholics will have an open discussion on the tone and content of the Mass.

A Bishop and a Priest that calls out members of the Church by name to leave because they prefer a form of the Mass that is valid, are nothing less than dispicable. I fail to see the Catholic values that are affirmed by such a mean spirited action. The Bishop and Priest could have easily advised those that disagree that a Latin Mass is being said in a neighboring church - which there is in Garden Grove - but advised them at the same time that they are welcome and encouraged to remain in the Parish. This could have been accomplished with a letter to each prishoner. Oh well, that would be so difficult for our open minded and inclusive clergy. What a joke.

Yes the Bishop has the authority over his Church. And we, as Catholics, have every right and obligation to criticize him when he is wrong.

[Joanie]

Witness the scramble to extinguish a spark of orthodoxy that unwittingly wont go away.
I believe this order of banishment will lead to a bigger development, it is definitely a showdown, the gauntlet has been dropped.

[Wendy]

I do not think the uproar is what happens during mass. When non believers or Protestants come to mass and do not kneel or stand no one askes them to leave. I would think after Mass is where the disruption became an issue.
During Easter and Christmas the pink sashers (practicing homosexual couples) come up the communion line to receive and I know the LA Cathedral allowed it and possibly Orange.
They where not asked to leave.
Benedict when giving a teaching always starts with the Gospel and he tells us we are to do the same. Our Lord when someone has something against you leave your offering at the altar and go be reconciled. I wonder how that parish would preach on those versus?
The Holy Father answered a question and talked about not living in the hermeneutic of discontinuity but one of renewal, of going forth in continuity.
Everyone lives in something of their own positions but looking at our relationship of renewal. I do believe what gives life will always show forth in fruit.

[A Simple Sinner]

John: Which sedevacantist group will tell you when we have a real pope? Or will you just go decide for yourself when you like the pope?

Vivian: Liturgical abuses and liturgical diversity... well lack of external "sameness" does not prove or disprove a church being one. If you are looking for a time when all Christians celebrate the same liturgy the same way you will be looking for a long time. There has ALWAYS been abuses (anyone remember the 10 minute low Mass?)and there has always been ritual diversity.

"SSPX should hold fast as it is they who have held the faith."

No Vivian, they are the ones that preach what you want to hear. I love the old rite, but setting disobeying DIRECT papal orders and setting up an alternate hierachy is NOT Catholic Tradition.

"The Indult mass will soon disappear all together and then the church attendance will shrink even further, as it has in Boston where they did away with it, and now in Orange county."

It was actually moved in Boston.

[John]

I laught at the sedevacantist labeling, as it is a device used by those who hate the tridentine mass to divide and conquer those that hold fast to the faith and the true mass (not saying the NO mass is invald, just not reverent-there is room for both). But those forget that the TLM was actually BANNED for 20 years before JPII in 1988-imagine that Banning the mass said for all times,and then leaving it to these corrupt bishops to decide to allow it hoping it would die off

No, the blame must fall on these popes of Vatican II. It is they who approved the council and reforms, and without their approval neither the council or the reforms would have ANY meaning or authority. It is THEY who have misapplied the principals of obedience in order to bring the faithful into line. It is they who tolerate any conceivable deviation while condemning anything at all that is traditional.

Are they then really the true Popes? Would Pius X stand for this?> I doubt it

[A Simple Sinner]

I have know hate for the Traditional Latin Mass, but I know a sedevacantist when I read one:

"Are they then really the true Popes? Would Pius X stand for this?> I doubt it"

Would St. Pius X stand for an Archbishop defying an order from Rome, setting up a shadow church structure, and writing prolificly against him? You bet your sweet bippy he would have NO sympathy for such antics.

Obedience may be painful, but it is not optional!

[Athanasius]

I have been thinking through the TLM / V2 thing for years now and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot, of my own accord, figure this whole thing out. I know that I love the Latin Mass and I truly see great fruit at the SSPX and FSSP traditional communities I have visited. I see large families truly open to life and great reverence for the blessed sacrament. I don't, however, pretend for an instant to believe that the Traditionalist movement is not without its problems or that everything was roses before VII.

The prospect of being outside of the Church terrifies me as it directly impacts the salvation of my soul and those family members in my care. While the SSPX may objectively be in schism, currently the situation looks to me to be a rare one in Catholic history. Modernism and Arianism really aren't that different and during the time of St. Athanasius just about all the bishops and probably the Pope were overt Arians or indirectly countenanced the same. St. Athanasius was excommunicated twice (quite a feat!) yet we now see him as a great hero in our Catholic Heritage.

