No Photos During Mass, Per Pope Francis

Pope Francis expresses his displeasure with those who insist upon taking pictures during Mass.

OK, have I ever taken a photo during Mass?  Yes, I have, but I also try to do so discreetly, and not flaunt my cell phone or camera my head.  Pope Francis has a point. So many times when we should see hands held high in praise of our Lord - we see cell phones held high, snapping pictures or taking videos. Like Pope Francis said, "the Mass is not a show, it is to go and meet the passion and resurrection of our Lord."

Now, I can understand if you're in an historic church and you want to get a picture documenting your trip - but we should refrain from doing so during Mass. Take a picture or two before or after Mass, but during Mass - remember why you are there. If you really want a video of the Mass, there are hundreds of places you can get those. No, it likely will not be THE Mass which you participated in, but it will be the Mass in that same church - and the video was taken discreetly and professionally (and likely not as shaky or out of focus as cell phone videos often are!).

Will you go to hell if you take pictures during Mass? No, not likely, at least not for that reason. However, if your actions are distracting and perhaps even causing another to sin (because now they are angry you for the distraction). In that way, you may be a near occasion of sin for others - which may be a sin for yourself - especially if you are knowingly distracting and/or continue after someone makes you aware of the distraction you're causing.

Article from Catholic Apps:  https://catholicapptitude.org/2017/11/16/pope-francis-no-photography-during-mass-please/ 

Mass In The Extra-Ordinary Rite

This article on The Catholic Gentleman's Blog is WELL worth the read!

http://www.catholicgentleman.net/2016/06/lift-hearts-10-tips-newcomers-latin-mass/

Active Participation

On the Facebook page of Rome Sweet Rome, one of the participants posted the following video:

The "active participation" spoken of by Pope St. Pius X (PSPX) was not the same as the "full and conscious" participation encouraged by VCII. Rather, he PSPX, encouraged Gregorian chant be added to the Mass to add to the enrichment of the temple. At some Masses in the ordinary rite, I could fully relate to the frustrations of that woman Fr. spoke of. There were widespread abuses to the "active participation" in the Mass - and fortunately most (not all) of those abuses have fallen by the wayside. PSPX encouraged a deeper, more subconscious participation of a choir chanting Gregorian chant. Certainly those who know the chants, or even if they had hymnals to follow along were welcome to join in - but the use of chant in Mass introduces a subliminal participation where just being present before the Eucharist is enhanced by holy chanting echoing through the sanctuary. It is an "active participation" of mind, body and soul.

Now, that being said, the document referred to in the video is actually PSPX rebuking the abuses which had been creeping into the liturgy over the previous decade!  He was not encouraging more abuse - as we most certainly found in the years which followed VCII!  [1]  This is not to say that everything new is an abuse, but no one can legitimately say there were no abuses in the post Vatican II era.  Just look at some of the wording from the document cited:

Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise -- the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music. And indeed, whether it is owing to the very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself, or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time, or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art, or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained within the right limits, or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, prescribed by the end for which art is admitted to the service of public worship and which is set forth very clearly in the ecclesiastical Canons, in the Ordinances of the General and Provincial Councils, in the prescriptions which have at various times emanated from the Sacred Roman Congregations, and from Our Predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs.  [2] (emphasis added).

My point in posting this article?  Well, the video appears to be saying that "active participation" as we have it today, was really PSPX's idea - and THAT is preposterous.  PSPX encouraged sacred music to compliment the Mass, not overtake it.  You don't have to sing the chants he recommended to be more active in mind, body and spirit - as the very presence of chant in the sanctuary draws one into participation through the senses.  The Motu Proprio he promulgated goes on to limit sacred music to that which is either a) Gregorian chant or b) based in Gregorian chant.  He is not sanctioning the sort of "active participation" which came out of Vatican II.  Sacred music in the Mass is NOT there for our enjoyment!  It is there to enhance the atmosphere of the liturgy and draw us in at a deeper level, as opposed to a carnal or "pleasure" level.  Sacred music can be and should be enjoyable, but there has to be limits to that enjoyment so that it does not take us to the more carnal.

IS there a place for the sort of "active participation" which has come in this post Vatican II era?  Perhaps one can make an argument for such, but one cannot use Pope St. Pius X's Motu Proprio to support such, for if anything it comes out against "profane" abuses.

[1] Abuses post VCII:
Clown Masses, Polka Masses, "Liturgical Dance,"  

[2] Tra le Sollecitudini - http://www.adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html

Questions for Catholics - Part 7 - The Mass and Call No Man Father

In Prasch's final entry he states:

Jacob Prasch

But I have one final question for my Roman Catholic friends. And I assure you I have many friends, I am not speaking antagonistically or with hostility to any Catholic people. I'm only asking you these questions which I’d like you to answer, I invite you to answer. Engage with me, there’s one more I’d like to ask you.

I hope he's sincere and is really asking for engagement.  If there are any questions he feels I have not answered, or answered fully, I hope he does not hesitate to engage the discussion.

