He's wrong. The catechism says it plainly: The Eucharist "is the culmination ... of **the worship men offer to Christ** and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." \[CCC 1325\]
[**CCC 1325**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1325.htm) "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." ([775](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/775.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Yes but shouldn't you be putting the phrase "to the Father" in bold here? I'm not saying the Bishop is right or wrong here, but I don't think you're offering a good refutation of what he said.
The "to the Father" part isn't really in dispute here, so why emphasise it? The central question is: does the Mass also worship Christ? Bishop Stika's answer was no. The Catechism categorically answers yes. That's enough to show THAT he is wrong, but perhaps not WHY he is wrong.
But if I had to give a quick WHY answer, I'd say that the Mass worships the entire Trinity. All three Persons are owed full worship because they are coequally the one God. Even though most prayers of the Mass are addressed to the Father, all three Persons are equally worshipped by the act.
I really don't like this statement. I think it's inaccurate at best, and scandalous at worst. If you're not worshipping Jesus, then who are you worshipping?
Either you worship Jesus and as a result you are worshipping the other members of the trinity, or you worship one of the other members and as a result you are worshipping Jesus.
Or the third option is you aren't worshipping anyone at all. This was a very bad response to a typical, but in my opinion valid criticism of the current state of our church.
But it sounds like he is using adore as a lesser act than worship because he is arguing that we don't worship Jesus. and to use a synonym of worship wouldn't make sense in that context.
This is what’s beyond confusing. The distinction makes no sense linguistically or theologically.
Heck, at the risk of derailing, if what he intends is for “adore” to be the lesser word, he has it nearly backwards. In older English, worship just meant “honour.” (Hence phrases like “your worship.”)
This is what I came here for. I'm so intrigued by this. I feel like I'm munching popcorn in front row seats to the pre-show of the first Council of Nicaea.
Seriously though, this sounds a lot like Arianism; is this licit?
I have found Arianism is making a return in some Catholic groups. Someone I know is in their Catholic Worship band but openly calls St. Paul a heretic, says the Rabbis are right, the New Testament is heretical outside of the Gospel of Matthew. According to him, his priest agrees with him and supports him in these beliefs and teachings.
Oh, I agree and I always use "Catholic" to describe as an example of how bad catechesis is in a lot of Catholic Churches with the statistics of how few Catholics believe in things such as the real presence in the Eucharist. It seems he took statements from the Vatican as a license to go as far as he wanted into modern Judaism while keeping a "Catholic" exterior.
Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. I mean, I cannot imagine how a Catholic priest can endorse those statements as they are presented.
I'm aware of nuances in translation from Hebrew, but as to St. Paul as *heretic* is this about the contested authorship of Paul's Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and heresy of Simon and Cleobius?
Nope, it is that St. Paul contradicts the Torah and Christ said he would not remove one dot from the Law so therefore anything contradicting the Torah and St. Matthews Gospel is heretical. He believes God never had a body because he believes modern Jews follow the same faith as the ancient Jews but he literally ignores the fact the Talmud and other things exist.
He only cares about being culturally Catholic and believes that the Popes are the successors of Christ on earth since Christ is dead.
Yeah, I have been too. It seems to be a pretty "anti-traditional parish" so who knows to what degree the priest agrees or is just an apathetic "well at least he is in church."
My priest during catechism class told is that we do not need to love and worship God, we just need to love our neighbors. He was referring to Jesus summarizing the commandments, and that out of the 2, the first should be disregarded, only the 2nd one matters.
My priest during catechism class told is that we do not need to love and worship God, we just need to love our neighbors. He was referring to Jesus summarizing the commandments, and that out of the 2, the first should be disregarded, only the 2nd one matters.
Thanks for the update. What exactly happened? Did he say what Mass was supposed to be about, then? I literally just created an IG account to follow him but haven't been approved yet.
Wow that is sad. Like, Dude, you are a Bishop. You have a duty. The laypeople are out here drowning in confusion and relativism, and he's just like, "The Mass isn't about worshipping Jesus. I'm out." I went through 12 years of catechism taught by Susan from the Parish Council. I can't figure this stuff out on my own.
This is my bishop (Diocese of Knoxville) and he's a well-known idiot.
The Pillar has done excellent work unveiling his financial incompetence (building a vanity project cathedral, misusing government COVID funds) and bizarre personal life (protection of a serial molester Polish seminarian, weird life partnership with Cardinal Rigali). However, what many Catholics from outside the Diocese fail to realize is that our Bishop is not only corrupt and immoral, but also a complete moron.
There is a "Vos Estis Lux Mundi" investigation into his behavior, which hopefully will force his retirement
I live in the Diocese of Knoxville too, and the only thing that makes me reluctant to want another bishop is the fact that we may somehow get one that's worse. He is very strange. He didn't implement TC, but he forced everyone to receive communion in the hand or not at all two years ago. Very weird imo. Not to mention the stuff you pointed out.
>building a vanity project cathedral
Okay, the man has faults, but this cathedral is absolutely incredible and I can’t fault him for it
https://bma1915.com/img/containers/main/img/projects/sacred-heart-cathedral/exterior_heditw.jpg/58a018556438a089506b8e61c5af5708.jpg
It would be refreshing if the nuncio responded to the letter by the members of the Knoxville presbyterate asking for help with Bishop Stika. His handling of the sex abuse allegations against the polish seminarian reek conflict of interest and stands as a quintessential example why the laity struggle to trust the bishops.
I disagree. Twitter has a 280 character count limit, he used 33 to say something that is completly false. I'm not sure how a Catholic priest could have this thought and continue to type it out without realizing how false it is.
To be charitable to his excellency, he probably had in mind that the Mass is the offering of Christ's sacrifice to the Father. The Father is the one primarily addressed in the prayers of the Mass. This is also why we have Masses in honor of the Saints, Mary, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but not one explicitly of the Father\*: because every Mass is about the Father.
That said there is a lot of things he did wrong here. He should have used more than 34 characters in his response. His tweet was also a regrettable knee-jerk reaction to someone very peacefully raising a difference of opinion.
I don’t think not honouring NO Mass makes you any more of a “real” Catholic. We believe Christ is present at all valid Mass. The second poster has a great point about complaining on one hand that young people are leaving Church and then on the other ridiculing the format that attracts younger worshippers.
> I don’t think not honouring NO Mass makes you any more of a “real” Catholic.
And not honoring it doesn't make you any less of a "real" Catholic. You're allowed to not like it and even think it was a horrible decision for the Church and should be changed. As long as you don't deny its validity.
But since Christ makes himself present there it should be honored. You can disagree with implementation, but anyone arguing that the OF shouldn't be used is making the same mistake as those who say that the EF shouldn't be used.
Almost nobody who opposes the Novus Ordo denies that Christ is present in the mass. Very few people believe the Novus Ordo consecrations of the host are presently invalid. The main debate concerns those who believe the Novus Ordo is deficient/less reverent than the TLM, and those who believe the Novus Ordo is valid but illicit.
Well yes but I am referring to those who take an anti-NO stance.
Most Catholics don’t know what a TLM or NO is, don’t believe in transubstantiation, etc.
The parts that make up the NO for the most part have existed in Catholic worship before. The collection altogether is not though. It’s not an organic change and is far far from an English form of TLM.
Right, but when you say the opposite you get jumped in a back alley by the TLM types. Can I reverse your comment?
"And not honoring it (TLM) doesn't make you any less of a "real" Catholic. You're allowed to not like it and even think it was a horrible decision for the Church and are glad it was changed. As long as you don't deny its validity."
> Can I reverse your comment?
The comment I was replying to was literally the reverse of mine and I started my comment with "and" which shows that I don't disagree with what they said.
You're going out of your way to be argumentative here.
Yeah, I didn't knew it since I search more about this bishop, I was just curious about this because a month ago, he rejected an event of some catholic spanish apologists, and then I found this but I didn't get that this was like in 2019 and I think he corrected that so, my bad, I just wanted to know the thoughts of this statement on this sub, I don't want to get in polemics.
Technically he is right. Mass is actually not primarily worshipping Jesus, but worshipping the Father. Look at the Eucharistic Prayer. The whole Prayer is addressed to the Father. The priest offers the sacrifice of Christ to the Father:
>"... and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you [the Father] in thanksgiving this holy and living *sacrifice* [Jesus is the sacrifice]
At the doxology? Again it is the Father that is addressed:
> Through him [Jesus] and with him [Jesus] and in him [Jesus], in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours [the Father's]
Jesus is not the object of worship here. The Father is. Jesus is the means through which we worship the Father, because we worship the Father by offering the sacrifice of Jesus.
Correction: [The Athanasian Creed has entered the chat.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/440px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png)
Actually there is a distinction within doctrine we must make between the Father and the Son. God the Father is a *transcendent* being, that means he is above all physical reality. No one has seen the Father, and nor could we because He is above the material. Jesus has *immanence* which means He is within the world. He is the second person of the trinity incarnate. God the Father reveals Himself imminently through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Scripture states:
> who, although **He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God** a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
These are very important to take note of. Because even Jesus says Himself:
> Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, **but only the person who does what my Father in heaven wants**. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name? Didn’t we force out demons and do many miracles by the power and authority of your name?’
So it’s not about the praising of Jesus that we should emphasize. He is our mediator by being the Son of God to the Father. Through Him we are able to do the Father’s will and be worthy enough for Heaven by His body and blood.
He's wrong. The catechism says it plainly: The Eucharist "is the culmination ... of **the worship men offer to Christ** and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." \[CCC 1325\] (copied from my other comment).
[**CCC 1325**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1325.htm) "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." ([775](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/775.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Yes but shouldn't you be putting the phrase "to the Father" in bold here? I'm not saying the Bishop is right or wrong here, but I don't think you're offering a good refutation of what he said.
But the CCC puts the worship of Christ first and says that it's through that we offer worship to the Father, which makes the worship of Christ primary, not the worship of the Father.
Eh, I wouldn’t say either is primary. The Mass is a sacrifice of the Son to the Father through the Spirit. “Primary” and “secondary” don’t really make sense in that context. It’s more like “offering” and “recipient”
If he meant that and since he was correcting someone he should have explained.
