Crisis Magazine

Thanks for posting.  I went to the link and read the full article by Greving.   Very thought provoking.

Nothing new or surprising there (and I don't say that in a condescending way toward the author).  I'm glad people keep hammering at this.

As much as I love the beauty, art, and reverence of the latin mass, or the orthodox worship, I'm not of a mind that this is what is missing, nor even essential.  Now I cry pardon if that sentiment troubles anyone.  Yet, the Latin mass was not neccessary for the religion of Jesus Christ to spread across asia and into Rome.  Even today people of faith and power are raised up and feed The Lord's sheep without it.  

Does the power to reach the hearts of men and conform them to the heart of God lay in a building, robes, music, and ceremony?  Or does it lay in the work of The Holy Spirt, in the preparation and tilling of the soil of the heart and the nurturing and care of the Lord's field workers and the Spirit?  Of course buildings, robes, music and ceremony can play a role, but it seems to me important we never mistake such things for the true source of Christian being, identity, and unity, which is the knowledge and work of the Lord and the ministry of all God's people to him and each other in his service.

It seems to me we should concern ourselves to unite in his service, rather than any particular "Church Service".  And I say that generically as a point of humor, and not meant to demean the reverent event that many people draw faith and strength from.  Through all my inapt words, I hope my point is seen.

I would like to partially disagree. Though you make an eloquent point that these aren't necessarily required. But most of us aren't St Theresa of Avila nor St John of the Cross either. It takes a bit, and sometimes hard work to be in the Presence appropriately.

Returning to the Latin mass is a start.. the Latin mass evangelize the world. It unified the Latin rite in one Language. It made Saints from poverty to luxury. Spain, alone evangelize millions. It provided a security from foreign peoples to do harm against it.

It is a way to physically brings us as close to the mindset, humility, worship, & Love of Our God. Everything happens for a reason. It is not "of this world". Most NO masses aren't anything special. It takes much meditation, and constant struggle to stay in reverence, with guitars playing, the priest rushing mass. It isn't hard for us to see why most do not believe in the true presence. I completely believe it, but I my children have to see hand sanitizer pumping, any random person touching the Body of Christ as if it is just a snack. It isn't a magic pill, the Latin mass. But some type returning to what was once beautiful and eternal must take place before we are lost. It can be unifying. Thus heritage, this history, this Tradition that has been lost..... to Give GOD the worship he is due.


I long for it. Especially for my children.

No, it wasn't the Latin Mass that spread in the early church.  It was one Mass, though, and ritual that was much closer to a TLM or an Orthodox Mass than the proliferation of post-1962 Masses..  TLM was the last place where the celebration of the Mass was unified across the Roman Catholic Church though.



The Mass is not robes, music, and ceremony.  The celebration of the Mass is not just a "church service". It is the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice to redeem us, during which He becomes physically present in the accidents of bread and wine, the source and summit of our faith.

I agree.  I think my concern is with the barriers we need to overcome before we can reach such a state.  Christians and the Church are being and have been dehumanized, and with the increasing real-world isolation and insularity of society, our tradtional means of being examples, and leading people toward Christ seem to be outstripped by AI powered science crafted mass media marketing penetrating through personal devices at every step of someone's day.

I think the sentiment is good.  But to avoid admiring the problem we must put our sholders to the question of "how we get there."  

Bottom line is that there are really only two kinds of Catholics left:  Conservative and Traditional.  The former are JPII/B16 Catholics who go to NOM on Sundays and Holy Days, confession at least once/year, and have moderate to large families.  The latter attend TLM or Orthodox/Byzantine Mass, attend on Sundays, Holy Days, and often some daily Masses, and have large to very large (by 2021 standards) families.

Liberal Catholics are a dying breed.  They have not come back to Mass since the absolute lockouts were lifted and it seems doubtful that they will do so when the dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass is removed.  They tend to have small families, attend Mass irregularly, and see it more as a social good than a spiritual good.