I am told that the doctrine of the mass says Jesus must die and again and again and again sacramentally. The same sacrifice that took place on Calvary happens in the mass: He dies sacramentally. He has to die again, again, and again. Remembering that the Lord’s Supper – communion, the Eucharist as Catholics would define it – comes from the Jewish Passover which is a memorial, you remember something already happened, the Roman Church rather says, “No, it continues to happen sacramentally.”
I'm reading from the epistle to the Hebrews 7:27, Christ…
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. Why is there daily mass when it says we don't need a daily Mass? The Old Testament sacrifices that took place daily with the priests in the temple were symbols of what the Messiah would do. Given the fact that He came and did it, we don't need it anymore according to the epistle to the Hebrews.
The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12…
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He……that is, Christ…
…entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.  If it’s “eternal” it means it’s forever and ever without end, without beginning as such – it’s eternal. He did it once and for all for all eternity. Why is there a mass?
Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…
but He……that is, Christ…
… having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, One sacrifice for sins for all time. Verse 14…
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.  If something is perfection, by definition it cannot be improved upon. How can you improve upon perfection?
Given the fact that Rome claims Peter was the first pope, can it be explained why, in his epistle in 1 Peter 3:18, St. Peter says Christ diedonce to bear the sins? Once – perfection – for all eternity! We don’t need a priest to do it again and again like in the Old Testament, the Priest has come. It’s a good question.

Well, it's a good question from one who is ignorant of Catholic teaching.  Prasch is actually pretty close to the answer, but seems to have "missed it by that much."  The Mass is not a new offering, over and over again, it is a re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Christ.  God is timeless, as are acts of God.  When Jesus was crucified on the Cross, that One Sacrifice is for all time and the Mass "taps into" that eternal Sacrifice.  The Mass does not re-crucify Christ, that one act was done - but at the same time is an eternal act.  Jesus Himself commanded that we "do this" every time we partake in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19).  To not use the ceremony (the Mass) which He Himself instituted would be contrary to His command.  Again, this is not the imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament priests, but the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  When the New Testament priests offer this Sacrifice, it is not by their own authority, but in "alter christus," it is through Jesus Christ Himself, operating through the priest, that He, Jesus, offers the same Sacrifice for us in the Mass.  Again, it's not a new or repeated sacrifice, it is the same Sacrifice that we "tap into" through the Mystery of Faith.

It truly takes Faith to accept this Mystery too, as Jesus Christ hides Himself under the appearance of bread and wine, but the reality of Faith is that it is no longer bread and wine, though the accidents (those things we sense) still appear to be bread and wine, the substance (that which it really is) is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  If you lack the faith to accept this, then pray to Jesus that He gives you sufficient faith to accept Him at His Word.  

Why do we need the Mass?  Because Jesus told us how we are to remember and celebrate His suffering and victory.  To not "do this" would be to disobey Him.  That's why we need the Mass.

A famous priest who was a Catholic theologian, the author of eight books, on a video admitted he didn't have the answer. Understand something: What astounded me coming from a Catholic background on my mother’s side was that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men. (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7)
The last thing Jesus said in the Apocalypse is don’t add to the Bible. (Rev. 22:18-19) In his First epistle to the Corinthians 4:6 St. Paul said, “Learn not to exceed what is written”. Moses says don’t add to it, (Dt. 4:2) Jesus said if you do you’ll be condemned to hell. 

Before changing the subject, Prasch presented the above warnings not to add to or change the Scriptures.  I'd like to know who this "famous priest" is and see the context of that video, but the context from the Scriptures he refers to do not really say what he presents them as saying.  Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 speak to Isaiah's prophesy of the Pharisees and scribes because they rejected God's word for the sake of their korban tradition, specifically the precept to honor your father and mother was over-ruled by a korban which allowed for sons to circumvent the obligation to care for one's parents by consecrating to God that which would have been used to support them in their old age.  Revelation 22:18-19 speaks specifically to the Book of Revelation, not to "the Bible" which had not been put together as a book nor in the form of the "canon" we're familiar with now (that would not happen for nearly 400 years).  Deuteronomy 4:2 speaks to Mosaic Law, which I am quite certain Mr. Prasch does not fully adhere to, and if he does not then to use this passage is quite hypocritical.  Jesus, contrary to what Mr. Prasch said, quotes Old Testament Scripture several times and then says, "but I say..." so does Prasch accuse Jesus of the same thing he accuses Catholics?  

In short, the inconsistency and inaccuracy of Prasch's arguments are exposed.  

Find me indulgences, purgatory, or the mass in the New Testament. Penance? Whose sins you shall forgive? That was talking about leading people to Christ. Show me one place in the book of Acts where the early Christians went to confession to a priest. Or a better question, show me a priest.

It could be said that each of Prasch's challenges can be covered in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - the Church was given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses.  As for indulgences, these are specifically under the authority just mentioned, but there are examples in Scripture:

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42) (qtd on Catholic Answers).

