From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Grace is a participation in the life of God” (CCC #1997).

“The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification” (CCC #1999).

“Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church” (CCC #2003).

“The term ‘merit’ refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment” (CCC #2006).

“The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit” (CCC #2008).

“Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us ‘co-heirs’ with Christ and worthy of obtaining ‘the promised inheritance of eternal life.’ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. ‘Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts’” (CCC #2009).

“Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life” (CCC #2010).

“The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace” (CCC #2011).

“The word ‘liturgy’ originally meant a ‘public work’ or a ‘service in the name of/on behalf of the people.’ In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in ‘the work of God.’ Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church” (CCC #1069).

“Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church ‘a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.’ The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are ‘consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood’” (CCC #1546).

“’In the name of the whole Church’ does not mean that priests are the delegates of the community. The prayer and offering of the Church are inseparable from the prayer and offering of Christ, her head; it is always the case that Christ worships in and through his Church. The whole Church, the Body of Christ, prays and offers herself ‘through him, with him, in him,’ in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. The whole Body, caput et membra, prays and offers itself, and therefore those who in the Body are especially his ministers are called ministers not only of Christ, but also of the Church. It is because the ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church” (CCC #1553).

“The liturgy then is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man’s sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members. From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree” (CCC #1070f).

Is literacy a necessity for holiness?

How about the mentally retarded or those lacking the senses of sight and sound?

Are these types of people robbed of this special liturgical grace? Are they less holy than a Novus Ordo do-gooder banging away at his tambourine or going into ecstasy flapping around like a dying trout?

What of children too young to participate in the mass, and fulfill their priestly function?

Perhaps we should wait until adulthood to baptism?

If we are being baptized into the Body of Christ and that requires a ministerial role, then why should infants be given a ministerial role through baptism? We don’t confer Holy Orders on infants, why should we baptize them? Why make them priests if they cannot be active members and fulfill the role required of their baptism? (Look how close is your logic to that of the protestants who hold this very notion that baptism should be denied to infants.)

You wordy Novus Ordo conflation of ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful is destroying the church. It’s what gave rise to all the leagues of women who are now running our churches and busy-bodies in the sanctuaries and church officers. Vatican II didn’t discover that we all share a priesthood in Christ. That’s been the teaching of the Church through the ages. So you Novus Ordonarians have taking this and run with it. Now we’ve laicized the clerics and clericalized the laity. It’s a mess screwed up and it’s because of your tripe.

It’s total Novus Ordo crap.

Mother Angelica condemned all that nonsense. Unfortunately with her departure from your sole Catholic knowledge base, the former-protestant charismatic Catholics who now dominate that network are trying to pass this stuff for the teachings of the Church.

Our traditional priest in Kansas City encourages everyone to participate. He said that we can add to the graces by participating, by singing the hymns, and all the rest. He encourages us pray at the offertory for our own special intentions that he, THE PRIEST, will offer to God the Father. The priest is the mediator, acting in the role of Christ.

You have a severe case of Nervous Disorder and you seem to get worse everyday. You become more and more disordered as time goes on.

Contrary to the hopes of the founders of this blog, it seems that their efforts at conversion are failing.

You are more resolute and fanatical in your Novus Ordoism than ever.

I should really say the priest represents the head of Christ, the faithful in the pews make up Christ’s members; this is in relation to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Showing Canon Law quotes regarding schism were entirely appropriate given the context of our discussion, since within those quotes it dealt with your inquiry (ie, “Can a Pope’s decision in an area in which he is possesses authority ever be criticized, and if so, by whom?”). It basically stated experts are able to form opinions on the liturgy so long as they submit to Church authority in what is licit/valid (that means accept it). The doctrinal inference was completely appropriate, in that it stated contradictory opinions in this area are to be avoided (and taken in the context of your inquiry, such doctrinal opinions would actually go hand in hand with the Dogma of Supreme Jurisdiction). But you, whiny as you are, did not even like my explicit statement that this is indirectly associated with the topic at hand (is it not?). The only thing I did insinuate that I could remember was that you never once stated explicitly “I accept” the reformed Latin rite liturgy, but that you believe in the Dogma of supreme jurisdiction of the Pope. Of course, you likened this Dogma to areas outside his jurisdiction, stating the hypothetical “what would you do if” blah blah blah stating you (as in me) would think the Pope was wrong. This, perhaps, is something that YOU did, not me; and thus my response was in fact justified. I never accuse you, but the Canon Law quotes accused you in some sense, perhaps (?). If it were not so it would be obvious you agreed with them.