Given the state of scandal afflicting the Novus Ordo church, the SSPX schism may well prove Providential. I think the key here is avoidance of a "spirit of schism". I have seen the SSPX pray for the Pope at every Mass of theirs I have attended. I have seen Rosaries offered for the intentions of the Holy Father (something I have never seen in Novus Ordo church). Maybe I am naeve but I also think their fruits are good. When I visit Post Falls Idaho I see van after van after van filled with large families truly open to life. All other issues notwithstanding, they strike me as more obedient to the Holy Father than most of the parishes I see here in Montana. As an aside, the ONLY pedophile issue I know involving the SSPX is a priest they COMPLETELY removed from their society. This priest then went to the diocese of Scranton and the FSSP where, despite explicit warnings from the SSPX, he was put to work by the Bishop there and then went on to molest teenage boys.

Yes, the liturgy has changed over time but Lex Orandi Lex Credendi has been proven to be painfully true over the last 40 years.

That said, I have seen a reverent Novus Ordo mass or two here and there and, because of this, I think those who are hard line sedevacantists are being used by the Devil. We must pray for them because Christ tells us we will be judged as we judge others. Their souls are in grave danger.

I have seen hatred on both sides of this issue. I think Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Kelly (SSPV sedevacantist) are just two sides of the same demonic coin. Both must be avoided at all costs.

I think, in essence, that we are all called by Christ to seek out and build a true Catholicity wherein we must preach both the "left" and "right" sides of the Gospel. As Catholics, we are called to give others the shirt off our back while at the same time fearlessly rebuke sin. All too often, I find this spirit hard to find today at BOTH the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass.

[John]

Athanasius

I think your post was beautiful and something that I, with family in the NO, SSPX and SSPV, I have seen it all from all sides. But one must agree with what you said that it will be the traditionalists who will be the ones who will eventually prove out to be correct. I do disagree with your demonizing of Bishop Kelly, as I have met him many years ago, and he is a loving caring individual who is a true leader of his sheep. As far as the entire sede thing, it makes no real difference and from what I know all SSPV priests pray for the Pope as well. The "break" so to speak back in the late 80's was over many things, among them the missal (1962 vs 1948) as well as the ongoing negotiations with the vatican that the great Archbishop was going through, while many of the priests who left felt that the Vatican was offering nothing in return, as they are today in order to do away with this threat of the traditionalists, kind of a bait and switch. The sede thing only came out of this later, and it really makes no difference, as it is the true mass and true sacraments untainted by modernism (in which both the matter and form have been changed making them questionable at best) that provides the reason for many traditionals to avoid the Vatican II church

I admire your love for the traditional ways, John and Athanasius. Any sound Catholic should respect pre-Vatican II methods. We should learn from the past and use that knowledge for improvement.
May I state what I believe? I believe that those persiding at the Vatican II Council were "fed up" with what had become of Catholicism, to put it harshly. The Pre-Vatican II era was harsh. There was an unhealthy concept of what God was requiring of us. Do you have children? Would you want them to flog themselves or wear hairshirts to prove to you their misery and show their fidelity to you? Do you want to behold people scourging themselves? That was the way of the dark ages, which eventually died out because those things are ridiculous. However the mentality of beating oneself down remained. Which was a stepping stone because God exalts the humble. The Church, I conclude, has gone through a period of self-abasement. Yet it is not in keeping our head down that we will reach the fullness of Christ spoken of by St. Paul or use all the wonderful talents bestowed on us by God.
The Second Vatican Council was an outlet for many to say, "Enough of this mentality of doom!" Many post-Vatican II abuses were the result of a serious pre-Vatican II disorder, which to state it simply, was a negative psychology.
I expect that things will settle. Forty years is hardly time enough to settle after such a serious outbreak. It was a necessary outbreak. Our way of thinking about God and what he requires of us needs to be genuinely Christian.
Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical is providential and exactly what our era needed.
Maybe Traditionalist should not be asked to leave but they themselves should decide whether of not they belong in that Church.

[A Simple Sinner]

"The sede thing only came out of this later, and it really makes no difference, as it is the true mass and true sacraments untainted by modernism (in which both the matter and form have been changed making them questionable at best) that provides the reason for many traditionalist to avoid the Vatican II church"

This is wildly fantastical thinking, at best.

1) The Papacy is foundational to the church's understanding of her ecclesial structure. The idea that sede vacatism doesn't matter and is plainly irrelevant. (And NO, the SSPV does NOT pray for B16.)