Prasch's first objection will likely be that 2 Maccabees is from the Deuterocanonicals (he may call that the Apocrypha, which is not an accurate name as apocrypha means "hidden" and those books were never hidden).  The point is, however, that the books of the Maccabees reflect what the Jews thought, believed and practiced.  Scripture also refers to sins being forgiven in both this world and the next:

³² And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.  (Matt. 12:32).

Being relieved of sin "in the world to come" is an indulgence, it is scriptural.

As for Purgatory, there are several scriptural references, including the two just previously mentioned.  We also have Rev. 21:27 (nothing impure can enter Heaven),  1 Cor. 3:13 (our works will be tested, as by fire) and St. Peter makes the same analogy in 1 Peter 1:7 as well as Zechariah 13:9 and Proverbs 17:3-13.  References to indulgences and Purgatory are clearly there for those who are not blind to see them.

As for the Mass, please Mr. Prasch!  The central point of the Mass is the Eucharist and that is straight out of Scripture.  The rest of the Mass, if you study it even minimally, comes from Scripture too.  The structure actually has Jewish roots, as our religion really isn't a new religion, it is a completion of the Jewish faith.

There is no such thing as a priest in the New Testament because we are all called priests by Peter. (1 Peter 2:5,9) St. Peter said we are all priests with Christ as the High Priest. There is no “priest”, the word is “presbyter” where you get the word “Presbyterian”. It meant the elders of a congregation. There was no priesthood other than the priesthood of all Christians.  

Actually, the English word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyter," which Prasch admits is part of the New Testament, in fact is mentioned several times throughout.  One of the responsibilities of the "elder," if you wish, was to perform the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist with his congregation.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, wrote of the distinctions between the authority of the bishops as separate from the authority of presbyters and deacons.

Yes, we are all called to a priesthood of believers, but what does that really mean, especially to the non-Catholic?  We are all called to offer up our own sacrifices too.  When we suffer, we can offer up those sufferings in union with the suffering of our Lord on the Cross.  Out of our abundance, we can offer up a portion to the needy.  If we don't have an abundance of money, we can always offer up prayers for those in need - especially for those who cann0t petition for themselves, the ones in most need of His mercy. 

Jesus said call no man your father as a religious title. In Matthew 23, St. Matthew quotes Jesus As saying, “Call no man your father”. (Mt. 23:9) Jesus forbade us to call the pope a “holy father” or to call the priest “our father”. He forbade it as a religious title. “Call no man your father”. There’s no priest, He said don’t even call somebody that, One is your Father who is in heaven.

Nathan, who also authors on this blog, wrote an article on "Call No Man Father" in response to this same challenge back in 2013.  

Scripture Catholic posts an article citing the many times Scripture calls men "father" https://www.scripturecatholic.com/priesthood-fathers-celibacy-womens-ordination/ 

The bottom line here is Prasch, as well as other assumably well-meaning Protestants who also often take this passage out of context, misses the point.  The point is not to be like the Pharisees.  In the verse just previous, Matthew 23:8 tells us not to call anyone "rabbi" or "teacher," yet 

With sincerity I've asked these questions. Who do I believe, Mary or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Paul or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Peter or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Matthew or the Vatican? Who do I believe, Jesus Christ or the Vatican? I had to make a decision, so do you. Whom will you believe?

And with all sincerity, your questions have all been answered.  Do we believe Mary or the Vatican?  We believe both.  Mary points us to Christ, and so does the Vatican.  The same is true of the other questions.  To decide not to to believe Catholicism is to not believe in what Jesus Christ taught us.  After His Resurrection, He spent another 40 days with the Apostles, our first bishops, teaching them how His Church was to be run.  As He commands them to do as He did - as He was sent, He also sends them. (John 20:21).  This means that they too had to go out and select more bishops, and those bishops were to select others - and it is in that succession of bishops that we find His True Church.  Outside of that succession you do not have the fullness of His Truth.  His desire is that we be one, just He and the Father are one, (John 17:20-21).  Yes, you have made a decision - but your journey is not at its end.  As the Prodigal Son did, it's time for you to come home.

I do hope you will engage this discussion, as there is so much more that can be said on each topic.  It has also not gone un-noticed by me that you have been recovering from a severe illness while I've been writing these responses.  You have been in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you fully recover.  When you are well enough, do look me up.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Scott Windsor

Part 6 - Doctrine of Demons?

Back to Index Page

Traditional Latin Mass in Pictures

My wife ran across these pictures, so I made a slideshow and added Gregorian chant, I hope you like and share with your friends!

Click one or more of the "share" buttons!

Do I Have to Go?

"Mass is boring." "I don't get anything out of Mass — why should I go?" “Why can't I just pray alone?”

These are common feelings, especially among young people but among many adults as well. The great Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, when conducting a retreat for teenagers, once gave a talk on the meaning of the Mass. He said, "If you don't get anything out of Mass, it's because you don't bring the right expectations to it." The Mass is not entertainment, he said. It is worship of the God who made us and saves us. It is an opportunity to praise God and thank Him for all that He has done for us.

If we have a correct understanding of Mass, Bishop Sheen said, it will become more meaningful for us. We will want to go to Mass. We will understand why the Mass is God's precious gift to us, and we wouldn't think of refusing that gift.