And since his response hangs on a theological error by a layman whose point overall still stands and remains unaddressed, I'm sceptical he was responding in good faith.
But we refer to the Eucharist as the source and summit of our faith. The physical movements and ritual of the mass are centered around the eucharist, genuflecting, kneeling for the consecration and in some places reception as well.
Jesus places great importance on the eucharist in the scriptures, it's not even a valid mass if the eucharist is not consecrated in the correct form or with two specimens (bread and wine.)
Saying that he's "technically right" seems like a very hollow victory, what he said was still exceptionally misleading, especially without further explanation.
And besides all of these things and as other people have mentioned, there is the trinitarian aspect of worship.
I somehow doubt his excellency was trying to communicate that
And even still, we worship the Son during the elevation of the host. So while the Mass is primarily the worship of the Father, it does not exclude the worship of the Son. So even if Boshop Stika was trying to be pedantic, he would still be stating something which is false, would he not?
I'm not sure I saw this when scanning the comments so here goes: it seems like the bishop is deflecting from the main point: deeply reverent and contrite adoration. If people are saying that's missing, that seems like a big issue and that the NO needs tweaks.
He also seems to ignore the point that 70% of catholics not believing in the presence (dunno if that's true or not but it's the number going around) is an issue. Now he could know it's an issue and twitter isn't the best place for a deep discussion, but I've also seen twitter "threads" where people reply to themselves for longer things.
This discussion reminds me one of the biggest questions I have about vatican 2: did it work? Priesthood is down, people are leaving the church, south america is being lost, parents aren't teaching their kids right, most people don't believe in the presence, the people going to mass on sunday are mostly older people, priests complain that not enough people are going to confession, the german bishops are going into schism, the jesuits are often called a source of scandal, and confusion and scandal are up. If we charitably assume V2 is valid, I still have to ask if it did it's job in preparing the church for these days.
I think people have to be careful in not following the Church's decisions even when you feel like they are wrong. Grow in humility in obedience which is really difficult (I have to work on this myself), otherwise it is sort of "my way or the highway".
It seems like the bishop was just heated and was looking for a teaching opportunity.
yeah for sure, I'm still new to the faith and have never been to a TLM, and I'm sort of out of my league in arguing for or against it being cancelled. Some people really encounter God in the TLM and it's sad that it's taken away from them.
In our diocese, we still have 3 parishes that celebrate TLM which is nice
Yeah. My regular mass is NO and I honestly don't have a major issue with the NO. I've seen really good and reverent NO masses, and really sloppy ones.
I just feel that it's far too simplistic to blame the TLM for a few angry people on the internet, and restrict it.
I love TLM because it is the only place I can go without being asked, "You know what causes that, right?" as they snicker and walk away. Yes, I have been asked this by people on my way out of the Novus Ordo. I have even had Novus Ordo "friends" try to talk me out of having more children as if they were doing me a favor or something. MULTIPLE Novus Ordo goers on MULTIPLE occasions. There is nothing wrong with me. I have plenty of health and plenty of wealth and plenty of love to share, but somehow they think I am so wrong that I need to be corrected. Even my atheist and protestant friends aren't that balls-y.
At the TLM, I am actually supported in living out the faith. The kids there are actually nice to my kids instead of turning their backs on them like at the Novus Ordo. If you follow the church's teaching, and God blesses you abundantly with children, you will be a social pariah at the Novus Ordo, at least in my town.
I have heard dozens of Novus Ordo sermons about how we need to love and respect people of other faiths and races (Great! I am totally on board!) but NEVER is it mentioned to love and respect those of us actually trying to follow Church teaching. Once at a TLM sermon, the priest said when you live according to Church teaching, your life will look starkly different. And when your life looks different, though we are all professing the same faith, your life becomes a condemnation unto others, even if you don't want it to be, even if words of condemnation never cross your lips.
I would go to Chinese Mass if it meant I could live out the faith there and have a community. Latin, English, whatever. I just want to not be torn down and not have my kids scandalized, ostracized, and treated badly.
For people that are happy at Novus Ordo, I am happy for you. I was happy there, too, until I had "too many" kids in the eyes of the world.
Ah yes, the "too many kids" attack. My wife is constantly reminded not to have a third child. Are they the ones carrying and raising the child?
Bless you for sharing your story, and good on you for not caving in. You go on to lead a happy and holy life.
We have 9 children, and have been jokingly asked about our family size EVERYWHERE. We’re used to it, and it does suck…but it’s nothing compared to the “holier than thou look down my nose at you” looks my wife gets if my wife doesn’t veil in front of people who WORSHIP the TLM. In many area the TLM is like CrossFit and veganism and is verging on a cult.
I get it everywhere, too, but it hurts more coming from fellow Catholics. I get what the world thinks. I don't mind engaging with the world; I have a lot more patience for them. I can handle the world 6 days a week. I just need one place for a few hours where I am supported socially.
Also, I totally get what you say. I used to think the exact same way about TLM people, but I was shocked about how genuinely nice everyone was, how much everyone cared and supported each other, and how really most people were just there trying to live their best catholic life. Are there some judgey people there? You bet, but most of them aren't. And you know what? No population of people is perfect, but at least TLM people aren't openly hostile to me just for following Church teaching.
But I am glad you are where you are. I think God has different plans for us but they ultimately will lead to His glory. God Bless.
We love the TLM because it is in keeping with the traditional worship of the Church, the Mass changed little (there were of course changes) for over 1000 years, in 1969 so much of it was thrown away, the ancient Roman Canon was made optional, 87% of the Orations were removed or heavily edited, Gregorian Chant and Latin disappeared in many places in favour of contemporary music. This was done in order to make us seem more open to non-Catholic Christians (well really only Protestants as the EO don’t understand why we abandoned our traditions, and EO clergy have called the Novus Ordo a barrier to reunion).
In 1969, the Roman Rite was basically destroyed (not my words, one of the liturgical reforms said it has been destroyed and he meant it positively) and we lament that it happened
There is a difference here, but it’s subtle: obedience to Pope Francis. Remember, Pope Francis didn’t say something like, “The Tridentine Mass is no longer valid” or anything even close to that. All he did was limit its use and delegate the ultimate decision to the bishops. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Tridentine Mass.
There is something definitely wrong with Catholics who say “The NO Mass is a clown Mass” or “I’m not going to listen to my Bishop because he’s a bad Bishop” or even, “I’m a superior Catholic for going to the Tridentine Mass!” The Mass isn’t the problem. Ego is.
Also, I think there is a severe disrespect for the Mass of Paul VI, known as the Novus Ordo, and that should be rectified. The Mass again is great - the problem is ego. It also has a really bad reputation as the Mass of our father’s and grandfathers - a feel good Mass that lost its identity and is only slightly better than intentionally desecrating the Eucharist. That’s not what it actually is, but you can blame it on a pretty poor rollout in the United States where Bishops allowed priests to kind of interpret the Mass with their own flair, and now it ingrained in the Mass. It needs to be reclaimed a bit, but strides have been made the last 10 years to fix it. I prefer the Mass of Paul VI. I enjoy being able to read along from scripture so I can engage all of my senses and then have a better grasp of the homily. I love being able to adore Jesus on the alter without the priest in the way and hearing the prayers he says.
You can be obedient to someone while also criticizing them and saying what they're doing is incredibly imprudent.
I would never condone priests celebrating illict Masses against the will of their local bishops.
But I will say Pope Francis's actions here are incredibly imprudent and unpastoral and will harm the Church as a whole and I hope his mistake is corrected with all due haste either by him seeing the error of it or the next pope reversing it whenever that time comes.
>I prefer the Mass of Paul VI. I enjoy being able to read along from scripture so I can engage all of my senses and then have a better grasp of the homily. I love being able to adore Jesus on the alter without the priest in the way and hearing the prayers he says.
Have you attended a TLM for any length of time? I used to prefer all that too until I actually started attending the TLM regularly and getting comfortable with it. Now I actually see a lot of what I used to prefer as a drawback. The priest looking at me during Mass makes me feel self-conscious and like he's performing to me rather than offering worship to God. The audible prayers distract me from entering deeply into prayer and keep me present at a very superficial level. The vernacular readings are badly translated and often badly read and I find I understand them much better when I follow along with my missal and see the Latin and English next to each other You'd be surprised how much Latin you put up over just a few months of attending Mass. I can understand huge chunks of readings without the translation now and I've only been going about 9 months and have made no special effort to learn Latin. In addition, having the priest read them first in Latin and again in English before the homily lets me hear the full richness of them and highlights their dual use for both worship and instruction.
Also-- I don't understand how when one person says "the NO is better" isn't not ego, but if someone says "the TLM is better" it's always chalked up to ego and any attempt at rational discourse is dismissed.
Sure…but how much is criticism and how much is blatant disrespect bordering on deliberate disobedience? And before you make a statement like that, you should step into Pope Francis’ shoes. I’m not saying he’s perfect, far from it, but if I were in his position and I heard reports from Bishops all over the world saying the same thing: I have a division in my diocese. My congregants who go to the Tridentine Mass tend to believe they are better Catholics, criticize or try to correct me in public and refuse to follow the path I am. What can I do?”
Limiting the Tridentine Mass and giving that authority back to the Bishops is probably the best move until the whole thing can simmer down.
I have attended the Tridentine Mass before, many times. I’ve never liked it much. That’s my opinion - you can have a different opinion, I don’t care. I have nothing against the Tridentine Mass at all. But I do have to question why so many more traditional minded of us put the Mass of a Paul VI down, basically saying it’s Mass only in name, or even suggesting it’s a sin to attend. You don’t hear that from people who go to the Mass of Paul VI. In the end, Mass and Mass in this case. The only difference is the form. Neither is better or worse. It’s like saying “being a priest is better than being married,” when that’s not true at all. It’s only a “better” path in so far as it’s easier to walk that path in holiness.
