Denver, Colo., Aug 29, 2019 / 03:30 am (CNA).- When the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to the English Carmelite, St. Simon Stock, she carried the Carmelite scapular in her hand and told him: “This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this garment shall be saved.”
Some 300 years later, by the 16th century, a smaller version of the Carmelite scapular, known today as the Brown Scapular, was made available to lay Catholics who underwent a small ceremony and blessing that enrolled them as a member of the Brown Scapular Confraternity.
The scapular, carrying the powerful promise of escaping hell, remains a popular devotion today.
But scapulars can be awkward under certain types of clothes or simply easy to forget in the morning. So, could a well-intentioned Catholic already enrolled in the Brown Scapular Confraternity get a tattoo of the image of the scapular on their skin and receive those same graces and promises?
CNA asked; theologians and priests answered.
The short answer is: no. But, you might not want to write off tattoos completely. There is a bit more to it than that.
“It seems the answer is quite simply, no,” Dr. Mikail Whitfield, a professor of theology at Benedictine College in Atchinson, Kansas, told CNA.
The reasons for this have to do with the way the Catholic Church defines sacramentals, and the nature of tattoos, he added.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sacramentals are “sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.”
The Catechism adds that sacramentals “do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.”
Sacramentals are not just objects, such as brown scapulars or Miraculous Medals, but the Catechism notes that blessings, of people, objects, meals and places, are primary among the sacramentals.
The Miraculous Medal is a sacramental inspired by the Marian apparition to St. Catherine Laboure in Paris in 1830. On one side it features an image of Mary, and on the other, a cross with an “M” underneath it, surrounded by 12 stars and the images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Canon law defines sacramentals as “sacred signs by which effects, especially spiritual effects, are signified in some imitation of the sacraments and are obtained through the intercession of the Church” (Can 1166).
“Thus, for something to be a sacramental it needs to be a common object (or act) which can act as a sacred sign, which carries some imitation of the sacraments and is set aside by the Church as a means to seek grace,” Whitfield said.
The scapular, in its smaller form used by laypeople, imitates the full-length scapulars worn by members of religious orders, is a piece of wool clothing with is a common object, and imitates the vestments worn at baptism and by priests, Whitfield said.
Tattoos, on the other hand, lack many of these elements.
“While a tattoo is a thing, it is hard to consider it an object. It is more properly an image, though admittedly images can be sacred Furthermore, it is certainly not a ‘common object’ of daily life by which we can be reminded that all the things we do in this life, even the simplest things like wearing clothing, are supposed to be ordered towards our heavenly end,” Whitfield said.
Furthermore, he added, tattoos do not seem to imitate any other sacramental aspects of the Church, and they have not been set aside by the Church as sacramentals themselves.
In fact, the Catholic Church has not made any definitive statements on the morality, or lack thereof, of getting tattoos, and so answers to questions about tattoos vary widely among theologians and priests.
“I don’t think we can talk about tattoos as something good,” said Fr. Luis Granados, D.C.J.M, who serves as the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Chair of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney theological seminary in Denver.
“They are not ‘intrinsically evil’ but they are wrong ways of treating our body,” he said, even if a tattoo is religious in its image or messaging.
“The problem of a tattoo is…we are misunderstanding the meaning of the body,” he said. “Our body is called to be accepted as a gift from God. We can heal what is sick, but we are called to accept our body, with its characteristics.”
Adornments of the body, such as makeup or nail polish, are different because they are not permanent changes to one’s body, Granados said.
“I think the question to understand why a tattoo is wrong, is: Why do I want to get a tattoo? Why do I want to spend this money and to some extent risk my health? My body has been wonderfully created by God (Psalm 139) and it does not need my additional words. It already speaks,” he said.
However, in some parts of the world, there are deeply rooted traditions of Christian tattoos. Some Coptic Christian churches require that Christians must have a tattoo of a cross on their arm in order to be admitted into their churches.
One Coptic Christian family has been tattooing pilgrims to the Holy Land with crosses and other religious symbols as a token of their visit for more than 700 years.
Seeing a priest or a religious sister or brother with tattoos may become a more common occurrence as well, because according to a 2015 Harris Poll, a whopping 47% of millennials reported that they have at least one tattoo.
Br. MJ Groark O.F.M. Cap., is one of those millennials, and is “heavily tattooed.”
“As a millennial (and soon to be priest), I can tell you that my tattoos have been generally met with overwhelming generosity. I have a heck of a conversion story, and these are part of it,” he told CNA.
“I can tell you that God is calling many men and women from this generation into ministry, and a whole bunch of us have tattoos. It’s part of our generation’s way of expressing our lives, and increasingly, our spiritual beliefs,” he said.
Groark said that considering what he learned in his moral theology training, he thinks the morality of a tattoo lies in its meaning.
“…the human person is created imago Dei (in the image of God). We are indeed temples of the Holy Spirit. And like the temples of old, and the temples we continue to worship at, we are somehow lured by the Catholic imagination to decorate and to magnify the beauty of our spaces,” he said.
“As long as a tattoo points towards the true, the good, and the beautiful, I’m okay with it. If it does not, then there would be a question of the morality.”
Father Ambrose Dobrozsi is another tattooed millennial priest in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio. Dobrozsi told CNA that he did not think tattoos could not be considered sacramentals in the strict, proper sense of the word.
“Sacramentals, used well, keep us close to the grace of Christ given to us in the seven sacraments, and receive their graces by the authority that Christ gives his bride, the Church, when she asks for his help. When the Church asks Christ for graces, He never refuses his bride,” he said.