The Eucharist is the lynchpin of this argument.  At the institution of the Mass Jesus said to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).  Will you deny Him when He commands you to go and receive Him in the Eucharist.  Will you freely and willingly abstain from eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood as He commanded?

The Church is instituted by Christ (“and on this rock I will build my church” Matt 16:18).  And Christ gave this Church the authority to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals those who would follow Him in the faith (“whatever you [ie, the Apostles] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven  Matt 18:18).  He told the apostles that those who won’t even listen to the Church that they are to be considered as pagans and tax-collectors (“If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.Matt 18:16-17), ie outside of the Church.  Therefore, it is a mortal sin to knowingly and freely ignore what the Church has bound.  And the Church has determined to be binding that of receiving Him as He commanded us, on a weekly basis.  At a minimum, to receive on the day of the week that He Rose from the dead, Sunday (or the Vigil Mass the night before).  To knowingly and freely reject or ignore this binding decree is to reject the authority of His Church, a grave sin.

We ought to go to Mass on a weekly basis not simply to avoid removing ourselves from the Body of Christ but for the much better reason to show our gratitude for what He has done for us.  Indeed, the word ‘Eucharist’ comes to us from the Greek. The earliest Christians called it ‘Eucharistia’ which means ‘Thanksgiving’.

The Mass is, in part, a meal.  At the consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.  Not just a symbol, but Jesus’ real flesh and real blood, under the appearance of bread and wine.  When we receive Holy Communion, we receive Jesus Himself.  He is real food for our soul.  He told us as much when He said: “I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6:55-56)

To refuse reception of this greatest gift of Himself is to refuse Him.  Please, please, do not abstain from the greatest gift we can ever receive: The gift of God Himself in the flesh. 

 

God Bless
Nathan

Holding Hands

Today I would like to talk about our posture and gestures during the celebration of the Mass.   The General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs us on what we should be doing during the different parts of the Mass.  This document is important for the simple fact that we can truly worship in unison throughout the entire world.

What is the GIRM?

The GIRM is an acronym for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. It is the handbook for how to celebrate the Mass. While it’s not the only resource, most questions about the Mass can be answered by the GIRM.

It covers such things like the structure of the Mass, its elements and parts; postures, processions and gestures; silence and singing; liturgical furnishings; the role of the deacon, liturgical ministers, and laity, and much more.

The GIRM provides instruction for how to celebrate the Mass throughout the world. That’s why you can walk into Mass anywhere in the world and recognize certain elements . . . no matter the language, no matter the cultural norms.

Why is the GIRM important?

This sums it up: “Liturgy is a prayer like no other. It is the source and summit of our life as Catholic Christians. So let our words and actions, our prayers and music, our worship spaces and liturgical furnishings and art, be worthy of the profound mystery we celebrate.”(http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Worship/GIRM/English/GIRM.pdf)

Now, what does the manual directs us to do when we pray the Our Father during Mass?  Well, we are to stand, but nowhere is it explained that we are to hold hands.  Hence, the proper posture that we ought to hold is to stand and pray.  Since there is no direct explanation that we are not to hold hands, it is generally accepted to allow individual church traditions to be continued in regards to holding hands while we pray the ‘Our Father’.  It is not condemned but neither is it condoned.

While holding hands is allowed please don’t go doing acrobatics just so you can hold the hand of the gentleman in the other pew or to go on tapping the lady’s shoulder that’s standing next to you when she doesn’t extend her hand to hold yours.

Personally, I would like us to refrain from doing extraneous gestures that are not specifically spelled out for us to do in our official Manual on how to properly celebrate Mass.

God Bless
Nathan

Keep Mass in Christmas

A campaign was started a few years ago in a bit of a response to the "Keep Christ in Christmas" campaign being promoted by many Christian organizations. The goal was to draw attention to the fact that "Christmas" is named for the "Christ Mass" - which is the celebration of Christ's birth.  The earliest I have found in my own articles supporting the Christ Mass is 2003.  Unfortunately, I cannot locate earlier archives (I started online apologetics for the Catholic Faith back in 1988).   I am pleased to see many others are using the slogan of "The best way to keep Christ in Christmas is to keep Mass in Christmas."  The point being is that where the non-Catholics using "Keep Christ in Christmas" are doing so in name only, whereas in the Mass, and especially the Christ Mass, the Real Presence of Christ is truly found in Christmas!  Every Mass is Christ centered, with the Eucharist being the re-presentation of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice on the Cross - and the Christ Mass is celebrated in honor of His birth while not losing focus on why He was born.  He was born to redeem the world, which He did in the week of His Holy Passion culminating on Good Friday.  He ultimately arose victorious over sin and death on what we now celebrate as Easter Sunday. 


An Episcopalian blogger named Holly responds to the "Keep Mass in Christmas" campaign (in 2012):
http://www.chicagonow.com/running-with-a-book-cart/2012/12/keeping-the-mass-in-christmas/

However, I was only mildly puzzled. Why is "Keep Mass in Christmas" a Catholics Come Home campaign? I know full well I'm one of the ones that they hope to persuade to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. What's the deal with Catholics Come Home, though? I already feel like I'm home. I'm still Catholic. We have Mass. And I feel like I can be a thinker AND a full member of the Church at the same time, which is nice. (Reasonable minds can disagree, obviously.) I also rather like hanging out with radical liberal feminist priests.