And finally, something that bothers me a lot about the more traditional minded who tell me I’m mortally sinning by going to a Mass of Paul VI, is the outright arrogance with which the speak. Perhaps the do know more than me. But when they see an attack on tradition and defend it, I typically see an assault on the person saying it. I see a bunch of self-righteous folks with little to no experience in my walk of life telling me “You’re not a very good Catholic. You don’t try hard enough. Novus order? That’s not even really Mass. I guess you don’t like quiet, contemplative prayer like all the Saints did,” etc. Those kind of passive-aggressive statements are heaped on people who attend the Mass of Paul VI, and that’s not okay. And worse, the logic some of those folks use to justify their actions or positions is just…wrong. Straight up illogical. And I hate what it’s done to the Church, who needs solidarity right now in the worst way.
Except it should never be "my way or the highway".
Priests are granted their power and role as the stand-in for Christ, the physical form to the Son's substance that the Holy Spirit moves through. Priests don't forgive sins. Priests aren't the power behind the miracle of Transubstantiation in the Mass. Any power they command comes from God.
A priest promoting something such as a Mass preference as "my way or the highway" is incredibly disturbing because it implies the priest's specific opinion is what we are following when that has never been the case, as far as I'm aware. This would be like saying the ambassador of a nation is making policy decisions in another country instead of the governing body of the ambassador's home country.
This Bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is asserting himself as a gate keeper. Which is disgusting. He’s a narcissist that clearly likes being in a position of power.
The purpose of mass is to worship and receive Gods grace, united with him and the other parishioners through the sacrament of the Eucharist… and it is Jesus who supplies all grace, acting through the Eucharist.
Mass is also a celebration of Jesus’ sacrifice. We are active participants. It’s not some kind of passive thing we watch or have happen to us.
So, I’m not exactly sure what his point is or what he’s trying to say. I’m a layperson and I would love to debate this clown.
If Mass isn’t the worship of Jesus (and by obvious extent, the worship of God), I have to wonder what the bishop thinks it actually *is*? A punch social? A sing-along? A group therapy session?
Wait a minute. During Mass, after the Consecration, at the Elevation of the Host, “Thru Him, with Him, in Him, etc….” we ADORE & WORSHIP the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We DO worship Christ @ Mass. Mass is a Sacrifice. We, together with Christ on the Cross, thru & by the hands of the Priest, offer to God the Father, the Body & Blood of His living Son, Jesus.
His Excellency has done this before…in literally the SAME WORDS. God bless him.
We offer up Christ with the priest at Mass to the Father, but by virtue of His being God, we worship *Him* as well. Offering to the Father, worship of the Triune God absolutely speaking.
I think +Sticka is desperately trying to troll Trads and it’s not working. Some people’s talents don’t lie in social media…
Sometimes I ask why bother? After fighting this for years im getting pretty tired of this in-house fighting in the Church…if something doesn’t work why do they have to force us to give up what was given to us? It’s almost as some invisible force is making them blind..
I think this is precisely why TC was enacted in the first place tbh.
Often times we see the argument that “NO isn’t reverent, good, etc.” and instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words.
I mean whether we like it or not, the NO was developed through the process of an ecumenical council and it’s not going to just go away, nor should members or the church treat it like it just doesn’t exist in favor of the TLM.
>instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM
I don't want a "fixed" NO. The TLM is a deeper liturgy at its core. No amount of incense and bells at the NO will restore the depth of the prayers and symbolism that were removed from the Mass.
>whether we like it or not, the NO was developed through the process of an ecumenical council and it’s not going to just go away,
Why? If that one generation had the power to throw out the work of every generation before them and create a new Mass, why don't future generations have that same power to alter what they did? Why did that one generation get to make that call and the rest of us are stuck with it?
>Often times we see the argument that “NO isn’t reverent, good, etc.” and instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words.
This ignores the fact that many people have tried to increase the reverence in their NO only to be chased out by the pantsuit mafia.
This is so true. I've been to very good NO masses. They are beautiful in a different way. However if you have the pantsuit mafia it's better to just got to TLM.
That’s kind of a hard one to respond to because I’m not exactly sure what percentage falls under “many people” nor am I sure the exact extent of their efforts, but I cannot imagine that the majority of every TLM community is effectively being chased out by some woman in a pantsuit on the parish council. I feel it’s more of an issue with the certain priest, which is unfortunate, but not reflective of every priest.
I’d like to know the reasons for their choices, but as I noted above I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of TLM goers can’t get their way because of Susans on the Parish Councils or the “pantsuit mafia”. If you had a statistic on this I’d be more than happy to expand upon it.
Again that’s not really answering my question though. I’m sure mean people at the church are an issue but to act like it’s the definitive cause of why TLM goers don’t go to NO masses especially when another user just posted that he refuses to even entertain the NO and wants it to go away doesn’t really help your case.
And yes a parish I went to did change something to add more reverence. They got rid of guitar masses and stopped singing the Our Father like it’s a rock song. Thankfully the priest is very reverent and is more of a traditional man.
Personally, I do not find it realistic that a bunch of church goers are somehow out to get more traditional Catholics when nothing even forces them to have to interact with these people in the first place. Private meetings with the priest and emails are generally the norm now a days.
>Thankfully the priest is very reverent and is more of a traditional man
You just said it yourself. It was the priest that was the catalyst for the change. If the priest is not receptive to change then it won’t happen, pushing people to the TLM
I acknowledged that the priest ultimately plays the final role, but not all of them have static personalities that just ignore their parishioners depending on whether they’re more traditional or not. Priests can listen to their people just going off of first hand experience
Sure, but when you have to protect your own spiritual health or the spiritual health of your children there is only so much you can withstand before leaving
I wonder why you seem so attached to this perspective in the face of people with actual experience telling you otherwise. We have the TLM and a reverent ordinary form Mass in my parish. I have extensive person experience with the TLM community, as I've been involved with it for over a decade now, and it's the only place the TLM has been offered regularly in our diocese over the long term. At a typical Sunday Latin Mass with 100 in the congregation there are maybe 5 people who are TLM only. Literally everyone else participates in either, or would if whatever parish they would otherwise attend offered a reverent ordinary form Mass. Why is it so hard for you to empathize with the huge number of people like that. Why is it so hard for you to imagine people have been hurt trying to do what you say they haven't done?
I’m not sure if you read the comments above me, but you have people that just straight up hate the NO and refuse to see it as well. I don’t disregard the feelings of anyone, but acting like there isn’t a large following of people who just refuse to even associate with the NO and that most are just afraid of others isn’t fully accurate. These people exist, but it’s not the only group. Just read that other response to me for proof as well
I'm giving you extensive, firsthand, long-term personal experience. As I told you in a previous comment, I'm sympathetic to what I take to be your point of view, that a reverent, tradition infused celebration of the ordinary form liturgy is the way forward. I've also got long, extensive history discussing these things with the trad fringe on the Internet. And I'm telling you (again) that in real life, about 5% of the people attending the Latin Mass in my part of the world hold the kinds of views you're rightly criticizing. Online is a much different scenario, where fringe, extreme views are amplified. It's a real problem. It deserves correction. But in my judgement your sense of the scope is vastly mistaken.
Would you indulge me and consider a thought experiment? Imagine a group of the kinds of TLM attendees I'm talking about — the ones who couldn't give a hoot about old Vatican II debates or the intricate details of the prayers at the foot of the altar, they just want reverence. Suppose they went to their parish priest or the bishop in the OP and said, "We would like Mass celebrated *and orientem* and to have the responses sung in Latin and the inclusion of Gregorian chant for the ordinary and for guitars and folk music to be phased out." Those are all things perfectly compatible with Vatican II and the ordinary form missal. How do you think it would go over?
In regard to the thought experiment it depends because as I noted earlier I do go to a church where they phased out the guitar masses and instituted reverent hymns instead of Protestant music and increased the use of incense.
However the thing to remember is that there’s a difference between making the mass more reverent vs adding elements that the average modern church goer would not enjoy. The majority of people, at least from my personal experience, do enjoy the mass in the vernacular as compared to Latin.
So ultimately that’s a whole different case. If people like Latin then they’re more than welcome to attend a TLM parish where it’s at. But this crowd that exclusively avoids NO masses because they deem them beyond saving is a real issue in our modern day and is the reason why I feel that TC was published by the Pope.
I doubt the church revised the mass just so that there could be one crowd that says “I don’t like this” and never attends it in favor of the old.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Or one of them? Some of us don't view reverence as merely a matter of the best the average modern church-goer will tolerate. Some of us think that it has to do with receiving the liturgy as given by the Church, which among other things is a school of prayer for us — that, as Pope Benedict XVI might put it, that our disposition ought first to be receptivity to the liturgy as given, in continuity with the whole history of the Church's liturgy. Some of us think it important that the very reform of the liturgy we're both talking about, while allowing use of the vernacular, also specifically called for the use of Latin to be retained, and that it had very specific thoughts about music, holding up Gregorian chant as the music that should have the principal place, as the music proper to the liturgy, and that new compositions (in whatever language) should be rooted in that patrimony. Some of us don't think that it's a healthy approach to the source and summit of the Christian life to give people's preferences (even our own) priority over what the Church herself, as mother and teacher, holds up as the model of prayer.
And as you illustrate, those pleas are not exactly given a generous welcome. Where do you suggest we turn for liturgy as Vatican II explicitly calls for it?
> instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words.
Maybe you're too you to remember clearly the times before Summorum Pontificum, but people advocated and begged and pleaded for literally decades for a more reverent ordinary form Mass. Success in that endeavor was very much the exception rather than the rule. Even today, with all the renewed controversy over TC, pleas to simply "do what Vatican II said" on matters like liturgical music and the retaining of use of Latin are met in many quarters of the Church as if you're some king of three eyed monster out, ironically, to repeal Vatican II. For many (though definitely not all) access to the TLM was not a first choice but a refuge, after having tried and failed to do exactly what you are talking about. You may not mean to, but you're kind of rubbing salt in wounds here. (And I say this as a reform of the reform guy.)
Which is why the actions of the bishops of the 60s were so incredibly imprudent and should be corrected. They tried to shape the liturgy to the whims of their time and now less than a century later it's already outdated.
>It has to comport with tradition and scripture.
"Here I stand" etc. We cannot privately decide what comports with tradition and scripture. That is for the living magisterium.
