‘Trad’ movement misrepresented
Re: “Why Pope is restricting use of pre-Vatican II Mass” (Catholic Virginian, July 26):
I am 26 years old and started attending the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) every Sunday a year ago. Archbishop Di Noia has massively misrepresented the “Trad” movement.
The archbishop quoted Pope Francis as saying that his predecessors intended that the TLM be celebrated in order to “correct abuses” in the Novus Ordo, but this is an admission that the TLM is better than the new Mass in some way.
However, simultaneously both men regard those who attend the TLM as quasi- schismatic rebels. By this they implicitly admit that the Novus Ordo is a drastic break from the TLM, which is somehow bad. But why must we break with it, on pain of schism?
Did the Church get its Lex Orandi wrong for well over a thousand years, and thus fail to preserve the faith, then suddenly “get it right” after Vatican II?
Both of these men tacitly admit that post-Vatican II Catholicism is a break from the faith of the past, and that the legitimacy of a liturgy is determined by the whims of the hierarchy, instead of by its status as part of tradition. That is why “Trads” cling to the TLM. It is the well-beloved heritage passed on to us from ancient times.
Where did Vatican II call for an overhaul of the Mass? That is what the new Mass is, and both of these men just assume that the council wanted an entirely new Mass. – John Mason, Lynchburg
Editor’s note: What the bishops of Vatican II decided regarding the Mass can be found in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy https://bit.ly/sacrosanctum-concilium.
Worshipping at TLM not cause for disunity
The Catholic Virginian (July 26) featured two articles on “Traditiones Custodes” concerning the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). TLM impacts my priestly ministry by having a better awareness of Christ’s sacrifice and using the same liturgical rite that generations of saints have used. These articles overlook the genuine reasons why Catholics go to the TLM and how fruitful this liturgical expression is.
TLM has shown me an increasing number of reverent and welcoming communities who worship this way. People worship at the TLM not out of bitterness but rather out of an immense love of Jesus Christ and the Church. Parishioners of TLM parishes embrace the Church’s teachings, its councils and traditional forms of piety.
Why all the interest in the TLM? The rubrics of the TLM have limited options and provide a stability people invest in. The theocentric emphasis of the TLM brings lapsed Catholics back to the faith, helps individuals mature in the spiritual life and increases zeal to share the Good News. These reasons show the TLM to be a great source for evangelization and motivation to grow in the spiritual life.
Catholics worshipping at the TLM is not cause for disunity. Holy Mother Church has multiple liturgical rites found in the Eastern Catholic Churches and multiple rites within the Latin Church. While most Catholics are familiar with the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI, there are other liturgical rites that unite Catholics together. These various liturgical rites unite us to the one eternal liturgy.
I encourage everyone to view the upcoming documentary “Mass of the Ages” by Cameron O’Hearn to answer questions regarding the TLM. – Rev. James P. O’Reilly, Parochial Vicar, St. Bridget, Richmond
Don’t give up on Latin Mass
My heart grieves at the current mindset in the Church, from the Vatican down, to restrict and foreseeably eliminate the Tridentine Mass. How many even knew that it existed?
The Latin Mass has for centuries defined us as Catholics. Its beauty, awe, knowledge, reverence, and yes, tradition, will be lost! Should it be given up so easily?
Have you ever wondered why the Mass was said in Latin? Latin was considered a unifying factor, but, even more so, a holy language – one of the four found on the cross, which our Lord suffered and died on for us. Jesus made it a holy language for it was present with him during his crucifixion and death.
Take time to research the Tridentine Rite. Look for the differences and the similarities. Ask yourself why the changes were made and should they have been. Did the changes bring unity, or did they cause a huge rift bringing hurt and confusion still present and growing in our Church.
Pope Francis’ restricting proclamation is supposed to bring unity but is actually destroying what little unity was left in the wake of Vatican II. Our true unity as Catholics prior to Vatican II was the traditional Mass – not an ecumenical, watered down “celebration.”
Pray hard and know what we are being told to give up. A huge spiritual battle is culminating. Will the Mass bring the blessings and necessary graces from God to prevent the loss of so many souls? – Marijo Heitman, Chesapeake
Seeks clarification about reception of the Eucharist
Regarding the USCCB’s debate regarding a eucharistic document and several related letters to the editor: Three issues have not heretofore been articulated:
First is the sin of scandal that is at the forefront of the discussion regarding elected officials who are also Catholics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil” (CCC 2284).
Especially serious is scandal caused by persons with authority over those led into sin. Elected officials who vote for legislation that permits immorality in such forms as abortion and embryonic stem cell research are guilty of scandal and are responsible for all the sins committed as a result.
Second, for those who use the argument that a politician should not bring their religion into their political representation, being Catholic is succinctly expressed by the profession of faith that is recited at every Mass.
We cannot parse ourselves from our faith out of convenience; one is or is not a practicing Catholic. The free will choice is a God-given right that comes with consequences.
Finally, the Code of Canon Law states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess” (CL 916).