It must be noted how Holly puts her own feelings over truth and even reality.  No Holly, you're not "still Catholic," you're Episcopalian - which is a schism from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  You have what is "called" a "Mass," but it is not - as your priests lack the authority to validly consecrate the Eucharist into the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  We don't go to Mass just to "feel good" or to be a "free thinker."  We go to Mass to worship and adore our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.  I realize you "think" the Episcopalians have a "real presence" too - but thinking it does not make it so.

Holly continues:

Anyway. "Catholics Come Home" is a nice campaign, but admittedly, I don't foresee myself going back until they've made some fundamental changes to the church, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

Look at what you have done, Holly.  Look at what your cult has done (and I don't use the word "cult" in a disrespectful manner).  Jesus didn't build the Anglican/Episcopal Church... He built the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Anglicanism changed things and the foundation of those changes are rooted in King Henry VIII who pleaded for the annulment of his marriage so that he could marry Ann Bolin.  He, who only a few years earlier was declared by the Pope to be "Defender of the (Catholic) Faith," rejected the Catholic Faith for his own personal desires.  One might say he wanted to be a "free thinker."  Anglicanism lead the way to artificial contraception in 1930, which has lead to an acceptance of abortion by many "free thinking" and supposedly "Christian" churches.  Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is a deterioration of the Catholic Faith.  Likewise the acceptance of women priests (and primates) is a corruption of what Jesus Christ Himself founded upon the Twelve Apostles, our first "primates" (bishops).  No, what needs to "change" is not the Catholic Church, but your expectations/demands.  When you are ready to submit yourself to Christ and the authority He left in charge of His People, we will welcome you back with open arms and you can again celebrate the Real Mass with His Real Presence.

Catholic Memes (2013):

http://www.catholicmemes.com/captions/keep-mass-in-christmass/

A Catholic response (2013):

http://emphaticasterisk.com/2013/12/08/keeping-the-mass-out-of-christmas/

CathApol Christ Mass Memes (2012):

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/12/blog-post.html

Greek Orthodox (2011):

http://detroit.goarch.org/pastoral-help/articles/saints-feasts/keeping-the-mass-in-christmas

A Catholic blogger in 2008 "Campaigns":

http://www.scificatholic.com/2008/12/2008-keep-mass-in-christmas-campaign.html

Another Catholic blogger in 2008:

http://50daysafter.blogspot.com/2008/12/keep-mass-in-christmas.html

Former Evangelical, then Anglican priest now Catholic priest, Fr. Longenecker wrote in 2008:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2008/12/keep-the-mass-in-christmas.html

 

Even an Atheist site mentions the fact that Protestants, who argue for keeping Christ in Christmas, have already taken Mass out of Christmas (not dated, but referenced by Fr. Longenecker  in 2008):

Taking the Mass out of Christmas:

Conservative evangelical Christians complain about people taking the "Christ" out of Christmas, but they seem to forget that they have already taken the "Mass" out of Christmas (Mass being a service including Holy Communion). When was the last time a prominent figure on the Christian Right has argued that Americans should remember to attend Mass on this Holy Day? I've never seen it and I don't expect to ever do so. This is just one of many masses that have been excised from the season.

 (I also think that this Atheist may have gotten at least some of his information from Steve Kellmeyer, see link below).

A Catholic blogger in 2006:

http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/12/remember-to-keep-mass-in-christmas.html

 

CathApol Blog article on the Christ Mass ( December 2005):

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2005/12/merry-christ-mass.html 

Steve Kellmeyer wrote this nice article on November 30, 2005:

http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-christians-stole-christmas.html

ACTS article on St. Nicholas which also discusses the Christ Mass, December 6, 2003:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/stnicholas_info.htm 

Another "Campaign" of Mine:

Some of you may be asking, "why are you writing this now?  Christmas was a week ago!"  Well, yes, the Christ Mass was a week ago, but the Season of the Christ Mass lasts at least until Epiphany (January 6th) or even until Candlemas (February 2nd) which is the last mentioning of the Christ Mass for the liturgical year.  Candlemas is the celebration of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary as well as the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple.  So have yourself a Merry Little Christ Mass now... and a bit longer!

Is a Crucifix Necessary for Mass?

Well, the short answer is YES!  According to the GIRM:
II. ARRANGEMENT OF THE SANCTUARY FOR THE SACRED SYNAXIS (EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY)

308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

On the USCCB site we find this:  
the revised Instruction speaks always of “a cross with the figure of Christ crucified upon it.” (308, 122) This cross, “positioned either on the altar or near it,” should be clearly visible not only during the liturgy, but at all times recalling “for the faithful the saving passion of the Lord, [and] remain[ing] near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.” (308) A liturgical procession is a sign that the people of God form the pilgrim church on earth, it is fitting that such processions should be preceded by the Cross.