It may take a generation or two, but eventually Conservatives and Traditionalists will have their Church back if they can find a way to work together.  A move towards a universal Mass would help that along.

I think there is a third group: a hybrid.

We have no Latin Masses in our diocese so we are all NOM, but it is very different than in other places I have been.

Confession is available 2-3 times a week.
The mass has much more latin than other NOM masses.
We have rails, and many still take communion on the tongue.
We have novenas all the time, along with Adoration times, public rosaries on multiple days, and posadas.

We have sermons on abortion, greed, etc.

However, our priests are still very much leaning more toward the "don't ruffle feathers" side of the Church.

If it is brought up, they will not deny the doctrinal line, but our priests don't go out of their way to bring up controversial topics, except abortion. This saddens me.

We are by no means a Latin Mass church, but I think the large Hispanic demographic helps to diminish some of the USCCB influence.

I think that what everyone here would agree upon is that a call to more traditional reverence in and about the Mass, is a really good starting point. People who decry the NO because of music or language are missing the point entirely. People who wail about TLM services being non understandable or confusing are missing the point entirely. THE Mass is holy. Not one form or the other. Parishioners in all places are willing to park their various concepts of reverence with considerable variability.

I don't agree that 'Latin' civilized the world or created saints. That was the Holy Spirit. The 'world' at least in western culture was defined by the Roman empire whose official language was Latin. So the Church adopted that language as appropriate to fulfill its mission as a universal (i.e Catholic) entity. Latin was not adopted because it has some special power to perfect the Order of the Mass.

Very much truth to this. Thank you.

Good to see you post, Doc.  I agree with most of what you said.  The only reason I've written longer about the disagreements below is that I saw no point in expounding on the points of agreement. I'll enumerate the key points so I can keep them separate in my head.

Points of agreement:

1. Strongly agree that a call to more traditional reverence in and about the Mass is a really good starting point.
2. Strongly agree that people who wail about TLM services being non understandable or confusing are missing the point entirely.  
3. I agree that it was the Holy Spirit, and not the language, that makes saints.
4. I agree with your summary of how Latin ended up as the official language of the Church.
5. I agree that the language does not make the Mass.


Points of disagreement (obviously, I'll expound here so you can see why I disagree):

5. If you hold Latin has no more relevance than other languages, I disagree.  Otherwise, skip to 6.  
    a. We consider it above others, along with Greek and Hebrew, because it was inscribed on the Holy Cross.  
    b. It is a dead language; thus, meaning does not change with time.
    c. It is a component of the Latin rite; thus part of our tradition inasmuch as Greek is part of the Byzantine tradition, etc.

6. I strongly disagree with that people who decry the NO because of music are missing the point entirely.
    a. In addition to 14 centuries of tradition, Sacrosanctum Concilium reconfirms the primacy of Gregorian chant and polyphony.  Now pick up a the map of North America, close your eyes, and put your finger anywhere on it.  Then draw a circle with a 100-mile radius and mark every Catholic church within that circle.  What do you think the chances are that over 90% of those are unfaithful to tradition with regard to music?  How could this be?  Why would Catholic churches in unison toss a beautiful component of their tradition within short period of time and replace it with the profane?  Why would they replace part of Catholic identity with a worldly attribute?  Is that not strange and irreverent?
    b. Music can be many things: beautiful or ugly, fitting or unfitting, soothing or irritating, etc.  Thus, it seems appropriate that our liturgy should have the most beautiful music that is fit for the King of Kings.  
    c. Most indisputably, God is beautiful; therefore, beauty is objective.  There is beautiful music and there is ugly music.
    d. One of the methods God draws us to him is beauty, whether in nature, music, art, etc.  Therefore, it is fitting that our liturgies should be beautiful for our own sake (as opposed to 6.b above, which is a matter of justice).