I look forward to the USCCB articulating any clarification as to what is required to present oneself for receiving the Eucharist. – Robert “Scott” Jack II, Mineral
Pray for the bishops
It used to rightly be taught that reception of the Eucharist in mortal sin is sacrilege. Yet politicians promoting the slaughter of innocents thumb their nose at Catholic law, using the Eucharist as a photo-op pandering toward the Catholic vote.
True, at the Last Supper, Christ offered the first Eucharist even to Judas, this before being handed over to death, betrayed with a kiss. Let us not forget, though, that just days earlier Jesus whipped and drove the money changers from his Father’s house. Our Lord was no wimp. He fought evil unto death.
Let us pray the bishops of the USCCB rise to the challenge to be brave in fighting the evil of abortion. – Martin P. Harpen, Suffolk
Provide guidance for members to become sanctified
Much has been written about the Church denying the Eucharist to the president and other Catholic politicians who facilitate and fund ready access to abortion. It is startling to me that this decision is open to debate.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states the Church’s position: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable” (2271).
“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (2273).
Denial of the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support abortion is clearly justified by the requirement to be free from mortal sin when receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Any public retaliation, financial or otherwise, would be a small price to pay to protect these politicians from receiving the Eucharist unworthily.
If the Church believes what it teaches us as Catholics – that dying in a state of mortal sin results in eternal separation from God – it is imperative that the Church provide these politicians, and all its members, the guidance and the means to become sanctified so they can spend eternity with God in heaven. – Robert S. DeMauri, Keswick
Commentary was ‘on point’
Regarding Stephen Reardon’s excellent commentary (Catholic Virginian, June 28), Linda Tucciarone (Catholic Virginian, July 12) questions whether “his career (a lawyer) gives him more credence.” Presumably, because of her analogy, she means more credence than Sen. Tim Kaine (also a lawyer), who is an abortion advocate. Reardon’s profession is not relevant, but his position was directly on point.
Catholic doctrine states unequivocally that, since life begins at conception, abortion is consequently morally and spiritually wrong. Tucciarone is mistaken in her understanding of the duty of elected officials. She is correct that the senator indeed does represent all of his constituents, but in so doing, he does not relinquish his moral beliefs or discard his spiritual conscience.
As a professed Catholic, Sen. Kaine by implication accepts established Church beliefs, which expressly include the denunciation of abortion. This same standard applies to President Biden and Speaker Pelosi. They cannot identify as Catholics if they denounce Church prescripts. The simple solution would be to leave the Church for a denomination that views abortion as acceptable.
Tucciarone writes that “[a]ll Catholics are not conservatives.” Since the concept of “conservative” is quite broad, this is not germane. Conversely, not all conservatives are anti-abortion. However, because Catholic doctrine opposes abortion, all true Catholics are anti-abortion.
Moreover, her warning that opposition to abortion “make[s] it much easier to leave the Church” and that “leaving results in less income” recalls Jesus’ own concept of the importance of money. In Matthew 21:12- 13, he expelled the money changers from his Church, admonishing them for making his house a “den of thieves.” – Carol Daugherty Rasnic, Richmond
Appreciates commentary in defense of archbishop
Thank you, Stephen Reardon, for defending Archbishop Gomez in your guest commentary.
Tim Kaine has had a long political career, so the public record is clear on where his funding comes from, the laws he supports (and doesn’t) and whether or not he’s ever walked in the March for Life with fellow Catholics.
We know what his values are. As such, I do not need a lecture from him on the Blessed Sacrament of the holy Eucharist — the Bread of Life. It is ironic that Kaine accuses Archbishop Gomez of doing what he does every day in his political life: cherry- picking which truths he will abide by and which he will not.
Tim Kaine, come join your fellow Catholics (as imperfect as we are) and follow all of the eternal truths of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ – not just the politically expedient ones. – M. Bridget Provost, Midlothian
‘In God We Trust’ shouldn’t be motto
Coming from a Judeo/ Christian (Catholic) background, it is well past time we remove “In God We Trust” from our money and stop using it as a national motto. It simply is not true, and by using it we do little more than mock God. (I cannot speak for atheists, agnostics or those from other faith traditions. I can only imagine what they may think about that motto.)
President Teddy Roosevelt summed it up well during discussions before the motto was adopted in the early 20th century: “As a Christian, I find it sacrilegious. As a citizen, I find it unconstitutional.”
Theoretically, we are a Christian nation, and our laws are presumably based on the Ten Commandments. However, at every level of government we have laws that allow us to disobey, disregard and in some cases threaten to punish us if we insist on obeying those commandments.
Jesus Christ narrowed those 10 down to two — love God and love one another. How do we, as a nation, follow those two commandments?
A more honest motto could be “In This Currency We Trust.” Or we could also adopt “In the Seven Deadly Sins We Trust” as many in our nation tend to glorify those over any type of morality. One of those mottos would be more honest than “In God We Trust.”
Individually and collectively, we all most certainly should trust in God, but as a national motto it just isn’t true. I certainly encourage any/all organizations within our nation to adopt that motto as long as those organizations strive to practice it. – Philip Knoll, Chesapeake