2) This comment implies that it really only matters they an old rite and valid sacraments are present. This implies that you of the thinking it is acceptable to take sacraments from any place deemed valid (Russian Orthodox, Polish National Catholic Church, Non-Chalcedonian Churches, Anglo-Catholics with Old Catholic orders using the Anglican Missal?). Is this the case? Or is it the case that you think it is OK to receive sacraments from any place you consider valid if you like the rite?

3) I will skip over the questions some have over the Thuc line of epsiscopal consecrations and priestly ordinations. But I will ask this: From whom does Bishop Kelly and his priests receive their faculties? Not the Pope of Rome, not the local ordinary, from whom?

(Invariably this is where I expect to hear that this issue does not matter because the Novus Ordo church is in such bad shape, in the opinion of Trads, this all goes out the window.)

[John]

I agree as I saw posted somewhere else, it is the Pope who is our servent, not the other way around, and hierarchy is not that important especially if one feels their own salvation or the teachings of the church are being compromised.

Let us suppose that, and I do probably feel this is so at least in many many instances the Pope and the Vatican are indeed teaching error, as has happened in past heresies, and all those who are following suit are doing as well only to be corrected by the church some years later (a priest once told me the church measures time in decades and even centuries, not years) so it could take some time.

I would be more adverse and worried about the traditionals, as many NO Vatican II supporters always throw schismatic at them, but they are nothing like the Protestants who changed and revolted from church teachings, and actually the church did the same itself after Vatican II with "aggiornamento" and the traditionals are only worshipping as the church did for centuries.

If they are wrong now, then the church was wrong for centuries before this so called "renewal"

The True Mass and True Sacraments? Who decided what was true and not true? Did Jesus establish a book of rules that said we must say the mass and have the sacraments in such and such a fashion to be valid? Didn't he give us a vicar/pope to guide us along in that? Doesn't the pope say the "novus ordo?" I think the pope's mass is valid and licit percisely because he is the vicar of Christ.
The new order of the mass is just that. It's a new order. The sacrament is there. Will one of the Traditionalist explain to me in their own words what the issue is on the word for word canon criticism? I think Traditionalist don't like the "many" being changed to "all." That's the bottem line. That's THE word that makes the novus ordo invalid to them.
The old rite is valid according to the
Council of Trent. The Council of Trent established a code for the mass. Perhaps the old rite can not be banned but the Pope definetely has the authority to validate the new order. (And there are reasons why there is a restriction to the old right. There are reasons why things change.) Is he not the vicar of Christ and hold the keys of Peter? Did not Christ say that what the pope says goes?
Do we need a new blog topic? I ask a lot of questions because I am open to arguing. There seems to be a question (amoung many) about the authority of the vicar of Christ.

[Anita]

"The prospect of being outside of the Church terrifies me as it directly impacts the salvation of my soul and those family members in my care" This is a guote from 'a simple sinner. Don't you realize that according to the new order you don't have to be Catholic to be saved? It is only the Traditional Catholics today that still believe outside the Church there is no salvation. So if we are wrong we are saved anyway. If the new order is wrong you are all in trouble.

[John]

Anon

Simple answer to your question, as I guess they dont teach Catechism anymore since they did away with the Baltimore Catechism

What is a sacrament?-A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace-with of course proper form and matter

Who but the Lord,' St. Ambrose asks, 'is the author of the Sacraments?' St. Augustine tells us 'It is divine Wisdom incarnate that established the sacraments as means of salvation,' and St. Thomas Aquinas states that 'As the grace of the sacraments comes from God alone, it is to Him alone that the institution of the sacrament belongs.' Thus it is that the Apostles did not regard themselves as authors of the Sacraments, but rather as 'dispensers of the mysteries of Christ' (1 Cor. IV: 1).

If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New - Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a Sacrament: let him be anathema' (Canon of the Council of Trent, Denz. 844).'If anyone say that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema.' (Canon of the Council of Trent).

The Church, of course, has a certain latitude' with regard to the manner in which the Sacraments are administered, and, and can change the manner of their administration and the ceremonies that surround them. However, she cannot make a Sacrament be other than what Christ intended, and she cannot create new Sacraments. The acceptance of the traditional Sacraments in their TRADITIONAL form is part of that obedience that the faithful Catholic (which obviously should include members of the Vatican II "renewal" owes to Christ through tradition.