Additional thought:
7. If we only had one Mass, people would not be divided over discussions about which form is better.  Bishop Schneider talks about this in his Christus Vincit book; he does both, but states that it makes no sense two have two different Masses.  Bishop Strickland talked about this too.

I have traveled around the wold on business to some strange places and I try to attend Mass at every chance.  The Catholic church, even in the vernacular, is fairly easy to follow but in Latin it is indeed one church, one people, no matter where you are or who you are with.

I used to feel the same about Latin not being particularly special, but I was swayed by the following:

Padre Pio, probably the closest modern man to some of the miracle workers of the Bible, received permission to continue saying the Tridentine Mass because of his belief in its superiority

Father Amorth often mentioned in his books that prayers in Latin in general and the old rite of Exorcism in particular, were much more effective in his work. Fr Amorth wasn't exactly a traditionalist and wrote admiringly of the Charismatic movement. Someone could maybe dismiss Fr. Ripperger extolling Latin because he is a member or FSSP, but Fr. Amorth was not a trad.

I think that we would be better off at least moving towards a common liturgy, which could include things like vernacular Masses Ad Orientum and churches with communion rails and kneelers being the norm, and moving towards a common liturgical calendar though I am wary of "cracking open" the 1962 Tridentine missal to make those changes and giving Francis's curia opportunity to run amok with that liturgy.

And herein lies the difficulty in that Sacrosantum Concilium (CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY) is open to various levels of interpretation. It might have been a big mistake to not make definitive statements in this Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Because this document, and many aspects of Vatican II, most definitely have been abused as a result of leaving in a lot of wiggle room, too much I fear. But I think that music and language are only rarely the sources of abuse.


Sacrosanctum Consilium states:

26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops [33]
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
112.......But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

(there are more quotes but you get the picture)

Given the fact, as attested to by my Catholic forbears, that many folks in the pre-Vatican II era went to Church and more or less prayed the Rosary 'while Mass was conducted,' we have to consider the impact of this document. So in the spirit of those statements in SC, which is more likely to engender such participation, Latin or vernacular? Are the parishioners more or less likely to understand and participate when responding in a semi-foreign language or the language they speak every day. Is God capable of making the 'profane offerings' of vernacular language and modern instrumentation into a sacred liturgy? (Hint: bread and wine become the Eucharist, profane accidents-->sacred substance.)

The constitution also says that 'pipe organ is to be held in high esteem.' So that's the only instrument allowed? Really? How many small parishes can fund and maintain a real pipe organ? (few if any). So is an electronic organ or reed organ OK or not? I can plug in a Fender Stratocaster with a Mel9 pedal in the signal chain and make is sound pretty much like an organ. Is that OK or not?

Agreed, God is beauty. A true objective statement. But is nothing else capable of being beautiful? Is your wife or child beautiful? Surely, but that is not objective. We are called to see those elements of God's 'objective beauty' in all things. But ultimately our ability to perceive this is entirely, humanly subjective. It's a very protestant position to think in terms of either/or. I really get frustrated by the 'either its Tridentine/Latin/sacred or its Novis Ordo/vernacular/illicit' garbage that I read at time. Talk about divisive and polarizing!

The same standard can apply to song. There is a difference between what is best, what is possible, what is available and what is useful.
Again, read literally, section VI basically intimates that if the musicians and singers are not well trained and good at what they do


I have in the past, before the ban on modern instrumentation at my NO parish, worked very hard with other musicians and singers at trying to always remain applicable, sacred and reverent while presenting the most 'subjectively' beautiful music possible. I very much resent the fact that the 'talent' that I was capable of and willing to contribute to the liturgy was arbitrarily deemed unacceptable.

And also, if we consider the entirety of this constitution to be valid, then as stated:

11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28] . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful are fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.

And similarly,

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

I will agree with you that many of the finer points/issues are arguable. And I don't disagree that a single liturgy would be a catalyst toward a more universal reverence. But it would also be somewhat ex-clusive. And as evidenced in Sacrosanctum Consilium, the Church did not make hard and fast proclamations to this effect.