ROME, DEC. 20, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

 Q:   My parish has a beautiful crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar that has been a great aid in my prayer life. Unfortunately, I must pray without this aid during the seasons of Christmas and of Easter, as during these seasons the crucifix is completely covered. During Christmas, a star is placed above the crucifix with a tail that hangs down to completely cover it. Likewise, during Easter, a banner of the Risen Christ is hung over the crucifix so that it is hidden from view. I realize that "a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, [be] either on the altar or near it" during Mass (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 308), and I considered the processional cross, which is placed beside the sanctuary during Mass, to fulfill this requirement when the crucifix behind the altar is covered (cf. GIRM, 122). However, upon further reflection, I now question if the processional cross fulfills this requirement as it is beside the sanctuary during Mass and not "next to the altar" (GIRM, 122); and, it is not "clearly visible to the [entire] assembled congregation" (GIRM, 308). As well, it does not "remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations" (GIRM, 308). Is it appropriate that the crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar be covered during any liturgical season? -- R.G., Leduc, Alberta
 A:   While I don't think it is a good idea to cover the cross during these liturgical seasons, it does not appear to be illicit.
It is illicit, however, not to have any crucifix presiding over the altar during the celebration. The processional cross could fulfill this function, but only if it is placed on a stand beside the altar during the celebration.
Indeed, the indications in the norms referenced by our reader are that the processional cross is only carried out of sight in those cases where a crucifix is already present on or near the altar. If there is no cross, then it should be placed near the altar and serve as the altar cross.
Another possible solution, if the wall cross is covered or absent, is to place a crucifix upon the altar proper. In this case the processional cross should be carried away to one side so that only one cross presides over the altar.
While there may be no absolute prohibition to substituting the main crucifix for a smaller one during these liturgical seasons, I am of the opinion that it is not a felicitous idea.
As the U.S. bishops' conference recommends in its document "Built of Living Stones":
"§ 123 § The tradition of decorating or not decorating the church for liturgical seasons and feasts heightens the awareness of the festive, solemn, or penitential nature of these seasons. Human minds and hearts are stimulated by the sounds, sights, and fragrances of liturgical seasons, which combine to create powerful, lasting impressions of the rich and abundant graces unique to each of the seasons.
"§ 124 § Plans for seasonal decorations should include other areas besides the sanctuary. Decorations are intended to draw people to the true nature of the mystery being celebrated rather than being ends in themselves. Natural flowers, plants, wreaths and fabric hangings, and other seasonal objects can be arranged to enhance the primary liturgical points of focus. The altar should remain clear and free-standing, not walled in by massive floral displays or the Christmas crib, and pathways in the narthex, nave, and sanctuary should remain clear."
In the case described, the crucifix as an important, albeit not primary, liturgical point of focus is obscured rather than enhanced.
While a star is a frequent symbol of Christmas, and even of Christ, placing it right behind the altar places too much emphasis upon a secondary symbol.
While the figure of the risen Christ might appear more justified, nothing would be lost and much gained by placing the image in some other part of the sanctuary.
I hope that this practice is not an attempt to deliberately remove the crucifix from sight during these seasons. This would be a grave error. The Church insists that a crucifix must always be present for Mass during all seasons of the year in order to remind us of the presence of Our Lord's infinite sacrifice.
It is through the infinite sacrifice that Christ's entire saving mystery, from the annunciation to the ascension, is made present in each and every celebration. Even though we designate certain times and seasons to underline specific mysteries, the cross remains at the heart of the mystery of God's total self-giving for our salvation.

Addendum 1/5/2014:
When I was first asked about this the actual question was about "validity" of a Mass without the crucifix.  My findings made it clear that while there is a requirement in "law" (GIRM 308) there was no statement regarding validity - so I did not make a statement regarding validity initially.  My assumption was then, based upon this evidence, that Mass celebrated without a crucifix present would be illicit, but not "invalid."  The matter of validity would be centered upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  Regarding the Eucharist, if matter, form and intent are correct - it is a "valid" consecration (such as the Masses celebrated by SSPX, which don't have explicit permission of the local bishop, are "valid" but "illicit.")  A Eucharist which is valid, but illicit still does suffice for satisfying ones "Sunday Obligation."  So even if there is no crucifix present the Eucharist itself may be valid.

This same question was asked of Catholic Answers and while they do not provide reference material for their answer beyond the GIRM (they cite 270, which is an older version of the GIRM, in the current version it's 308 - as quoted above), their conclusion is the same as mine:

Must a crucifix be present at the altar for the Mass to be valid?

---

Full Question

I would like to know if it is necessary for a crucifix to be present at the altar in order for the Mass to be valid.