Taking just as one example of the changes that occurred with the new rite - tend to confirm its Protestant and non-sacrificial orientation. Consider the fact that the Words of Consecration are no longer called the 'Words of Consecration,' but only the 'Words of Our Lord.' While this point may seem minor, it raises the question of whether any consecration in fact occurs.

Moreover these words are part of the 'Institution of the Narration,' (an entirely new phrase to Catholic theology). Nowhere is the priest instructed to say the words of Consecration 'in the person of Christ.' If one follows the rubrics of the General Instruction (such as obedience presumably requires), they are simply said as part of the history of what occurred at the Last Supper. Now, the traditional Church has always taught that when the words are read as part of a narrative - as occurs when one reads the Gospel - no Consecration occurs. The priest must say the words in persona Christi, as something happening 'here and now,' or the Sacred Species are not confected. Truly the new mass has changed the 'immolative sacrifice' into a mere 'memorial.'

The Church has throughout the ages taught that Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient to save all men, but that on our part it does not effectually save all, but only those that cooperate with grace. Thus it is that the traditional formula for Consecrations says 'for you and for many.' However, the new rite insistently translates this phrase as 'for you and for all,' thus attacking the theological (and logical) principle that distinguishes sufficiency from efficiency and leading on to assume that as a result of the historical Sacrifice of the Cross, all men are saved. Such a change of meaning in the Consecratory formula attacks the 'substance' of the rite and even taken in isolation - apart from the numerous other defects indicated - certainly renders it of dubious validity.

Simple enough I say to seek a traditional mass as a mass is not a mass without a true sacrifice, and the compromise of the New Rite to make it more appealing to Protestants has obviously not even worked as the last time I checked I have not seen a mass migration of Protestants into the Catholic church

[A Simple Sinner]

"The prospect of being outside of the Church terrifies me as it directly impacts the salvation of my soul and those family members in my care" This is a guote from 'a simple sinner. Don't you realize that according to the new order you don't have to be Catholic to be saved? It is only the Traditional Catholics today that still believe outside the Church there is no salvation. So if we are wrong we are saved anyway. If the new order is wrong you are all in trouble.

Anita,

That quote is NOT from me. It is from Athanasius.

You know even the idea of "we are saved anyway" is troubling. Purgation is real. And even if "we were saved anyway" (which is NOT the teaching) the idea that la-de-dah, we can do whatever and be clear, that is not how someone who loves God acts.

Still history has shown us that any group, for whatever reason, who seperates from Rome in order to maintain Catholocism is doomed to eventual heresy and decay.

[Alabama Improper]

Well, we are talking about California right? I agree with you and think the "tactics" of the "dissenting" group could use some other means of showing their disapproval of the bishop.

[Anon]

John, I was not questioning the basics so that I could get YOUR answers. I do like debating. So...from your own words:

1. "Simple answer to your question, as I guess they dont teach Catechism anymore since they did away with the Baltimore Catechism"

JPII came out with a beautiful catechism book and took much time and care to have it correctly transalated in numerous languages. The pope and those who are diligent DO encourage the catechism. The church I attend has classes...so I don't accept your overstatement.

2. "'Who but the Lord,' St. Ambrose asks, 'is the author of the Sacraments?' St. Augustine tells us 'It is divine Wisdom incarnate that established the sacraments as means of salvation,' and St. Thomas Aquinas states that 'As the grace of the sacraments comes from God alone, it is to Him alone that the institution of the sacrament belongs.'"

Who but the Lord? He is not going to come down here to tell us everything again! He gave us the pope. His vicar. A baltimore catechism fact. Christ said "Do this in memory of Me" not "Do exactly what I'm doing or else!" I don't understand why Traditionalist have a problem with accepting the "all" in place of "many."
They are attacking the simplicity of God. The intention is there. Another blog should be started about those "theological and logical" reasons why Traditionalist can't accept that ONE word.

The mass is a sacrifice. That is a fact. Yet it is also a fact that it is a eucharistic celebration. "Do this in memory of Me." Jesus was indeed anticipating his great sacrifice but at that same time celebrating his love. The new rite of the mass is stressing the "other half" since the "first half" of it all has been played for already 2000 years.

As a side note - Don't look at the abuses of the people, who will err. Have mercy. I don't look at the abuses of Traditionalists who picket a bishops home and condemn tradition. I hope no one looks at a "main stream" catholic who doesn't know his catechism and condemns the entire new rite along with the goal of the church today.

[Anon]

p.s. - My first sentence above SHOULD read: "John, I was questioning the basics so that I could get YOUR answers."