Peace always.

I am always suspicious of unnecessary or redundant adjectives, so maybe someone could explain the difference between participation and active participation.

I have known and used this argument to many in the past. It is occasionally effective especially since Padre Pio's belief!


But, why not just plain old BETTER WORSHIP of Our God.

Why shouldn't you humble yourself, on your knees?

"my Lord & my God

I agree with some of what SKID says as well as some of what the proponents of the LM here says. I think there is a lot of beauty to the Latin Mass, and it does have roughly 1500 years of tradition behind it to lend it credibility.

I think it can serve as a very good point of unification, and I do like how more of the focus is directed to God, rather than the NOM which SOMETIMES feels as though too much focus is on the congregation.

However, I think to say it is the purest form of worship because of Latin as a language is weak at best. Padre Pio, a saint without question, is not speaking doctrine in his opinions. Moreover, the notion that Latin holds a special place with God by virtue of age or who used it in the Early Church falls short of logical when one considers that if we used that as the standard, then the mass should be in Aramaic or Koine Greek.

I also like the participation aspect of the NOM, though a I think a compromise between the degrees would be best.

Ultimately, I disagree with the notion that I sense some here have that a return to the LM would end all the ills of the Church and lead to some new Great Awakening among Catholics and Christians. It may indeed prove to help tremendously...or it could not.

I also think that holding a belief that somehow those who partake in the LM are any more "Catholic" or "True" than those in the NOM is likewise false. I think the LM, AT THIS MOMENT, appeals to the more traditional and faithfully practicing Catholics due to the very nature of its allure. However, I have known many Catholics who lived much of their lives attending LM, and they can share many accounts of less than devout Catholics not keeping the tenets of the Church during that era as well. We also know from secular and Church History that there have been periodic lapses in Catholic fervor among practitioners throughout the Latin Mass era, so this period of trials is not something new.

While the NOM MAY be a contributing factor, there is no proof that it is, and it could just as well NOT be contributing to the current state of the Church.

Bottom line: A Faithful Catholic can be shown through his actions, not his choice of mass.

Again, I still think there is much to say for the LM, and I have no problem with it growing or even being reinstated completely.

It just isn't the magic pill some believe it to be.

Thank you, sir.  I did not realize there was a personal note in this for you (regarding your music ministry), and I hope I did not rub salt on the wound.

I agree that the vernacular would be a lot easier to respond for most people (unless they don't speak the vernacular well).  Of course, that is not to say that (a) ease of response for the congregation or (b) necessity thereof are requirements or even chief considerations.  Even assuming that they are, kids typically learn their basic prayers in Latin by four or five.  By eight or nine, they have all of the Mass responses memorized, and as I'm sure you know, the responses are much more elaborate in the traditional Mass.  It's really not that hard, and as with most things worth having, at least some effort is typically required.  

On the so-called active participation, that is an interesting topic indeed.  I do not like it in its current practice at all.  Of course the fact that I do not like it, does not render it invalid.  A few notes on it:

- Encouraging the laity to respond is a rather new thing (started with PSPX IIRC).  Being new does not perforce make it bad obviously.  I actually think it's a good thing when it's not jarring or distracting.  The reason I point out its novelty is that Mass was no less valid in the hundreds of years before PSPX started encouraging people to respond.

- In its current practice, even in some traditional Masses, it takes the form of jarring, and sometimes frantic, dialogue.  More busywork than contemplative prayer.  Fr. Ripperger calls it, "too much yakking."  This is not unique to the new Mass by the way.  I've been in traditional Masses where someone is literally shouting the responses, someone else is saying them in 1.5 speed, and someone else at 0.5 speed.  Discord and distractions make it difficult to focus in prayer.