Over the last ten years, I was in and out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia too and they were there in large numbers. (Native born Kuwaiti’s only make up less than 1% of the work force in Kuwait)

So the Filipinos do the work that the rich Arabs will not do, and many are sending more back home to support their families.

In 2003, a Catholic priest in Saudi Arabia told me that one of the Filipino daily mass attendees had had his small apartment broken into by Saudi authorities searching for contraband. They found it! For possessing a small papier-mâché crèche and a tiny copy of the Gospels, he was imprisoned for 30 days, beaten, and then deported.

johnboy,
The priest is SUPPOSED to be doing the liturgical actions! What the heck are you supposed to be acting out in the pew??? (Other than the kneeling/genuflection in the Credo and Last Gospel at the Incarnation parts) Not everyone attending a Tridentine is doing their own private devotions (though there is nothing wrong with that as we’ve been given a homily on). When children allow, I read along in the missal. When they don’t, I still know the mass enough to know what’s going on. Also, at high mass, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are sung…and the congregation can join in with the choir.(…you know, we even have opening and closing hymns - truly Catholic ones, not the “lets celebrate ourselves” type) I believe that would qualify as praying the liturgical prayers??? Being that many of these prayers are altered in NOM “hootenanies” to make entertaining songs out of them. These PRAYERS are doctored - the words are changed by the “music ministry” - I’m sorry what authority was given to them in what council, discipline, or dogma?????

“Darn! I missed this whole enlightening debate since I and the JSP family spent a 4-day weekend on an island in the Marmara Sea.”

Actually we spent an evening there and we were in a hotel on the mainland of Istanbul, JSP. :p

No, no, no. You don’t know what you are talking about. If you go to a normal Tridentine Mass, you will see people following along in their Missals (i.e. NOT praying private devotions), and saying some of the responses. That is active, conscious participation. Once again, what part of “Et cum spiritu tuo” don’t you understand? Do they pray their own devotions *as well*? Yes, just as I say Hail Marys at the Novus Ordo during the rare times of silence.

At one time perhaps the standard layman could only expect to pray private devotions throughout the Mass. Not so today, with facing page translation missalettes and more emphasis on the congregation following along, saying some of the responses (”Habemus ad Dominum,” etc.), etc. These developments arose prior to Vatican II and are not in anyway limited to the Novus Ordo. There were “dialogue Masses” using the Tridentine Mass. I’ve told you this some four times now. Recognize it, please. You won’t recognize it, because then your argument falls apart. “Active and conscious participation” neither necessitates nor justifies the Novus Ordo, period.

Furthermore, since postmodernism, modernism, and Protestantism all deny authentic hierarchy and sacrificial priesthood, a stronger emphasis on the role of the ordained priest is still a necessary buffer to these ideologies and heresies. Once again, Protestantism has not been defeated in the same way that Arianism once was. Hence, the Counter-Reformation sensibilities are still quite apt.

“I, as you’ve mentioned, never accused you of being disobedient per se.”

No, you didn’t accuse me of being disobedient “per se.” You just dishonestly insinuated it when you know that it is false and distracting. That is much worse.

I did get a chance to attend two Novus Ordo services on Sunday (I came into the end of the English Novus Ordo hootaneny too late, so I stayed on for the Italian one).

Actually the Italian was much better. No drums and guitar.