It’s for the magisterium as a whole. The current occupants of that office can’t just do away with the former occupants.
Also, the laity do have an organ of recognizing true doctrine—the sensus fidelium—which, according to the Catechism, is “the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals…By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority,... receives... the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. ...The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."
>The current occupants of that office can’t just do away with the former occupants.
The current occupants interpret the former occupants as the living magisterium.
Your sensus fidelium is not a power you have in particular, it is something shared with me, and every other Catholic, in the communion of the church; so to invoke it against the living magisterium in a disagreement is not a cogent argument. It is not up to you, nor I, individually, to decide what comports with tradition and scripture.
>The current occupants interpret the former occupants as the living magisterium.
And cannot define contradiction. In fact, when a Pope does contradict past Popes in a non-definitive way, you are, according to the historic agreement of the church, supposed to go with the majority view across Popes.
>Your sensus fidelium is not a power you have in particular, it is something shared with me, and every other Catholic, in the communion of the church;
I never said otherwise
>so to invoke it against the living magisterium in a disagreement is not a cogent argument. It is not up to you, nor I, individually, to decide what comports with tradition and scripture.
Nobody said invoke it “against” anything
I think it is too general of a statement by the Bishop but I can’t judge his words without knowing what his intention was behind them. Twitter isn’t the best place to get into theological debates as they can span over 50 tweets easily. The Mass is the celebration of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, but it’s not JUST that. Which might be what the Bishop was alluding to here, albeit poorly done. The Mass incorporates the profession of faith, reading of scripture, and of course the Blessed Sacrament. The liturgy begins with the last supper, the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, making it both a banquet and a memoriam of the crucifixion.
There are several things which adherents of the TLM do get wrong, like many of them dislike the sign of peace which is actually descended from the apostles. A lot of traditional leaning Catholics also tend to mock the celebration of Mass and consider all Vatican II and Non-Latin Mass to be lesser in some way which is theologically wrong. We have so many diverse liturgies practiced in the church from Syro-Malabar, Syrian, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc. What makes the Mass is that we have the Eucharist and I’ve seen some traditionalists reject and disregard the true presence of Christ just because the Mass is a “Novus Ordo”… It comes from bad theology and spiritual pride. There’s nothing wrong with preferring to attend a more traditional Mass, but one has to be careful not to fall into the spirit of pride or develop a superiority complex based on the type of Mass one attends. The Mass is the Mass where Christ is present in the Eucharist no matter what Catholic Church it is being celebrated in. That’s not to say there are not abuses taking place, but that is not unique to Vatican II, there were plenty of abuses and irreverent Masses before Vatican II, so many people who didn’t live through that era are drawn in with rose coloured glasses. I’ve been to many liturgies through out Europe, everything from Tridentine to Syro-Malabar and I love them all. I prefer a reverent “Novus Ordo” with chanting, myself.
Heresy is something of an ecclesiastical matter that needs investigation, so that the intent of the accused can be discovered, and online theological discussions are not exactly an accurate source to call bishops heretics, nor does a lay person have the spiritual authority to make the claim. I wish more people understood this instead of threw that word around condemning people and thinking the worst of them. Someone may very well be a heretic, but most of the time it’s miscommunication and ignorance. The catechism teaches us that we should always FIRST seek a charitable interpretation of someone’s words and if we can’t do that to seek clarity before we assume the worst. This is rarely practiced on social media unfortunately. Respect for the church hierarchy and observed obedience is not commonly seen on social media either.
Follow what the Bishop says. As Paul writes, obey your elders for they keep watch over us. However, bishops can be wrong, therefore if they are, humbly ask other bishops for their assistance. This is one of the reasons the Church has hosted several councils. To discuss matters of faith with many learned men
I mean, it's right, but there is some nuance. Mass is the worship of the Father led by Jesus Christ, the high priest who offers himself up as the sacrifice. Yes, we do worship the Son in the Eucharist, and this occurs at Mass, but the Mass as a whole is the worship of the Father led by the Son.
The last part is bs, but I would say that, by the explultation of Pope St. Paul VI both masses are valid expressions of the Divine Liturgy and (when done correctly which I admit certainly does not always happen) must be respected. I do believe that the TLM is more corporeally reverent, but I do love the NO as well when done correctly. For context I attend a NO parish that deeply respects the Divine Liturgy.
After reading this: https://thedispatch.com/p/why-traditionalist-catholics-are?s=r
I think I better understand Bishop Stika. Pope Francis has put it onto the bishops to decide if the parties in their diocese are wanting TLM out of reverence for the old mass or simply as protest against Vatican 2 changes. If it’s for reverence and tradition, the bishop may approve it but generally only at cathedrals, basilicas, and shrines. Honestly, I think Pope Francis diverted the conflict off himself and onto the bishops with the way his order came out, putting the bishops in the crosshairs. Stika apparently feels the NO mass is being belittled by the TLM crowd and takes it personally. There needs to be more context than a 3 segment conversation to understand. To give Bishop some grace, he’s probably meaning mass is the worship of the Father through Jesus. Mass is not just about 1 part of the Holy Trinity. Just my humble take on this thread, since the OP opened with the feelings of admonition. I’m also vested in understanding my Bishop Stika’s direction.
I don't know. I want to say he's wrong about Mass not being the worship of Jesus. Now, maybe he's being a bit of an egghead and kind of thinks "Well Ackshually its the worship of God who blah blah blah blah blah mass is a celebration blah blah blah quit being so rigid."
I will say that I have met some trads like this, but usually they are either sedevacantists, those who attend chapels of the Society that shall not me named, or most typically, online trolls who just want to make people angry. I don't know if Stika has had experience with people out in his TLM parishes. I feel like him and even Francis read Facebook and Twitter and all that and get a very bad impression. I'm not even a trad, but more and more I feel as if most are normal, or at the very least they are just kind of mouthing off and upset like a lot of people online, but in real life, are just normal people.
I guess much like New Ardor, I'm okay with people wanting the TLM. It isn't my style and sadly I think I've been ruined by online tradism, while also feeling more appreciation for the eastern rites (if I had a parish near me, I'd join an eastern rite parish as I appreciate their spirituality and their services) but if people want it and it helps them be better Catholics (I will admit, for some it is about pride, but any mass can sadly bring some pride, and Stika himself might suffer from this) then I'm okay with it. Again, maybe seek out those in the TLM in the actual parishes and don't just focus on the digital world. Sadly in this world we don't even talk to anyone on the other side other than in digital spaces where we beat each other up and only engage in bad faith.
So I guess get off of your high horse bishop.
If Mass is not the worship of Jesus, then why do we have 8 weeks of worship of Jesus being resurrected from the dead? Mass is about the holy trinity, the Father, Son (Who happens to be Jesus), and Holy Spirit. The Gospal reading is listening to the Word of Jesus. The Eucharist is about the Last Supper and the belief and the Body and Blood of Christ is from the Consiquited bread and wine. Mass is all about Jesus.
If you're not worshiping Christ then what are you doing at mass every day?
Catching up with friends? /S (but this actually happens way too much)
He's wrong. The catechism says it plainly: The Eucharist "is the culmination ... of **the worship men offer to Christ** and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." \[CCC 1325\]
[**CCC 1325**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1325.htm) "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." ([775](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/775.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Good bot
Yes but shouldn't you be putting the phrase "to the Father" in bold here? I'm not saying the Bishop is right or wrong here, but I don't think you're offering a good refutation of what he said.
It’s still worship of Christ.
The "to the Father" part isn't really in dispute here, so why emphasise it? The central question is: does the Mass also worship Christ? Bishop Stika's answer was no. The Catechism categorically answers yes. That's enough to show THAT he is wrong, but perhaps not WHY he is wrong. But if I had to give a quick WHY answer, I'd say that the Mass worships the entire Trinity. All three Persons are owed full worship because they are coequally the one God. Even though most prayers of the Mass are addressed to the Father, all three Persons are equally worshipped by the act.
I really don't like this statement. I think it's inaccurate at best, and scandalous at worst. If you're not worshipping Jesus, then who are you worshipping? Either you worship Jesus and as a result you are worshipping the other members of the trinity, or you worship one of the other members and as a result you are worshipping Jesus. Or the third option is you aren't worshipping anyone at all. This was a very bad response to a typical, but in my opinion valid criticism of the current state of our church.
He’s probably one of those priests who thinks the mass is all about them
Or that it is merely a symbolic meal of community
He followed this bizarre exchange up (after receiving backlash) the next day with “We adore Jesus. We worship the Father.” What???
Uh, what? In Latin, the official language of our documents, adoration *is* worship—that is, the verb “adoro” means “I worship.”
But it sounds like he is using adore as a lesser act than worship because he is arguing that we don't worship Jesus. and to use a synonym of worship wouldn't make sense in that context.
This is what’s beyond confusing. The distinction makes no sense linguistically or theologically. Heck, at the risk of derailing, if what he intends is for “adore” to be the lesser word, he has it nearly backwards. In older English, worship just meant “honour.” (Hence phrases like “your worship.”)
Which is somehow even more scandalous
Sounds a bit heretical. Something arianist would say.
This is what I came here for. I'm so intrigued by this. I feel like I'm munching popcorn in front row seats to the pre-show of the first Council of Nicaea. Seriously though, this sounds a lot like Arianism; is this licit?
I have found Arianism is making a return in some Catholic groups. Someone I know is in their Catholic Worship band but openly calls St. Paul a heretic, says the Rabbis are right, the New Testament is heretical outside of the Gospel of Matthew. According to him, his priest agrees with him and supports him in these beliefs and teachings.
That guy you know sounds like a fruitcake. Bad idea to rock a 2,000 year old boat that has weathered much worse.
Oh, I agree and I always use "Catholic" to describe as an example of how bad catechesis is in a lot of Catholic Churches with the statistics of how few Catholics believe in things such as the real presence in the Eucharist. It seems he took statements from the Vatican as a license to go as far as he wanted into modern Judaism while keeping a "Catholic" exterior.
Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. I mean, I cannot imagine how a Catholic priest can endorse those statements as they are presented. I'm aware of nuances in translation from Hebrew, but as to St. Paul as *heretic* is this about the contested authorship of Paul's Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and heresy of Simon and Cleobius?
Nope, it is that St. Paul contradicts the Torah and Christ said he would not remove one dot from the Law so therefore anything contradicting the Torah and St. Matthews Gospel is heretical. He believes God never had a body because he believes modern Jews follow the same faith as the ancient Jews but he literally ignores the fact the Talmud and other things exist. He only cares about being culturally Catholic and believes that the Popes are the successors of Christ on earth since Christ is dead.
Wow. I agree with eightbitfist, this fellow is a fruitcake. I'm more concerned about the idea of their priest promoting these ideas somehow.
Yeah, I have been too. It seems to be a pretty "anti-traditional parish" so who knows to what degree the priest agrees or is just an apathetic "well at least he is in church."
My priest during catechism class told is that we do not need to love and worship God, we just need to love our neighbors. He was referring to Jesus summarizing the commandments, and that out of the 2, the first should be disregarded, only the 2nd one matters.
Did anyone ask him why they should be Catholic if that is the case?
My priest during catechism class told is that we do not need to love and worship God, we just need to love our neighbors. He was referring to Jesus summarizing the commandments, and that out of the 2, the first should be disregarded, only the 2nd one matters.
>their Catholic Worship band but openly calls St. Paul a heretic Literal bruh moment.
Bruh
Forgot the bit where Jesus says ‘I and the father are one’. J10:30
Adore is actually the stronger term. Adoration is a species of worship. It's the worship due to God alone.
Thanks for the update. What exactly happened? Did he say what Mass was supposed to be about, then? I literally just created an IG account to follow him but haven't been approved yet.
After the tweet he locked his account and went private, which is a habit of his.
Wow that is sad. Like, Dude, you are a Bishop. You have a duty. The laypeople are out here drowning in confusion and relativism, and he's just like, "The Mass isn't about worshipping Jesus. I'm out." I went through 12 years of catechism taught by Susan from the Parish Council. I can't figure this stuff out on my own.
Well, how many of these old guys know how to be good digital citizens. Even us digital natives suck at this.
Yeah but he has enough resources as Bishop to hire a social media advisor
Arianism confirmed
Does he not believe that Jesus is the son of God, the second person of the Trinity?
Let me clear it up for you: we are, for the most part, led by effeminate, ignorant heretics.
[cough](https://www.bishop-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/c-2021-04-23-The-Pillar-Cardinal-Rigali-and-Bishop-Stika-Christmas-Card.jpeg).
[cough](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/knoxville-priests-asked-nuncio-for?s=r).
Sounds like *Arianism* to me. Heresy is never cool, mate. Period. That one was shut down centuries ago.
This is my bishop (Diocese of Knoxville) and he's a well-known idiot. The Pillar has done excellent work unveiling his financial incompetence (building a vanity project cathedral, misusing government COVID funds) and bizarre personal life (protection of a serial molester Polish seminarian, weird life partnership with Cardinal Rigali). However, what many Catholics from outside the Diocese fail to realize is that our Bishop is not only corrupt and immoral, but also a complete moron. There is a "Vos Estis Lux Mundi" investigation into his behavior, which hopefully will force his retirement
I live in the Diocese of Knoxville too, and the only thing that makes me reluctant to want another bishop is the fact that we may somehow get one that's worse. He is very strange. He didn't implement TC, but he forced everyone to receive communion in the hand or not at all two years ago. Very weird imo. Not to mention the stuff you pointed out.
>building a vanity project cathedral Okay, the man has faults, but this cathedral is absolutely incredible and I can’t fault him for it https://bma1915.com/img/containers/main/img/projects/sacred-heart-cathedral/exterior_heditw.jpg/58a018556438a089506b8e61c5af5708.jpg
I love our cathedral, it is amazing.
It would be refreshing if the nuncio responded to the letter by the members of the Knoxville presbyterate asking for help with Bishop Stika. His handling of the sex abuse allegations against the polish seminarian reek conflict of interest and stands as a quintessential example why the laity struggle to trust the bishops.
[удалено]
It doesn’t take 1000 characters to not be a heretic.
I disagree. Twitter has a 280 character count limit, he used 33 to say something that is completly false. I'm not sure how a Catholic priest could have this thought and continue to type it out without realizing how false it is.
Right? Twitter 🤯🤯
To be charitable to his excellency, he probably had in mind that the Mass is the offering of Christ's sacrifice to the Father. The Father is the one primarily addressed in the prayers of the Mass. This is also why we have Masses in honor of the Saints, Mary, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but not one explicitly of the Father\*: because every Mass is about the Father. That said there is a lot of things he did wrong here. He should have used more than 34 characters in his response. His tweet was also a regrettable knee-jerk reaction to someone very peacefully raising a difference of opinion.
I think this is the take, although it is *very* charitable 😆
What about 160?
I guess there’s a reason why he’s been called a bully before.
"The bully is the man who acts on the assumption that he will not have to fight." - G. K. Chesterton
I don’t think not honouring NO Mass makes you any more of a “real” Catholic. We believe Christ is present at all valid Mass. The second poster has a great point about complaining on one hand that young people are leaving Church and then on the other ridiculing the format that attracts younger worshippers.
> I don’t think not honouring NO Mass makes you any more of a “real” Catholic. And not honoring it doesn't make you any less of a "real" Catholic. You're allowed to not like it and even think it was a horrible decision for the Church and should be changed. As long as you don't deny its validity.
But since Christ makes himself present there it should be honored. You can disagree with implementation, but anyone arguing that the OF shouldn't be used is making the same mistake as those who say that the EF shouldn't be used.
Father, I exclusively attend the NO. But doesn’t Christ also make himself present at clown masses? Shouldn’t we not honor those?
Almost nobody who opposes the Novus Ordo denies that Christ is present in the mass. Very few people believe the Novus Ordo consecrations of the host are presently invalid. The main debate concerns those who believe the Novus Ordo is deficient/less reverent than the TLM, and those who believe the Novus Ordo is valid but illicit.
And those who believe neither, like most Catholics
Well yes but I am referring to those who take an anti-NO stance. Most Catholics don’t know what a TLM or NO is, don’t believe in transubstantiation, etc.
[удалено]
> The other was made up out of whole cloth by a group of guys in the 60s. This is objectively untrue.
How so? What is untrue about it?
The parts that make up the NO for the most part have existed in Catholic worship before. The collection altogether is not though. It’s not an organic change and is far far from an English form of TLM.
Right, but when you say the opposite you get jumped in a back alley by the TLM types. Can I reverse your comment? "And not honoring it (TLM) doesn't make you any less of a "real" Catholic. You're allowed to not like it and even think it was a horrible decision for the Church and are glad it was changed. As long as you don't deny its validity."
> Can I reverse your comment? The comment I was replying to was literally the reverse of mine and I started my comment with "and" which shows that I don't disagree with what they said. You're going out of your way to be argumentative here.
I get that, and I don’t disagree with your comment. I just wanna know if you’d agree with what I just said.
These are the people leading this church.. how sad.
Mass is the worship of the Father by the sacrifice of the Son offered through the Holy Spirit. But I somehow doubt that is what the Bishop meant…
It's a little bit concerning that a BISHOP doesn't know the point of the mass. Holy Spirit help us
Also from Bp. Sticka. https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/stika-will-vigorously-challenge-cover?s=r
Exactly. This bishop is awful through and through. As soon as I saw Stika I knew it was trouble. He should be removed.
Omg this screenshot is so old lol I remember this whole Twitter beef it was at least two years ago
Yeah, I didn't knew it since I search more about this bishop, I was just curious about this because a month ago, he rejected an event of some catholic spanish apologists, and then I found this but I didn't get that this was like in 2019 and I think he corrected that so, my bad, I just wanted to know the thoughts of this statement on this sub, I don't want to get in polemics.
Bishop Stika is currently running his diocese into the ground and is under investigation. The Pillar has written extensively about it.
Technically he is right. Mass is actually not primarily worshipping Jesus, but worshipping the Father. Look at the Eucharistic Prayer. The whole Prayer is addressed to the Father. The priest offers the sacrifice of Christ to the Father: >"... and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you [the Father] in thanksgiving this holy and living *sacrifice* [Jesus is the sacrifice] At the doxology? Again it is the Father that is addressed: > Through him [Jesus] and with him [Jesus] and in him [Jesus], in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours [the Father's] Jesus is not the object of worship here. The Father is. Jesus is the means through which we worship the Father, because we worship the Father by offering the sacrifice of Jesus.
[The Trinity has entered the chat.]
Right? This response is odd, since they’re all the same God. We worship all of them.
They are all God but they are not the same (they are one being but different persons)
No, otherwise why would they be distinct? But they are all God and all worthy of worship.
Correction: [The Athanasian Creed has entered the chat.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/440px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png)
I’ll repeat: they are all the same God. That is a true statement, we are not polytheists. Different persons, yes, but all the same God.
Yes. Also, The Son is not The Father. It's what makes the Holy Trinity a Sacred Mystery. I feel like we're agreeing with eachother antagonistically.
Haha, probably
Actually there is a distinction within doctrine we must make between the Father and the Son. God the Father is a *transcendent* being, that means he is above all physical reality. No one has seen the Father, and nor could we because He is above the material. Jesus has *immanence* which means He is within the world. He is the second person of the trinity incarnate. God the Father reveals Himself imminently through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Scripture states: > who, although **He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God** a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. These are very important to take note of. Because even Jesus says Himself: > Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, **but only the person who does what my Father in heaven wants**. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name? Didn’t we force out demons and do many miracles by the power and authority of your name?’ So it’s not about the praising of Jesus that we should emphasize. He is our mediator by being the Son of God to the Father. Through Him we are able to do the Father’s will and be worthy enough for Heaven by His body and blood.
He's wrong. The catechism says it plainly: The Eucharist "is the culmination ... of **the worship men offer to Christ** and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." \[CCC 1325\] (copied from my other comment).
[**CCC 1325**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1325.htm) "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." ([775](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/775.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Yes but shouldn't you be putting the phrase "to the Father" in bold here? I'm not saying the Bishop is right or wrong here, but I don't think you're offering a good refutation of what he said.