- I agree with H46Driver in that "active participation" sounds like corporate speak.  I believe the more correct and longer standing term is "assist at Mass."  One can assist or participate at Mass without being vocal.  Obviously, I agree that people should know what's on at Mass and remained focused to the best of their ability.  Along this same thought, I don't see the problem with people praying the Rosary at Mass.  If Mass is the Holy Sacrifice and we're literally at the foot of the Holy Cross, then contemplating on the life and passion of our Lord seems very appropriate.  I don't always pray the Rosary during Mass, but when I do, I find it easier to enter into a contemplative state with the sorrowful mysteries since that is what I am literally witnessing at that moment.

On music, I'll leave you with this Canadian gentleman.  They convince you with their politeness.  I think he could more accurately capture the drama as a sacrifice, but that's besides his main point.

It won't be just one thing that fixes get the Catholic Church out of its present state.

Trads will say:  Just bring back the Latin Mass and that will fix everything while ignoring the fact that prior to Vatican II, everyone in the RCC went to Latin Mass and that didn't stop the creep of modernism that began well before VII, but accelerated the councils aftermath

Conservative Caths will say:  If we just followed JPII and had reverent NO liturgy that will fix everything, while ignoring the fact that goofy guitar Masses, rainbow banners, etc seem to all be permitted in the NOM rubrics; that JPII picked some really horrible bishops and cardinals that enabled the worst of the sex abuse crisis; and that, because of the deliberate ambiguity of VII documents, both JPII and Francis can claim that they acted/are acting "in the spirit of the council".

Liberal Catholics will say:  If we just allowed married priests, female priests, gay priests, divorce and remarriage, gay marriage, and non-Catholics to receive communion that will fix everything.  Umm, that's the Episcopal Church; they're four blocks that way.

I didn't speak any Latin when I went to my first TLM in June.  While the Mass was different, it was not inaccessible; that's a ridiculous statement.  Hand missals are cheap and, before COVID, were available in the narthex for free to use during Mass.  I find it amusing to read arguments that the RCC couldn't possibly handle going back to the Mass it used for hundreds of years because people are so attached to the NOM.  Post-COVID attendance numbers don't seem to back that up, but that may be skewed by the libcaths, even in conservative parishes like the one I used to attend - where attendance is still WAYYYY down on weekends.  Wed night seems to be holding steady at around 40 folks there though.

I guess he revisited the subject more recently.  Just watched this.

I always appreciate your measured responses. Even in our discussions with anti-Catholic fundamentalists, you maintain your cool a lot better than I do.

I'm over it in regard to music. It saves me 4 hours a week of prep time and the ability to avoid the disdainful looks of the the pastor and deacon as we play and sing. I can do music in my home recording studio and pass it out to friends who can appreciate it.
I think that the point of 'active participation' was to focus on what's going on in the Mass. Recognizing the significance of spoken word and gesture by not only priest but the congregation. The Protestants chide us about the sit/stand/knee/gesture thing, but they all have meaning, they all signal and focus us as to the state of mind we should be in. It is sad that these things have become automatisms.
I don't disagree that the Rosary can imbue a certain contemplative mode. I would also add that if one truly believes that the Eucharistic prayer and consecration are participation in the once and eternal sacrifice in the kingdom, why would you need some other prayer in order to be awed by the very presence of Jesus Christ? Doesn't make sense to me but YMMV.
Lastly, having had many SSPX and SedeVacantist friends who routinely decry Vatican II documents as the work of the devil, I am taken aback when proponents of the TLM reference Sacrosantum Concilium. Big disconnect for me.

Well said.
I don't think that observation of attendance at this point is any sort of marker. The pandemic is not yet over. Many elderly people, and some not so elderly, that I know are simply scared of public gathering. In my parish, the pastor has completely ignored guidelines for protecting them. When an ordained priest wantonly ignores the 15% COVID mortality in the 80+ crowd, its really hard to get enthused about attendance and even harder to picture that same priest acting in persona Christi. Not exactly 'good shepherd' behavior.