It was a little depressing to realize that this historic church, St. Anthony’s in Istanbul, probably witnessed hundreds of thousands of Traditional Holy Masses, with great saints, and possibly crusaders on their way to the Holy Land, in attendance.

I was imagining Gregorian chant echoing through the edifice and holy friars and knights in silent prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.

I was brought back to reality quickly, at the Novus Ordo English Mass there were at least 50 Phillipino girls in gospel choir robes shouting, clapping, and singing “Praise” music. As much as I hated the sight of those gospel robes on the girls, after mass ended they whipped them off to reveal shorts and halter-tops, as this loudly chatted away and carried-on in and around the sanctuary. They were obviously too filled with newly won liturgical graces to control themselves.

Seeing an irreverently done Novus Ordo (this is virtually a redundant statement, but I will refrain for the sake of Johnboy from saying that the Novus is ALWAYS irreverent) inside a great historic church is really depressing. It’s easier to deal with it in a modern church-in-the-round. The reality of what we’ve lost is just too striking in a place like St. Anthony’s.

(Sorry Iosphesus, no pictures. The reality of shepherding three small children through the sometimes mean and nasty streets of Istanbul precluded me bringing along a camera.)

I only attempted to address your inquiry…that being is it appropriate to criticize the Pope in matters pertaining to his legitimate authority. Apparently (per the Canon Law quotes) opinions of “experts” is ok so long as the “experts” accept the Popes teaching/decision. The other part dealt with doctrinal issues. Your comment apparently dealt with liturgical issues, however I came across this and noted it because it is somewhat related…but it states that differing opinions in DOCTRINAL matters are to be avoided. This I think helped to make sure the liturgical issue wasn’t somehow applied to doctrinal ones. I, as you’ve mentioned, never accused you of being disobedient per se. However, I did not recall you stating explicitly you accept the liturgical rites of the Novus Ordo (just that you accept the Pope has Supreme Jurisdiction in such matters). Now it’s clear to me. So good.

You haven’t established that the Tridentine Mass lacks “liturgical grace”

Liturgical grace is part of the fruits of the Mass which is obtained by the co-sacrificing of the people in the pews. The priest recieved this grace in the Tridentine Mass. The people in the pews were primarily devoid of this because they did not co-sacrifice through the active involvement in the liturgical prayers themselves. The Tridentine Mass was not designed for this because it specifically emphasized and made in practice the priest offering sacrifice for the people in the pews. The people in the pews’ involvement was not of intrinsic value to the liturgy, their involvement being satisfied by the altar servers. The Church at Vatican II wished to “resurrect” an active participation in the liturgical rights in order to gain access to this liturgical fruit by co-sacrificing with the priestsince we all possess the office of priesthood (distinct from the Sacramental element for ordained priests). The Novus Ordo makes explicit provisions so that the faithful in the pews has direct access to co-sacrificing in the Mass with the priest to obtain this liturgical grace completely.

I assure, the people at a Tridentine Mass are getting some grace from being there and following along

Yes, their grace is obtained predominantly through private devotions. The Church however makes it clear liturgical involvement is more efficacious grace-wise. Last time I went to the Tridentine Mass, I watched the priest do the liturgical actions while I prayed to myself. You see?

You don’t go far enough — this matter is not related to my comment at all. Nor is Canon 751, since you have not pointed out any instance in which I have committed a schismatic act. Please, please, clarify this — are you alleging something against me personally? That is my impression from what you write. If so, you are throwing in these completely extraneous matters in order to divert attention and leave the impression that I have said something against a doctrinal statement or committed a schismatic act. Don’t go down this dishonest path, please. And that is all it is — sheer dishonesty.

What does it mean to “accept” a liturgical reform, anyway? I accept that the Novus Ordo was promulgated and that it is is a rite of the Church. It was instituted by a misguided decision. I see nothing, anywhere, in what you cite that says I need to like what the Pope does, or approve of his judgment. I don’t like it, but I bear it as a cross.