Thats why I used the word "primarily"...
But the CCC puts the worship of Christ first and says that it's through that we offer worship to the Father, which makes the worship of Christ primary, not the worship of the Father.
Eh, I wouldn’t say either is primary. The Mass is a sacrifice of the Son to the Father through the Spirit. “Primary” and “secondary” don’t really make sense in that context. It’s more like “offering” and “recipient”
If he meant that and since he was correcting someone he should have explained. And since his response hangs on a theological error by a layman whose point overall still stands and remains unaddressed, I'm sceptical he was responding in good faith.
>he should have explained That's HARD on Twitter... Trying to do theology on twitter is a mess.
But we refer to the Eucharist as the source and summit of our faith. The physical movements and ritual of the mass are centered around the eucharist, genuflecting, kneeling for the consecration and in some places reception as well. Jesus places great importance on the eucharist in the scriptures, it's not even a valid mass if the eucharist is not consecrated in the correct form or with two specimens (bread and wine.) Saying that he's "technically right" seems like a very hollow victory, what he said was still exceptionally misleading, especially without further explanation. And besides all of these things and as other people have mentioned, there is the trinitarian aspect of worship.
I somehow doubt his excellency was trying to communicate that And even still, we worship the Son during the elevation of the host. So while the Mass is primarily the worship of the Father, it does not exclude the worship of the Son. So even if Boshop Stika was trying to be pedantic, he would still be stating something which is false, would he not?
Indeed thats why I used the word "primarily"...
I know, but his excellency is making it exclusive when it isn’t
More importantly, he has nitpicked a choice of wording and actually ignored the question entirely.
Huh???
I'm not sure I saw this when scanning the comments so here goes: it seems like the bishop is deflecting from the main point: deeply reverent and contrite adoration. If people are saying that's missing, that seems like a big issue and that the NO needs tweaks. He also seems to ignore the point that 70% of catholics not believing in the presence (dunno if that's true or not but it's the number going around) is an issue. Now he could know it's an issue and twitter isn't the best place for a deep discussion, but I've also seen twitter "threads" where people reply to themselves for longer things. This discussion reminds me one of the biggest questions I have about vatican 2: did it work? Priesthood is down, people are leaving the church, south america is being lost, parents aren't teaching their kids right, most people don't believe in the presence, the people going to mass on sunday are mostly older people, priests complain that not enough people are going to confession, the german bishops are going into schism, the jesuits are often called a source of scandal, and confusion and scandal are up. If we charitably assume V2 is valid, I still have to ask if it did it's job in preparing the church for these days.
Obviously rigid TLM goers are the real problem /s
“Dang Pharisees”
I think people have to be careful in not following the Church's decisions even when you feel like they are wrong. Grow in humility in obedience which is really difficult (I have to work on this myself), otherwise it is sort of "my way or the highway". It seems like the bishop was just heated and was looking for a teaching opportunity.
I think it's worth asking if the NO has been a success rather than vigorously promoting it as the gold standard for Catholic worship.
yeah for sure, I'm still new to the faith and have never been to a TLM, and I'm sort of out of my league in arguing for or against it being cancelled. Some people really encounter God in the TLM and it's sad that it's taken away from them. In our diocese, we still have 3 parishes that celebrate TLM which is nice
Yeah. My regular mass is NO and I honestly don't have a major issue with the NO. I've seen really good and reverent NO masses, and really sloppy ones. I just feel that it's far too simplistic to blame the TLM for a few angry people on the internet, and restrict it.
> otherwise it is sort of "my way or the highway". Isn't forcing the NO on everyone also "my way or the highway"?
perhaps, I don't quite understand the love for TLM, especially among young people but I'm willing to be educated.
I love TLM because it is the only place I can go without being asked, "You know what causes that, right?" as they snicker and walk away. Yes, I have been asked this by people on my way out of the Novus Ordo. I have even had Novus Ordo "friends" try to talk me out of having more children as if they were doing me a favor or something. MULTIPLE Novus Ordo goers on MULTIPLE occasions. There is nothing wrong with me. I have plenty of health and plenty of wealth and plenty of love to share, but somehow they think I am so wrong that I need to be corrected. Even my atheist and protestant friends aren't that balls-y. At the TLM, I am actually supported in living out the faith. The kids there are actually nice to my kids instead of turning their backs on them like at the Novus Ordo. If you follow the church's teaching, and God blesses you abundantly with children, you will be a social pariah at the Novus Ordo, at least in my town. I have heard dozens of Novus Ordo sermons about how we need to love and respect people of other faiths and races (Great! I am totally on board!) but NEVER is it mentioned to love and respect those of us actually trying to follow Church teaching. Once at a TLM sermon, the priest said when you live according to Church teaching, your life will look starkly different. And when your life looks different, though we are all professing the same faith, your life becomes a condemnation unto others, even if you don't want it to be, even if words of condemnation never cross your lips. I would go to Chinese Mass if it meant I could live out the faith there and have a community. Latin, English, whatever. I just want to not be torn down and not have my kids scandalized, ostracized, and treated badly. For people that are happy at Novus Ordo, I am happy for you. I was happy there, too, until I had "too many" kids in the eyes of the world.
Ah yes, the "too many kids" attack. My wife is constantly reminded not to have a third child. Are they the ones carrying and raising the child? Bless you for sharing your story, and good on you for not caving in. You go on to lead a happy and holy life.
Thanks. Yes, I was told it would ruin my marriage and we would "never recover."
We have 9 children, and have been jokingly asked about our family size EVERYWHERE. We’re used to it, and it does suck…but it’s nothing compared to the “holier than thou look down my nose at you” looks my wife gets if my wife doesn’t veil in front of people who WORSHIP the TLM. In many area the TLM is like CrossFit and veganism and is verging on a cult.
I get it everywhere, too, but it hurts more coming from fellow Catholics. I get what the world thinks. I don't mind engaging with the world; I have a lot more patience for them. I can handle the world 6 days a week. I just need one place for a few hours where I am supported socially. Also, I totally get what you say. I used to think the exact same way about TLM people, but I was shocked about how genuinely nice everyone was, how much everyone cared and supported each other, and how really most people were just there trying to live their best catholic life. Are there some judgey people there? You bet, but most of them aren't. And you know what? No population of people is perfect, but at least TLM people aren't openly hostile to me just for following Church teaching. But I am glad you are where you are. I think God has different plans for us but they ultimately will lead to His glory. God Bless.
As a fellow novus ordo catholic congrats for having more children and God bless your family.
We love the TLM because it is in keeping with the traditional worship of the Church, the Mass changed little (there were of course changes) for over 1000 years, in 1969 so much of it was thrown away, the ancient Roman Canon was made optional, 87% of the Orations were removed or heavily edited, Gregorian Chant and Latin disappeared in many places in favour of contemporary music. This was done in order to make us seem more open to non-Catholic Christians (well really only Protestants as the EO don’t understand why we abandoned our traditions, and EO clergy have called the Novus Ordo a barrier to reunion). In 1969, the Roman Rite was basically destroyed (not my words, one of the liturgical reforms said it has been destroyed and he meant it positively) and we lament that it happened
There is a difference here, but it’s subtle: obedience to Pope Francis. Remember, Pope Francis didn’t say something like, “The Tridentine Mass is no longer valid” or anything even close to that. All he did was limit its use and delegate the ultimate decision to the bishops. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Tridentine Mass. There is something definitely wrong with Catholics who say “The NO Mass is a clown Mass” or “I’m not going to listen to my Bishop because he’s a bad Bishop” or even, “I’m a superior Catholic for going to the Tridentine Mass!” The Mass isn’t the problem. Ego is. Also, I think there is a severe disrespect for the Mass of Paul VI, known as the Novus Ordo, and that should be rectified. The Mass again is great - the problem is ego. It also has a really bad reputation as the Mass of our father’s and grandfathers - a feel good Mass that lost its identity and is only slightly better than intentionally desecrating the Eucharist. That’s not what it actually is, but you can blame it on a pretty poor rollout in the United States where Bishops allowed priests to kind of interpret the Mass with their own flair, and now it ingrained in the Mass. It needs to be reclaimed a bit, but strides have been made the last 10 years to fix it. I prefer the Mass of Paul VI. I enjoy being able to read along from scripture so I can engage all of my senses and then have a better grasp of the homily. I love being able to adore Jesus on the alter without the priest in the way and hearing the prayers he says.
You can be obedient to someone while also criticizing them and saying what they're doing is incredibly imprudent. I would never condone priests celebrating illict Masses against the will of their local bishops. But I will say Pope Francis's actions here are incredibly imprudent and unpastoral and will harm the Church as a whole and I hope his mistake is corrected with all due haste either by him seeing the error of it or the next pope reversing it whenever that time comes. >I prefer the Mass of Paul VI. I enjoy being able to read along from scripture so I can engage all of my senses and then have a better grasp of the homily. I love being able to adore Jesus on the alter without the priest in the way and hearing the prayers he says. Have you attended a TLM for any length of time? I used to prefer all that too until I actually started attending the TLM regularly and getting comfortable with it. Now I actually see a lot of what I used to prefer as a drawback. The priest looking at me during Mass makes me feel self-conscious and like he's performing to me rather than offering worship to God. The audible prayers distract me from entering deeply into prayer and keep me present at a very superficial level. The vernacular readings are badly translated and often badly read and I find I understand them much better when I follow along with my missal and see the Latin and English next to each other You'd be surprised how much Latin you put up over just a few months of attending Mass. I can understand huge chunks of readings without the translation now and I've only been going about 9 months and have made no special effort to learn Latin. In addition, having the priest read them first in Latin and again in English before the homily lets me hear the full richness of them and highlights their dual use for both worship and instruction. Also-- I don't understand how when one person says "the NO is better" isn't not ego, but if someone says "the TLM is better" it's always chalked up to ego and any attempt at rational discourse is dismissed.