I couldn't agree more that physical gestures have meaning and focus us as to state of mind, especially say, when it comes to how we receive the Eucharist.




There is nothing in TLM that precludes someone from following along in his/her missal while the priest says the Eucharistic prayer.  The priest, however, is the only one who transacts the consecration.  Participation from the laity is not required for that to happen and I sometimes wonder if that point is lost on NOM attendees.  Sometimes I follow along with the Eucharistic prayers and other times, I have special intentions to pray or one of the many pre-communion prayer devotions in my missal that, on Sundays at least, I don't have time to pray before Mass because I am ushering.  I don't want to be pestered with a bunch of frankly unnecessary responses intended to make me feel like I'm doing something or that my participation in those prayers is necessary.



Eh, we did it here a few months ago when there was discussion about the TLM fans not following VII guidance.  We hit SC to show that there were a whole lot of NOM parishes not following SC.

VII isn't a single stand alone turning point where everything was great in 1961 and went to hell by 1965.  The architect of the NOM started making changes to TLM in 1955.   I'm reading the update of "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and it seems to me that the problem with most of the VII documents is twofold:  Their ambiguity (maybe deliberate) allows too much interpretation and that many of them are flat out ignored.

I was listening to a very Holy Exorcist who pretty much dispelled the argument between VAT II and Traditionalist. Good can come from both.
Just remember Jesus was a Kosher Jew but he cured the Canaanites (Even the dogs get the scraps from the masters table) daughter and made way for gentiles.
Good can come from Novus Ordo Mass.
It's the intent of the person attending the Mass.  Be at mass with your whole heart. actively desire to repent of your sin, do not receive our Lord unworthily, faithfully observe the Sacraments.
Follow the precepts of the church and the Sacred Word.



We are very close to far worse tragedies than just covid. We have gone past the point of no return and will pay dearly... worse than the flood.
Make sure you make a general confession as soon as possible.

This is where I stand as well. I see a lot of positives regarding the LM, but it is not the only "True" form of worship, and an abrupt return would not necessarily equal a general increase in devotion.

While I quickly fell in love with the TLM, including the language and taught myself to pray the Rosary in Latin, the language is not the biggest factor in what I liked

I would rather attend an Ordinariate Mass (approximately TLM in English) or a NOM in the vernacular, but said Ad Orientum, than a NOM said in Latin versus populum (yeah, that's a real thing - just pretty much never used).

Would you give specific examples of what proof you would accept?

It would be the converse of any proof you could provide that a return WOULD lead to return to fervor.

I'm not being sarcastic, either.

These intangibles are the reason why such discussions are difficult, and ultimately, somewhat futile.

The only proof I can think of would be an increase in the number of more fervent, practicing, and knowledgable Catholics.

As such, I can't see how one could measure that in any way other than after the action occurred. Thus, I contend that there is no evidence that a return would or would not lead to more fervor being the result.

nvm

On a related note, I received my Latin Missalette yesterday, and I can now try to follow the Latin Masses online.

I'm pretty excited about that.

Fr. Nix had an excellent video where he explained what each step in the Mass represents, but I cannot seem to find it.  In case you have better luck, it was titled something like, "How to pray Mass like the saints."  Here's another source that presents the same information (though without the visual).  It had a profound impact on me.

In the absence of that video, here's another that may help make sense of things.

Which one did you get?

It's from the "Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter In Los Angeles".

That's really all it says.

If it's a  Missalette that just has the Ordinary of the Mass, you can get the Propers here:  http://www.extraordinaryform.org/propersweekdays.html

That link is for the Daily Propers with a link on the page to Sunday Propers.

Well, it does say on the cover that it's for the Extraordinary Form.

However, I think it is just a general guide, and you have provided the weekly masses which I appreciate greatly.

The "Ordinary" includes the parts that don't change every day - Gloria, Creed, Eucharistic Prayer, etc.  The "little Red missalette" that you can get on Amazon for $13 only has this part.