Answer

Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist within the Mass that can be valid or invalid.
Whether a crucifix is present at the altar has no bearing on whether the Eucharist is valid or invalid (the absence of a crucifix will not cause the Eucharist to be invalid), but it does have a bearing on whether the Mass is licit or illicit.
The law requires that "There is to be a cross, clearly visible to the congregation, either on the altar or near it" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 270). The revised General Instruction—which has not yet gone into effect—clarifies that the cross in question should have a corpus (representation of Christ’s body), meaning that it should be a crucifix rather than a bare cross.
If there were no cross by on or near the altar (or, once the new GIRM goes into effect, no crucifix) then the Mass would be illicit, or not celebrated in accord with the requirements of the law.
However, a Mass celebrated in this manner would still have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, it would still fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.

I hope this helps...

Scott<<<

Catholic Apps

The editor of "Catholic Apps Blog" wrote the following article recently:

http://catholicapps.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/we-knew-this-was-coming-using-phone-in-church-looks-scandalous/

My husband and I received a gentle but firm reprimand from a dear fellow parishioner. It came in the form of a note in the mail. We KNEW this probably was on people’s minds. We are glad this person was bold enough to offer charitable advice. How would you respond? Should you use your Missal app at Mass? In our view, each generation brings new technological advances to make participation in the sacraments easier (electric lights, contact lenses, hearing aids, air conditioning, loud speakers, microphones et. al.). To us, these little programs which put the text of the Mass in the palm of our hands are part of the evolution. We wrote a kind response explaining what we are reading on our phones –the iMissal app. We gave a brief description of some of the great Missal apps out there which help us to participate in the Liturgy with greater ease (especially for our aging eyes)! We apologized for the distraction, nevertheless. We have encouraged our pastor to talk openly about the use of Missal apps during Mass. It’s time. Thumbs up or thumbs down. But let everyone know what’s going on. Your thoughts?

Do we need to be mindful of what other people are thinking at Mass?   Do we just need to educate more people that there ARE "Catholic Apps" and some of them are actually useful in engaging the Mass and the readings for the day?  How do we know if someone is following the readings - or following a football game? Should we care?

Divine Liturgy

A friend of mine gave me a copy of the following CD, and all I can say is that it is just AWESOME!  Now that is a word I only use in reference to things of God - and this most definitely fits that requirement.  It is the Divine Liturgy #3 of St. John Chrysostom.  I highly recommend this!  Give a listen to the samples and see if you do not agree with me.  It is SO glorious - and what's more - though the choir is out of this world (nearly angelic!) - this is not some special occasion - but the REGULAR way of the Eastern Rite of Catholicism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy.  Please, do give it a listen and see if you do not find yourself meditating on things beyond this world!  

Liturgy No. 3 - English (The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)  

Luther Consorting With the Devil?

Earlier this year (when I was a bit pre-occupied with the passing of my daughter) James Swan wrote an article allegedly "Helping Catholic Answers with a Luther Quote."  Swan dismisses the CA (and Fr. O'Hare) criticism by saying:

"Our friend at Catholic Answers is reading Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther. The citation involves one of Luther's disputations with the Devil. As explained below, this was a story being told by Luther as a literary device, not a personal experience. Of course, Father O'Hare missed this."  

One needs to ask ones self, "Is ANY consortia with the Devil a good tactic for Christian apologetics?"  Whether this was a literal discussion with the Devil or a "literary device" seems to make little difference - or shouldn't to the objective reader.  Fr. O'Hare hasn't missed anything here.

Context: (from above link)

Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart (for he is able to make many a night bitter and troublesome for me): “Listen, you very learned fellow, do you know that you said private masses for fifteen years almost daily? Did you not in reality commit sheer idolatry with such a mass and did you not worship there simply bread and wine, rather than Christ’s body and blood, and enjoin others to worship them?” I reply: “But I am a consecrated cleric; I have received chrism and consecration from the bishop, and, in addition, have done all this because of the command to do so and in obedience to it. Why have I not performed the consecration validly, since I have spoken the words in earnest and said mass with all possible devotion? You certainly know this.” “Yes,” he said, “that is true; but the Turks and the heathen also perform everything in their churches because of the command to do so and in earnest obedience to it. The priests of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba performed everything perhaps with greater devotion than the true priests at Jerusalem [I Kings 13:33]. What if your consecration, chrism, and consecrating are also unchristian and false like those of the Turks and the Samaritans?”
At this point I truly broke into a sweat and my heart began to tremble and throb. The devil knows how to muster his arguments well and to make an impression with them, and he possesses a convincing, powerful way of speaking. Such disputations do not permit time for lengthy and numerous deliberations, but the answers come in quick succession. At such times I have seen it happen that one finds people dead in bed in the morning. He can kill the body. This is one thing; but he can also scare the soul with disputes so that it almost departs from the body, as he has quite often very nearly done to me. Now he had challenged me in this dispute, and I did not really want to be guilty of such a great number of abominations in the presence of God but wanted to defend my innocence. So I listened to him to hear the grounds on which he opposed my consecration and my consecrating.
First, he said, you know that you did not rightly believe in Christ and as far as your faith was concerned you were no better than a Turk; for the Turk and I myself, along with all devils, also believe everything which is written about Christ (James 3 [2:19]), that is, that he was born, died, and ascended into heaven. However, none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior; but we fear him as a stern judge. This kind of faith and no other is the one you also had when you were consecrated a priest and said mass; and all the others, both the consecrating bishop and his ordinands, also believed this. For this reason, too, all of you turned away from Christ and depended on Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need rather than Christ. This you cannot deny, nor can any pope. That is why you were consecrated and have celebrated mass like heathen and not like Christians. How then were you able to effect conversion? For you were not the kind of persons who were to bring about this change.