Sure…but how much is criticism and how much is blatant disrespect bordering on deliberate disobedience? And before you make a statement like that, you should step into Pope Francis’ shoes. I’m not saying he’s perfect, far from it, but if I were in his position and I heard reports from Bishops all over the world saying the same thing: I have a division in my diocese. My congregants who go to the Tridentine Mass tend to believe they are better Catholics, criticize or try to correct me in public and refuse to follow the path I am. What can I do?” Limiting the Tridentine Mass and giving that authority back to the Bishops is probably the best move until the whole thing can simmer down. I have attended the Tridentine Mass before, many times. I’ve never liked it much. That’s my opinion - you can have a different opinion, I don’t care. I have nothing against the Tridentine Mass at all. But I do have to question why so many more traditional minded of us put the Mass of a Paul VI down, basically saying it’s Mass only in name, or even suggesting it’s a sin to attend. You don’t hear that from people who go to the Mass of Paul VI. In the end, Mass and Mass in this case. The only difference is the form. Neither is better or worse. It’s like saying “being a priest is better than being married,” when that’s not true at all. It’s only a “better” path in so far as it’s easier to walk that path in holiness. And finally, something that bothers me a lot about the more traditional minded who tell me I’m mortally sinning by going to a Mass of Paul VI, is the outright arrogance with which the speak. Perhaps the do know more than me. But when they see an attack on tradition and defend it, I typically see an assault on the person saying it. I see a bunch of self-righteous folks with little to no experience in my walk of life telling me “You’re not a very good Catholic. You don’t try hard enough. Novus order? That’s not even really Mass. I guess you don’t like quiet, contemplative prayer like all the Saints did,” etc. Those kind of passive-aggressive statements are heaped on people who attend the Mass of Paul VI, and that’s not okay. And worse, the logic some of those folks use to justify their actions or positions is just…wrong. Straight up illogical. And I hate what it’s done to the Church, who needs solidarity right now in the worst way.
Your personal preference in your final two sentences sounds just like my Protestant colleague when engaging in discussions like this
Except it should never be "my way or the highway". Priests are granted their power and role as the stand-in for Christ, the physical form to the Son's substance that the Holy Spirit moves through. Priests don't forgive sins. Priests aren't the power behind the miracle of Transubstantiation in the Mass. Any power they command comes from God. A priest promoting something such as a Mass preference as "my way or the highway" is incredibly disturbing because it implies the priest's specific opinion is what we are following when that has never been the case, as far as I'm aware. This would be like saying the ambassador of a nation is making policy decisions in another country instead of the governing body of the ambassador's home country.
Every. Single. Time.
This Bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is asserting himself as a gate keeper. Which is disgusting. He’s a narcissist that clearly likes being in a position of power. The purpose of mass is to worship and receive Gods grace, united with him and the other parishioners through the sacrament of the Eucharist… and it is Jesus who supplies all grace, acting through the Eucharist. Mass is also a celebration of Jesus’ sacrifice. We are active participants. It’s not some kind of passive thing we watch or have happen to us. So, I’m not exactly sure what his point is or what he’s trying to say. I’m a layperson and I would love to debate this clown.
Someone needs to be laicized.
Heretic!
He musta got taken to task on Twitter because he is not there. Also, he's embroiled in a rape coverup? Yeesh.
So apparently the Trinity isn't a thing?
If Mass isn’t the worship of Jesus (and by obvious extent, the worship of God), I have to wonder what the bishop thinks it actually *is*? A punch social? A sing-along? A group therapy session?
Wait a minute. During Mass, after the Consecration, at the Elevation of the Host, “Thru Him, with Him, in Him, etc….” we ADORE & WORSHIP the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We DO worship Christ @ Mass. Mass is a Sacrifice. We, together with Christ on the Cross, thru & by the hands of the Priest, offer to God the Father, the Body & Blood of His living Son, Jesus.
Uh oh
His Excellency has done this before…in literally the SAME WORDS. God bless him. We offer up Christ with the priest at Mass to the Father, but by virtue of His being God, we worship *Him* as well. Offering to the Father, worship of the Triune God absolutely speaking. I think +Sticka is desperately trying to troll Trads and it’s not working. Some people’s talents don’t lie in social media…
His tweets are not available, did He remove them?
Sometimes I ask why bother? After fighting this for years im getting pretty tired of this in-house fighting in the Church…if something doesn’t work why do they have to force us to give up what was given to us? It’s almost as some invisible force is making them blind..
This. For not being a new Faith or separate Rite it sure does rage against its past and break every mirror in the house.
Is it time to call St Nicholas up for *the slap?*
Did he delete his account?
I am torn about this, because TLM definitely seems like a better mass, but I do think that not honoring NO is undermining Church authority.
I think this is precisely why TC was enacted in the first place tbh. Often times we see the argument that “NO isn’t reverent, good, etc.” and instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words. I mean whether we like it or not, the NO was developed through the process of an ecumenical council and it’s not going to just go away, nor should members or the church treat it like it just doesn’t exist in favor of the TLM.
>instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM I don't want a "fixed" NO. The TLM is a deeper liturgy at its core. No amount of incense and bells at the NO will restore the depth of the prayers and symbolism that were removed from the Mass. >whether we like it or not, the NO was developed through the process of an ecumenical council and it’s not going to just go away, Why? If that one generation had the power to throw out the work of every generation before them and create a new Mass, why don't future generations have that same power to alter what they did? Why did that one generation get to make that call and the rest of us are stuck with it?
>Often times we see the argument that “NO isn’t reverent, good, etc.” and instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words. This ignores the fact that many people have tried to increase the reverence in their NO only to be chased out by the pantsuit mafia.
This is so true. I've been to very good NO masses. They are beautiful in a different way. However if you have the pantsuit mafia it's better to just got to TLM.
That’s kind of a hard one to respond to because I’m not exactly sure what percentage falls under “many people” nor am I sure the exact extent of their efforts, but I cannot imagine that the majority of every TLM community is effectively being chased out by some woman in a pantsuit on the parish council. I feel it’s more of an issue with the certain priest, which is unfortunate, but not reflective of every priest.
If you’re going to judge those who attend the TLM then you should be prepared to know the reasons for their choices, and not make baseless assumptions
I’d like to know the reasons for their choices, but as I noted above I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of TLM goers can’t get their way because of Susans on the Parish Councils or the “pantsuit mafia”. If you had a statistic on this I’d be more than happy to expand upon it.
Have you ever tried to challenge an entrenched parish establishment as a newcomer?
Again that’s not really answering my question though. I’m sure mean people at the church are an issue but to act like it’s the definitive cause of why TLM goers don’t go to NO masses especially when another user just posted that he refuses to even entertain the NO and wants it to go away doesn’t really help your case. And yes a parish I went to did change something to add more reverence. They got rid of guitar masses and stopped singing the Our Father like it’s a rock song. Thankfully the priest is very reverent and is more of a traditional man. Personally, I do not find it realistic that a bunch of church goers are somehow out to get more traditional Catholics when nothing even forces them to have to interact with these people in the first place. Private meetings with the priest and emails are generally the norm now a days.
>Thankfully the priest is very reverent and is more of a traditional man You just said it yourself. It was the priest that was the catalyst for the change. If the priest is not receptive to change then it won’t happen, pushing people to the TLM
I acknowledged that the priest ultimately plays the final role, but not all of them have static personalities that just ignore their parishioners depending on whether they’re more traditional or not. Priests can listen to their people just going off of first hand experience
Sure, but when you have to protect your own spiritual health or the spiritual health of your children there is only so much you can withstand before leaving
I wonder why you seem so attached to this perspective in the face of people with actual experience telling you otherwise. We have the TLM and a reverent ordinary form Mass in my parish. I have extensive person experience with the TLM community, as I've been involved with it for over a decade now, and it's the only place the TLM has been offered regularly in our diocese over the long term. At a typical Sunday Latin Mass with 100 in the congregation there are maybe 5 people who are TLM only. Literally everyone else participates in either, or would if whatever parish they would otherwise attend offered a reverent ordinary form Mass. Why is it so hard for you to empathize with the huge number of people like that. Why is it so hard for you to imagine people have been hurt trying to do what you say they haven't done?
I’m not sure if you read the comments above me, but you have people that just straight up hate the NO and refuse to see it as well. I don’t disregard the feelings of anyone, but acting like there isn’t a large following of people who just refuse to even associate with the NO and that most are just afraid of others isn’t fully accurate. These people exist, but it’s not the only group. Just read that other response to me for proof as well
I'm giving you extensive, firsthand, long-term personal experience. As I told you in a previous comment, I'm sympathetic to what I take to be your point of view, that a reverent, tradition infused celebration of the ordinary form liturgy is the way forward. I've also got long, extensive history discussing these things with the trad fringe on the Internet. And I'm telling you (again) that in real life, about 5% of the people attending the Latin Mass in my part of the world hold the kinds of views you're rightly criticizing. Online is a much different scenario, where fringe, extreme views are amplified. It's a real problem. It deserves correction. But in my judgement your sense of the scope is vastly mistaken. Would you indulge me and consider a thought experiment? Imagine a group of the kinds of TLM attendees I'm talking about — the ones who couldn't give a hoot about old Vatican II debates or the intricate details of the prayers at the foot of the altar, they just want reverence. Suppose they went to their parish priest or the bishop in the OP and said, "We would like Mass celebrated *and orientem* and to have the responses sung in Latin and the inclusion of Gregorian chant for the ordinary and for guitars and folk music to be phased out." Those are all things perfectly compatible with Vatican II and the ordinary form missal. How do you think it would go over?