Propers are the parts that change every day ; Collect, Readings, etc.

A missal includes ordinary and propers is 3"-4" thick and will cost $60+.  Examples are Angelus Press, Baronious Press, Father Lasance.  These also have liturgies for the sacraments, explanations of the Mass and sacraments, and a whole bunch of cool additional prayers - Litanies, lives of the saints, examination of conscience, daily prayers, devotions for communion and Mass, etc.   I should really spend more time just reading mine.  I have the Angelus Press and Lasance in addition to a couple of LRMs for taking noobs.

No, in this case, I would only have the Ordinary. Thank you for the link though.

No worries.  I use that link a lot, because even with a full missal, it's not always easy to find out what the day's readings are.

What you will find is that the readings are generally tied to the specific feast or saint.  These tend to run in groups - proper for a bishop-confessor, proper for a virgin-martyr, proper for a priest-martyr, and so on.  

In NOM, there is a 3-year cycle that supposedly takes you through more or less then entire Bible (I've never actually checked), so you get much more variety.

In TLM the readings tend to be tied more specifically to each Mass's purpose, but you do not have the variety.  In fact, it seems like for Masses that don't celebrate something specific, it seems like the norm is just repeating the previous Sunday's readings.

Different approaches.

There is no denying that the current state of catechesis is abysmal.

BTW, the latest Pew Research Poll I saw a bit back showed 75% who did not believe in the real presence with over 80% of those under 40 not believing in it.

GREAT post and responses! Still trying to take all comments in.

ValleyGunner's stat -- blew me away:

It's worse than you think. The FAILURE of FORMATION of the flock directly correlates to the destructive and demonic influence by Relativism (the catch all for all heretical  ideology),  societal moral decline and blatant disregard for the VOWS of matrimony and Holy Orders,  within the church.

While I am no where near the intellectual acumen of those who frequent this forum and cannot argue fact to fact, verse to verse, eloquently... I don't consider myself a slouch when it comes to continued formation. Yet as I read the Thomas Aquinas's catechism,  and (reject the apostasy infused changes to verbiage of the CCC driven by Bergoglio's utter disdain for Sacred Scripture and Tradition) I see massive holes in my own formation.  On the MOST FUNDAMENTAL level, all Catholics should understand that the SACRAMENTS are GOD PRESENT. That the Holy Eucharist is the BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. Not to be taken lightly or approached without regard for how you would receive OUR LORD. The most rudimentary knowledge of our faith is THAT.   70% of those who call themselves catholic don't KNOW or believe in the transubstantiation of Christ. From there all of the other arguments to live our faith fall apart.
The justifications put forth are deadly and you can see the demonic intent at play so clearly.

The following ideologies are death to the soul and eternal life and it is in direct CONFLICT with the Sacred Word.  
Modernism : Science when applied to God diminishes the mystery and DIVINITY of God placing HIM in a BOX designed by our limited human capability.  It's a denial  of the Holy Spirit. I don't care what religion you claim. It's the unforgivable sin.

Spiritualism: What people call a rejection of religion for their own ideology and interpretation. Spiritualism is always driving by individualism. They really believe they are the only thing they need to interface with God. This is person driven belief at it's fullest and at the CENTER of that ideology is "I" and certainly not God. The individual decides how, what, and way they will try to fit God into their human plan. Suddenly God and "I" are equals.  There are no other God and God gave us the way. It rejects that completely.

APATHETIC CHERRY PICKING: Then there are pew warmers, cherry pickers... and I think we make The Christ weep most egregiously.  We pick and chose what we will believe and what we won't believe. We know the truth but reject it while and then approach the altar to receive the HOLY SACRIFICE for our sins. We are judas. Dine at HIS table, profess our faith and and receive the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, thinking our sin isn't all that bad. "I don't believe that for myself but I don't have the right to choose for others". I'll just go to confession... for watching porn/adultery/lust when I get around to it. Its not that bad if it doesn't hurt anyone else and I don't think it should be a rule anyway.