Considering the "advice" being given by the Devil - "he" is trying to convince Luther how "bad" or "unChristian" the Catholic Mass and any devotion to Mary and the Saints are.  Now step back a moment... if the DEVIL thinks it is "bad" - then shouldn't the CHRISTIAN do the exact OPPOSITE?  Again, whether a literal consortia or a literary device - what our ENEMY proposes - WE SHOULD OPPOSE!  Yet, in Luther's dialog (whether real or imagined) he seems to be TAKING the advice, like "Yeah, that's a good point!"  

Swan also writes later this year (just recently) another article answering to "Luther's Demonology" he seems to justify, or at best rationalize Luther's "literary device" with:

Luther is best understood as a religious man with a deep belief in God, and in a daily battle with the Devil. As I've read quite a large amount of Luther, it is true this cosmic battle is never completely set aside in his writings.

The problem I still have here is that in this "literary device" he (Luther) portrays himself as not in battle with the Devil, but in AGREEMENT with him!   

Another author, Robert C. Croken regarding this context writes:

The devil now substantiates his position with a number of arguments.  Luther's faith has been basically misplaced.  Instead of trusting in Christ as his Saviour, he has put hist faith in the power to consecrate and to celebrate the Mass (WA 38, 198; LW 38, 150-51). 

Note, Croken (who wrote this piece with the intention of ecumenism) substantiates Luther's consortium with the Devil.  It is Satan who is telling Luther that he is not trusting in Christ - and has attacked the Mass!  The central point of the Catholic religion is the Mass - so therein lies Satan's attack on Christ's Church and Luther is but a pawn in Satan's chess match.   Yes, this is "just a dream" of Martin Luther - but the fact that it is expressed AND appears to be foundational in Luther's First Front, the title of Croken's book.

This power to consecrate is contrary, moreover, to the mind of Christ.  

Again, the lie of Satan is propagated... for it is most certainly NOT contrary  to the mind of Christ - He instituted it!  Jesus took bread and wine and declared it IS His body and blood and further commanded that the Apostles "do this" (that which He just did) in memory of Him.   So they too were to take bread and wine and declare "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood," speaking in the Person of Jesus Christ.

He intended that we should celebrate the sacrament in order that it might be shared with Christians and benefit them.  The very word "communion" means fellowship.  

Agreed!   The Mass IS for the "communion" of the people!   The fact that the Mass IS intended for the people does not negate the "power to consecrate."  The argument has quickly digressed to a non-sequitur.

But in the Winkemesse, Luther has received the sacrament alone and has not shared it with others.  Was this the purpose of his consecration (WA 38, 198-99; LW 38, 151)?  

I am not sure what Croken means here by "the Winkemesse."  The nearest I can tell he may mean "the Deutsche Messe" or "German Mass" - which Luther wrote in 1526, nine years after the posting of the "95 Thesis."  Just a sidenote, even Luther was still calling it a "Mass" at this time.

It was also the mind of Christ that, through the celebration of the sacrament, his death would be publicly proclaimed (1 Cor. 11:26).  

Agreed!

But Luther has not done this in the private Mass: alone, he has whispered to himself; alone, he has received the sacrament (WA 38, 199; LW 38, 151). Again, the sacrament was intended for the community, to strengthen Christians who share it.  But in the private Mass, Luther has reversed this intention: instead of being a sacrament-priest, he has become a sacrifice-priest, offering as an individual sacrifice to God what was meant as food for others.  He has made a special work, not to be shared with others unless sold to them for a price (WA 38, 199; LW 38, 152).

If we are to accept Croken's points here then again we must also accept that Luther felt it was okay to consort with the Devil, or at least through some "literary device" it is alright to accept consultation or advice from the Devil.  Either way this does not bode well for Luther.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Domine Non Sum Dignus

Along with other changes being proposed to the English vernacular, the domine non sum dignus is making a comeback too! 

Existing Novus Ordo Latin:
Domine, non sum dignus, 
ut intres sub tectum meum, 
sed tantum dic verbo,
et sanabitur anima mea.

Existing Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,

But only say the word

And I shall be healed.

Proposed Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.

Scripture (Matthew 8:8) where the Centurion pleads for his servant:

And the centurion making answer, said: 
Lord, I am not worthy 
that thou shouldst enter under my roof: 
but only say the word, 
and my servant shall be healed. (DRB)

The centurion said in reply, 
"Lord, I am not worthy 
to have you enter under my roof; 
only say the word 
and my servant will be healed. (NAB)

So while echoing the words of the centurion - but pleading for our own soul - the new reading matches the Latin and the only change to Scripture is in place of "my servant" we say "my soul" - so the proposed change is (again) a better match to Scripture and the Latin.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<