Here’s a trendy, “ecumenical” example. The Eastern Rite Catholics “accepted” the latinization of their Rites until they could convince the Pope that he was wrong to have instituted these pointless reforms. For centuries they used latinized rites when they yearned for purely Byzantine, Coptic, Aramaic, etc. Rites. I put up with the Novus Ordo but await the day when it is gone. You still refuse to address my counter-examples, because your case would fall apart if you did.

You simply can’t admit that the Pope can make a mistake and that his subjects are permitted to point this out. That is what Canon 218 says, and that alone proves my case. You may not think that the traditionalist critique is prudent; I beg to differ. So you’re left with your own private judgment of our prudence. Thank you for your opinion, Johnboy, but I disagree.

“liturgical grace (I’ve already established the Tridentine does not have much if any of this)”

You’re completely off-base. You haven’t established that the Tridentine Mass lacks “liturgical grace” — where are you even getting this term? There is no 8th sacrament of “active and conscious liturgical participation.” I assure, the people at a Tridentine Mass are getting some grace from being there and following along, i.e. NOT from personal devotions. If you don’t realize this, it is because of your lack of familiarity with the Old Latin Mass, and nothing more. For that, you have my pity, sir.

“I do not per my previous discussion, and by default do not wish to talk about those differences.”

Of course you don’t — once you do talk about them, the Novus Ordo must come up short. You focus on only one aspect of the Mass, one aspect which — for the last time — is not unique to the Novus Ordo and which is used in some versions of the Latin Mass. Some congregations do in fact engage in some “dialogue” in Latin with the priest. So you still have not established the superiority of the Novus Ordo — “active participation” can and is present in some Latin Masses. What part of “Et cum spiritu tuo” don’t you understand?

There is no point in further debate. Having exhausted legitimate avenues, such as the value of saying responses, you resorted to the dishonest tactic of giving the impression that I, and by extension other traditionalists, have done something wrong without making any explicit allegation. That is all that your citation of canons 751-2 proves — your own desperation.

Canon Law 218 states: “Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church.”

Canon Law 751 states: “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

Canon Law 752 states: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

The first two quotes from Canon Law infer that you must submit to the actual decision of the Pope in his exercise of supreme jurisdiction. This does not mean agree that the Pope has authority to say this or that per se. It means to submit to his authority in a particular decision relating to his exercise of supreme jurisdiction. That means what he states in such matters must be accepted by you. Though not directly associated with your comment, the last quote from Canon Law simply states that the faithful Catholic must avoid holding opinions contrary to even non-infallible doctrines on faith and morals issued by the Holy Father or college of Bishops united to him.

To conclude: It appears you’re striving to be a faithful Catholic, but need to state clearly that you accept the liturgical rites of the Novus Ordo rather than stating you believe the Pope has jurisdiction in such matters. The latter seems like some psychological aversion.

you declined to maintain the charge that the Novus Ordo is essentially superior to the Tridentine Mass. You did this when you stated that you were not really interested in debating the positives and negatives of the respective rites

I stated one reason the Novus Ordo is superior to the Tridentine Mass was due to the liturgical graces obtained from active liturgical participation in the rites themselves. I am not really interested in debating the positives and negatives of the Novus Ordo in relation to the Tridentine because those are matters which don’t necessarily deal with liturgical grace (I’ve already established the Tridentine does not have much if any of this), but often boil down to subjects of preference regarding a proper “climate” for private prayer at the Tridentine Mass. I agree, however, that many Novus Ordo Masses forget the silence, beauty, and seriousness of Mass…I could go on and on. Perhaps you feel such things make the amount of graces more efficacious in the Tridentine; I do not per my previous discussion, and by default do not wish to talk about those differences.

Of course. Whatever is not in conformity to those areas of which the Pope has Supreme Jurisdiction.

The limits, as I referred to, are succinctly listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

What do you mean? That was your *starting-point* — you said that the Novus Ordo was more efficacious than the Tridentine Mass. Are you abandoning your original claim? Then I win.