Or this recent gem of an encounter I had.: "Oh you are catholic, I AM A RECOVERING CATHOLIC". Person proceeds to tell me the many ways the church has failed him when he had an affair, fathered a child with mistress, divorced and abandoned his wife and kids (it was his wifes fault, as he left her and his children behind) and list of how Catholicism didn't fit his life style was lengthy. So he went to an evangelical church where his views are validated and accepted. (We all sin.. not sure we should be seeking "validation of our sinful lives through worship". My thoughts there.
Other Hot topics: Divorce/ annulments,  transgender, gay marriage in the church, birth control, abortion,  women in the priesthood, the priest sex crisis (also found in every other fiduciary relationship on the planet)

Sacred Scripture is so clear on these things. (At least it was before folks started changing the words to be politically correct and inclusive).  Read text from before 1957.  The OUR FATHER ... where the bible specifically says "give us this day our SUPERSUBSTANTIAL bread".
SUPERSUBSTANTIAL bread refers to the mystery of SPIRITUAL BREAD and eludes to the TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  And that WORD was removed from the bible. But wouldn't THAT clear up a lot of arguments and misconceptions about the TRUE presence of Christ is we said the Our Father correctly? God wasn't talking about bread from earth... Specifically He was talking about HIS BODY AND BLOOD.

People seriously don't understand what is happening at mass and they don't believe in GOD because if they did those churches would be packed to rafters. If we believed we wouldn't be under these scourges of as global plague. The US has abandoned God.




 

Attached File

70ish people at 0800 first Friday TLM this morning.  Probably more crowded at the 1900 Mass tonight.

Some parishes still catechize well, but not many.

Is self-identification the best way to identify a Catholic?  At first glance I'm uneasy with it, but then the Church itself recognizes (in a fairly binding manner, I might add) anyone baptized Catholic as Catholic.  I guess the issue is such surveys tend to be used with opinion polls to generate statements like "75% of Catholics believe such and such..." as if the Church is a democracy and the catechism is a living document.  I wouldn't be surprised if polls like this are part of the whole "Catholic spring" thing.

The problem to me is that church leadership is so reluctant to speak out about these things.  For example, membership in Freemasonry is excommunicable, but membership in groups like "Catholics for Choice," "Catholics United," and "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good" is seemingly totally fine.  At least from what little I know about Freemasonry, it actually seems more compatible with Catholicism (I'm not saying it ultimately is).

I suppose if such things were curtailed (e.g., formal excommunication for pro-choice advocacy), those numbers would change.  I'm all for more Catholics, but I think lines have to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe we can vote on it at the next meeting...

I would have no problem with the Church taking a very public and hard-line stance for traditional Church doctrine and against liberalism in all its facets.

Pro-choice? denounce it or leave
Pro-same sex marriage? denounce it or leave
Communism? Socialism?

Even if it meant the Church shrunk by 50%, I would be for it.

HOPEFULLY, it would lead to more devout catechisms and a return of the lost...but I am not too optimistic.

Good post. I always wondered why we didn't recite the Lord's Prayer word Epiousios (Supersubstantial) as it was originally translated from Greek to Latin by St. Jerome in the 300's AD. "Daily" already had it's own word "hemera" in Greek so it wasn't that common adjective. (Epiousios was only used twice and only to describe the Lord's "Bread")The meaning was changed from spiritual bread beyond material substance to feed our souls to common food bread to fill our bellies over the years. Hmmmm. What a rabbit hole.  

The setting of the Mass was changed from the bloody sacrifice at Calgary focused on Christ's gift of redemption and everlasting life in heaven to a symbolic sharing and caring Seder meal focused on earthly I'm OK, you're OK fraternity after Vat. II.  We were foolish enough to try to meet the Jews, Freemasons, and Prots halfway and lost (almost) everything Catholics once held sacred since then.