2015 Priest Ordination Mass

[@vabman2]

This was a wonderfully traditional Catholic Mass. I would have enjoyed hearing the choir singing in parts more. But, I believe the new order of mass was intended to be this versus some of what I've witnessed. It really wasn't that much different than Masses from St. Peter's in Rome, The National Shrine in Washington or many other great/traditional liturgies in churches across the world! Great job from a traditionalist!

[@huskers1ish]

The choir was singing in parts more. Especially choral songs only.

[@pagolukranthi9262]

great mystery

[@josephmusyoki9367]

GOD IS LOVE

[@clearjr1]

It appeared to me to be incongruous for the celebrant to place his back to the congregation while leading the liturgy. Pope Paul VI would be disappointed to see the backward trend.

[@HolyInquisition]

Actually, the Mass of Paul VI still expects the Priest to NOT face the People. This is how the Mass of Paul VI (also called the Novus Ordo) is meant to be celebrated. And it is not "backward". The Priest always faced East to face the Risen Christ. Paul VI wouldn't have been disappointed. He would, however, be very angry at what happens at Masses today, as indeed he was very angry at the abuses that took place after Vatican II. For example, he twice condemned the use of altar girls, and St. John Paul II banned them in Rome. So, actually, the narrative we've been given about Paul VI being "progressive" isn't actually true. He expected the Tradition of the Church to be maintained. Hence, Vatican II stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium that Latin would still be used in the Mass, and the Priest should teach the People how to respond in Latin. But, very few read Vatican II anymore, and spew out a bunch of nonsense and claim Vatican II allows it!

[@clearjr1]

Blessed Pope Paul VI was very aware of the changes in the liturgy he promulgated including the use of the vernacular and the greater participation of the congregation in the liturgy of the eucharist. Actually, the priest faces the altar now the same as he did under the Tridentine rite. It is the altar that has been turned around, not the priest. It makes more sense for the priest to face the altar and for the people to face it at the same time. This way we both face the altar just from different sides and participate in the sacrificial prayer together. I believe that if Jesus appeared in the 21st century in America he would accept our culture and include women as equals with men. Therefore, we would be reading about the apostolic mothers as well as the apostolic fathers. We see how well female priests function in the Anglo-Catholic and Episcopal churches today. It is unfortunate that the Polish saint banned women from the clerical state. In the future, a pope will have to amend that semi-dogma somehow like they did the former erroneous dogma: ex ecclesia, nulla salus.

[@HolyInquisition]

If that is the case, then why do the Rubrics in the Missal tell the Priest when to turn around to face the people, if he is already facing them? Examples: "The Priest genuflects, takes the Host and, holding it slightly raised above the Paten or above the Chalice, *while facing the people*, says aloud: Behold the Lamb of God, etc." And then later: "The Priest, *facing the altar*, says quietly.." If he's facing both the Altar and the people, then why make this distinction between the two? It makes no sense. He may have promulgate the use of the vernacular, but Vatican II required Latin to be taught to the People. Why do people not understand this?! The reason why the Priest faces East is because he leads the people in prayer and sacrifice, and to orientate the people toward Christ, Who will return from the East. This has been the tradition from time immemorial. The Mass is not there as a social gathering, nor to make one feel good. It is there to bring grace and salvation. St. John Paul II did not ban women from the Priesthood. He merely affirmed the 2,000 year old prohibition. The Church cannot allow women to the Sacerdotal Order because Christ never allowed women to join. If He did, His Mother would have been the first. And, please, don't come out with that tripe that Christ was following the social norms of the time. Christ associated with sinners, the sick and women, which wasn't a social norm for the Jewish people. So, He broke conventional norms, but not to the radical extent that you seem to think. I am a former Anglican and my parish had nothing but women priests. It was too much for me. Now, anyone is the Anglican Church who criticizes women priests or bishops is silenced and maligned. If that is the route you want to go down, then go over to them. If you want women only priesthood, go to them. On the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - it is not a "former" Dogma, because it's still in force, and to say it is erroneous is heresy. I suspect, like many people, you think that Dogma means only Catholics go to Heaven. Well, that understanding is wrong, and has been from the beginning. The Church has never taught that only Catholics go to Heaven. If She did, then why does she say that those who have not been baptised, but die with a desire for it, will receive the Beatific Vision. They are not yet Catholic because they have not received the Sacrament of Baptism, yet they are allowed into Heaven because of their desire to do what the Church does. This is called the Baptism of Desire. Also, if a person desiring baptism is martyred before baptism, they enter Heaven. This is known as the Baptism of Blood. Ordinarily, since only the Catholic Church [with exception to the Orthodox Churches] has valid Sacraments, we can therefore receive the grace necessary to enter Paradise. For a non-Catholic, they would have to be given a special grace to make a perfect act of Contrition, through which God will absolve their sins [which is ordinarily done by a Priest through the Sacrament of Penance], and allow them into Heaven. But, since the easy means of obtaining grace is by receiving the Sacraments, and only Catholics can receive them [again, with exception to the Orthodox], it stands to reason that salvation is only within the Church [and those outside who desire to join with Her], and most people who get to Heaven are Catholics. But, more, sadly, go to Hell, as Christ Himself told us. So, no. Catholics aren't the only people who go to Heaven, but on the other hand, more Catholics than non-Catholic get to Heaven because of the Sacraments given to us. I wouldn't be surprised if there were virtuous pagans in Heaven who lived a moral life before Christ came, as the Church Fathers believed. That is the true Mercy of God.

[@itsnando20]

Actually, the novus ordo said nothing about versus populum. In fact, he said that ad orientem was to be retained but many priests though "free standing altar" meant turn around.