By the grace of God, I’ve managed to get back into the habit of daily Mass. It really is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be difficult with my travel schedule, and it’s easy to make excuses for yourself if you want to.
Today my only option was an N.O. parish of the Strict Observance. Pictures of liturgical dancers and Santa on the altar promoted on their website, which I was tempted to post the pics but I will spare you. Presider/masonic sanctuary set-up in a once beautiful old church with the high altar ripped out. Confession Saturday only, 3:30-3:45pm (I’m not making this up).
I really didn’t want to go.
Then the thought dawned on me (grace): “You pathetic, pride-filled monster.”
I mean, if our Lord and Savior still lowers Himself to come down on that altar in that setting, and my response is that He’s not worth it if I have to endure even the slightest tinge of suffering or discomfort? Effeminacy much? And I seriously think I’m really prepared to be a martyr?
Anyway, I went. He was there. He helped me grow a little closer to Him today.
AMDG
Skip to content
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Thanks for sharing.
What a great Lenten meditation….one of your best, pithiest posts ever Nonveni: worthy of Garrigou-Lagrange. 🙂
Our Lord is also present at any Orthodox Divine Liturgy. He is just as present, and just as dishonoured.
For just as the Orthodox are schismatic, your average N.O. priest is ‘una cum’ an anti-pope: the blasphemous clown Francis.
Sorry, but I really don’t see the difference.
I do. The Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, however imperfect may be the faith of those who celebrate it, of itself was designed to & does worship God. The Mass devised by Msgr. Bugnini, while it sometimes survives the effort, was nonetheless designed for very different purposes, many of them decisively if unhappily achieved.
*
Still, your point well taken Edward in that formal participation at an Orthodox Liturgy, whatever the participant’s intentions, is an effective toleration-cum-endorsement of its schism, just as NO participation is at this point an effective acceptance-cum-endorsement of the Global Bergoglian Bathhouse; again whatever may be the holy subjective intentions within these often enough ungrasped objective endorsements
*
Despite the various difficulties – mistaking an antipope for a real one par example – worship at a Tridentine, Chrysostom, or any other historically authorized liturgy prior to Bugnini’s, clearly stand against the Bathhouse clericalist perversion & corruption of the Faith, precisely because these rites reflect the purity of that Faith, in communion with the faithful who struggled by, with, & for Her since Eastern morn, & indeed since Abraham.
So when our Lord comes down, body blood soul and divinity, and participates in these liturgies, He is “endorsing schism”? Um, no, He is not. His love for us is so complete that He comes despite the profound difficulties.
Antigon did not write that Our Lord is endorsing schism.
He very clearly indicated that it is the individual worshiper participating in the Orthodox Liturgy who is effectively accepting and endorsing (or at the very least needlessly tolerating) schism.
Besides this, Our Lord is not “participating” in any Holy Mass or Divine Liturgy. He is wholly effecting the operation through the ministerial action (in persona) of the priest whether there be any worshiper present to “participate” or not.
And again, if the minimum standard is to be Our Lord’s (please excuse the expression) ‘mere presence’ in this sacrificial action – either the Mass or the Divine Liturgy – why all the pother of retaining the traditional Roman Rite? Why the resistance to the NO and all the rest of it? Why even bother being a traditional Catholic?
Let’s just imitate our Forefathers in 1969, and go along to get along.