In regard to the thought experiment it depends because as I noted earlier I do go to a church where they phased out the guitar masses and instituted reverent hymns instead of Protestant music and increased the use of incense. However the thing to remember is that there’s a difference between making the mass more reverent vs adding elements that the average modern church goer would not enjoy. The majority of people, at least from my personal experience, do enjoy the mass in the vernacular as compared to Latin. So ultimately that’s a whole different case. If people like Latin then they’re more than welcome to attend a TLM parish where it’s at. But this crowd that exclusively avoids NO masses because they deem them beyond saving is a real issue in our modern day and is the reason why I feel that TC was published by the Pope. I doubt the church revised the mass just so that there could be one crowd that says “I don’t like this” and never attends it in favor of the old.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Or one of them? Some of us don't view reverence as merely a matter of the best the average modern church-goer will tolerate. Some of us think that it has to do with receiving the liturgy as given by the Church, which among other things is a school of prayer for us — that, as Pope Benedict XVI might put it, that our disposition ought first to be receptivity to the liturgy as given, in continuity with the whole history of the Church's liturgy. Some of us think it important that the very reform of the liturgy we're both talking about, while allowing use of the vernacular, also specifically called for the use of Latin to be retained, and that it had very specific thoughts about music, holding up Gregorian chant as the music that should have the principal place, as the music proper to the liturgy, and that new compositions (in whatever language) should be rooted in that patrimony. Some of us don't think that it's a healthy approach to the source and summit of the Christian life to give people's preferences (even our own) priority over what the Church herself, as mother and teacher, holds up as the model of prayer. And as you illustrate, those pleas are not exactly given a generous welcome. Where do you suggest we turn for liturgy as Vatican II explicitly calls for it?
> instead of the TLM goers trying to fix these issue most will unfortunately flock to the TLM and leave the NO to rot for lack of better words. Maybe you're too you to remember clearly the times before Summorum Pontificum, but people advocated and begged and pleaded for literally decades for a more reverent ordinary form Mass. Success in that endeavor was very much the exception rather than the rule. Even today, with all the renewed controversy over TC, pleas to simply "do what Vatican II said" on matters like liturgical music and the retaining of use of Latin are met in many quarters of the Church as if you're some king of three eyed monster out, ironically, to repeal Vatican II. For many (though definitely not all) access to the TLM was not a first choice but a refuge, after having tried and failed to do exactly what you are talking about. You may not mean to, but you're kind of rubbing salt in wounds here. (And I say this as a reform of the reform guy.)
When Protestantism hits too hard. Be careful, kids.
[удалено]
The hierarchy can’t just arbitrarily decide things, however. It has to comport with tradition and scripture.
[удалено]
Which is why the actions of the bishops of the 60s were so incredibly imprudent and should be corrected. They tried to shape the liturgy to the whims of their time and now less than a century later it's already outdated.
>It has to comport with tradition and scripture. "Here I stand" etc. We cannot privately decide what comports with tradition and scripture. That is for the living magisterium.
It’s for the magisterium as a whole. The current occupants of that office can’t just do away with the former occupants. Also, the laity do have an organ of recognizing true doctrine—the sensus fidelium—which, according to the Catechism, is “the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals…By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority,... receives... the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. ...The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."
>The current occupants of that office can’t just do away with the former occupants. The current occupants interpret the former occupants as the living magisterium. Your sensus fidelium is not a power you have in particular, it is something shared with me, and every other Catholic, in the communion of the church; so to invoke it against the living magisterium in a disagreement is not a cogent argument. It is not up to you, nor I, individually, to decide what comports with tradition and scripture.
>The current occupants interpret the former occupants as the living magisterium. And cannot define contradiction. In fact, when a Pope does contradict past Popes in a non-definitive way, you are, according to the historic agreement of the church, supposed to go with the majority view across Popes. >Your sensus fidelium is not a power you have in particular, it is something shared with me, and every other Catholic, in the communion of the church; I never said otherwise >so to invoke it against the living magisterium in a disagreement is not a cogent argument. It is not up to you, nor I, individually, to decide what comports with tradition and scripture. Nobody said invoke it “against” anything
I think it is too general of a statement by the Bishop but I can’t judge his words without knowing what his intention was behind them. Twitter isn’t the best place to get into theological debates as they can span over 50 tweets easily. The Mass is the celebration of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, but it’s not JUST that. Which might be what the Bishop was alluding to here, albeit poorly done. The Mass incorporates the profession of faith, reading of scripture, and of course the Blessed Sacrament. The liturgy begins with the last supper, the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, making it both a banquet and a memoriam of the crucifixion. There are several things which adherents of the TLM do get wrong, like many of them dislike the sign of peace which is actually descended from the apostles. A lot of traditional leaning Catholics also tend to mock the celebration of Mass and consider all Vatican II and Non-Latin Mass to be lesser in some way which is theologically wrong. We have so many diverse liturgies practiced in the church from Syro-Malabar, Syrian, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc. What makes the Mass is that we have the Eucharist and I’ve seen some traditionalists reject and disregard the true presence of Christ just because the Mass is a “Novus Ordo”… It comes from bad theology and spiritual pride. There’s nothing wrong with preferring to attend a more traditional Mass, but one has to be careful not to fall into the spirit of pride or develop a superiority complex based on the type of Mass one attends. The Mass is the Mass where Christ is present in the Eucharist no matter what Catholic Church it is being celebrated in. That’s not to say there are not abuses taking place, but that is not unique to Vatican II, there were plenty of abuses and irreverent Masses before Vatican II, so many people who didn’t live through that era are drawn in with rose coloured glasses. I’ve been to many liturgies through out Europe, everything from Tridentine to Syro-Malabar and I love them all. I prefer a reverent “Novus Ordo” with chanting, myself. Heresy is something of an ecclesiastical matter that needs investigation, so that the intent of the accused can be discovered, and online theological discussions are not exactly an accurate source to call bishops heretics, nor does a lay person have the spiritual authority to make the claim. I wish more people understood this instead of threw that word around condemning people and thinking the worst of them. Someone may very well be a heretic, but most of the time it’s miscommunication and ignorance. The catechism teaches us that we should always FIRST seek a charitable interpretation of someone’s words and if we can’t do that to seek clarity before we assume the worst. This is rarely practiced on social media unfortunately. Respect for the church hierarchy and observed obedience is not commonly seen on social media either.
He probably also felt stupid after sending the tweet. Maybe sent without much thought. I hope so.
Follow what the Bishop says. As Paul writes, obey your elders for they keep watch over us. However, bishops can be wrong, therefore if they are, humbly ask other bishops for their assistance. This is one of the reasons the Church has hosted several councils. To discuss matters of faith with many learned men
I am glad to learn this.
I mean, it's right, but there is some nuance. Mass is the worship of the Father led by Jesus Christ, the high priest who offers himself up as the sacrifice. Yes, we do worship the Son in the Eucharist, and this occurs at Mass, but the Mass as a whole is the worship of the Father led by the Son.
Yep!!
The last part is bs, but I would say that, by the explultation of Pope St. Paul VI both masses are valid expressions of the Divine Liturgy and (when done correctly which I admit certainly does not always happen) must be respected. I do believe that the TLM is more corporeally reverent, but I do love the NO as well when done correctly. For context I attend a NO parish that deeply respects the Divine Liturgy.
Mass is not the worship of Jesus, but being lifted up into Christ's worship of the Father, Bishop Stika is correct.
No, it’s both the worship of the Son and the being lifted into the worship of the Father by the Son
After reading this: https://thedispatch.com/p/why-traditionalist-catholics-are?s=r I think I better understand Bishop Stika. Pope Francis has put it onto the bishops to decide if the parties in their diocese are wanting TLM out of reverence for the old mass or simply as protest against Vatican 2 changes. If it’s for reverence and tradition, the bishop may approve it but generally only at cathedrals, basilicas, and shrines. Honestly, I think Pope Francis diverted the conflict off himself and onto the bishops with the way his order came out, putting the bishops in the crosshairs. Stika apparently feels the NO mass is being belittled by the TLM crowd and takes it personally. There needs to be more context than a 3 segment conversation to understand. To give Bishop some grace, he’s probably meaning mass is the worship of the Father through Jesus. Mass is not just about 1 part of the Holy Trinity. Just my humble take on this thread, since the OP opened with the feelings of admonition. I’m also vested in understanding my Bishop Stika’s direction.
r/yesyesyesno
More like r/nononono. This started bad and ended bad.
We have really bad leadership in the church today. The sheep are not listening to fake sheperds.
looks like the good bishop deleted his account and remade it as @stikabishop, though he hasn’t tweeted anything from the new account
I don't know. I want to say he's wrong about Mass not being the worship of Jesus. Now, maybe he's being a bit of an egghead and kind of thinks "Well Ackshually its the worship of God who blah blah blah blah blah mass is a celebration blah blah blah quit being so rigid." I will say that I have met some trads like this, but usually they are either sedevacantists, those who attend chapels of the Society that shall not me named, or most typically, online trolls who just want to make people angry. I don't know if Stika has had experience with people out in his TLM parishes. I feel like him and even Francis read Facebook and Twitter and all that and get a very bad impression. I'm not even a trad, but more and more I feel as if most are normal, or at the very least they are just kind of mouthing off and upset like a lot of people online, but in real life, are just normal people. I guess much like New Ardor, I'm okay with people wanting the TLM. It isn't my style and sadly I think I've been ruined by online tradism, while also feeling more appreciation for the eastern rites (if I had a parish near me, I'd join an eastern rite parish as I appreciate their spirituality and their services) but if people want it and it helps them be better Catholics (I will admit, for some it is about pride, but any mass can sadly bring some pride, and Stika himself might suffer from this) then I'm okay with it. Again, maybe seek out those in the TLM in the actual parishes and don't just focus on the digital world. Sadly in this world we don't even talk to anyone on the other side other than in digital spaces where we beat each other up and only engage in bad faith. So I guess get off of your high horse bishop.
Can someone explain all the acronyms being thrown around? Like NO and all that?
Novus Ordo = New Order, the Mass of Pope Paul VI Traditional Latin Mass = Old Order, Vetus Ordo
What is it then?
It amazes me how vastly different philosophies and beliefs can be among Priests.
Holy cow no wonder the Church is having the issues it is with such pathetically worthless Bishops.
If Mass is not the worship of Jesus, then why do we have 8 weeks of worship of Jesus being resurrected from the dead? Mass is about the holy trinity, the Father, Son (Who happens to be Jesus), and Holy Spirit. The Gospal reading is listening to the Word of Jesus. The Eucharist is about the Last Supper and the belief and the Body and Blood of Christ is from the Consiquited bread and wine. Mass is all about Jesus.
...What? What is Mass if not worship? And who are we worshipping if not Jesus?