“This means that sacramentals only work when they are done according to the rules of the Church. If we want to ask Christ for these graces, we need to make sure we do so authentically as the Church, obediently accepting the rules she sets down. It’s clear in Canon Law that the Apostolic See alone has the authority to establish sacramentals and define the criteria for their use [c. 1167],” Dobrozsi said.
However, he added, it is possible that tattoos could be “sacramentals” in a broader sense of the word.
“A permanent image, engraved on the skin, could certainly serve as a constant, physical reminder of our new life in Christ. The image of a rosary, a cross, or other sacramental on our skin could lead us frequently to pray, to desire the seven sacraments more, and to think and act in communion with the Church,” he said.
“So, while a tattoo could not fulfill the requirements to be a proper sacramental in itself, if used in discernment and good faith it could certainly provide similar benefits and be helpful in the pursuit of holiness.”
Whitfield said that another reason that a tattoo would not be a proper scapular is because “an image is not the thing it images.”
“A picture of Michelangelo’s Pietà is not the same as seeing it in person. And standing in front of his sculpture pales in comparison to those who stood at the cross and saw Mary in person holding Christ’s lifeless body in her arms. The thing is always greater than the image. So, not only is a tattoo of the scapular not the scapular, but there’s some question of why it would be preferable; its an image of the thing, not the thing itself,” he said.
The Church already provides Catholics with an alternative to the traditional, woolen brown scapular through the wearing of a Miraculous Medal, which was approved by the Church as a substitute for the scapular in 1910.
“Why? In certain tropical and subtropical areas of the world the use of a scapular had been identified as impractical. High levels of sweat would cause scapulars to break down and deteriorate at such a rate that they were hard to maintain. Because of this, the Miraculous Medal was permitted by the Church to be worn in lieu of the scapular,” Whitfield said.
Is it possible, then that the Catholic Church could extend through its authority the same graces and promises of the scapular to a tattoo of the scapular?
“Aside from the fact that as we’ve seen, tattoos do not seem to be of the nature to appropriately be a sacramental, I have a hard time seeing a practical purpose why such an extension should or would be made,” he said.
Part of the appeal of a scapular tattoo, as previously mentioned, is its permanence – someone with a scapular tattoo would not have to remember to put their scapular back on every morning when they got dressed.
But that remembrance is important, Whitfield said, and a one-time commitment “is not how the Christian life is lived.”
“Each and every day we recommit to the God whom we love. Even those who take permanent vows must choose to live them out each day. It is a daily struggle, and choosing to affirm that wearing the scapular is as important to me today as it was yesterday is part of the very commitment that one makes in putting it on,” he said.
Ultimately, Whitfield said, because God is all-powerful, he could decide to extend the graces of the scapular to someone with a scapular tattoo, but he is not bound to do so, as they are not the same as the sacraments of the Church.
“Sacramentals are reminders and holy practices which dispose us to grace, and through them we believe that God gives further graces by the will of his divine mercy,” Whitfield said.
“(God) has not bound himself to giving graces through sacramentals in the same way he has in the sacraments. So, might he be able to will to give the same graces to someone with a tattoo as someone who wears the scapular? He certainly could, but having the tattoo doesn’t mean he will.”
[…]
German Archbishop authorizes blasphemous dance at ancient cathedral:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/05/30/fowl-behavior-chickens-in-diapers-dance-performance-at-westphalia-cathedral-blasted-as-blasphemous/
Chickens in Diapers and half-naked men Dance Performance at Westphalia Cathedral Blasted as ‘Blasphemous’
The question for Martin is this: Have the sheep abandoned the shepherd? Jesus told us that he knows the sheep and the sheep know him. It seems to me that the crisis in that diocese is less about the Tridentine manner of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the full frontal assault on the liturgical sensibilities of the worshipping community in the diocese of Charlotte. Standing v. kneeling, mantillas v. barehead, and on and on. It’s all so arbitary. What’s important is that we do God’s will, proclaim the Gospel to the world and seek the kingdom.
A delay of five months is delaying the inevitable. Trads simply need to accept and live with the reality that Traditionis Custodes requires bishops to phase out the use of the 1962 Missal.
The bishop’s reversal will probably convince trads that if they make a big enough stink, then they can get their way. That’s not true. The Roman Rite is now in the form of the Third Edition of the 1970 Roman Missal: i.e., the reformed Mass. The TLM is going away, as it should, because that’s what Vatican II decreed when it called for the liturgical books to be revised.
Miss Dorothy, should we refer to other Catholic Christians as “Trads “?
I see a lack of charity on all sides of the issue. Catholic means universal and there’s room for diversity in rites and liturgies.
Let’s model charity and respect towards each other please.
They call themselves trads with pride; it’s not derogatory. Besides, Dorothy is right that the TLM should have the plug pulled. There is no place for a pre-Vatican II liturgy in a post-Vatican II Church. The TLM is not liurgical diversity; it’s liturgical backwardism. The Roman Rite has evolved.
Sebastien, do you think similarly about the Byzantine Rites?
I think we should all consider charity more seriously in commenting. Myself included.
mrscracker, yours are universally, always the most charitable of comments.
My thinking seconds Mr. Meynier’s.
Did we ever think we’d live to see the day? Liturgical ressourcement is now portrayed as backward!?!
Seabass and Dot would pull the plug on Jesus’ liturgical practices! After all, he lived a very long time ago. Even paper had not been invented then. Design and development have EVOLVED. We know more today than the mork trads of yesteryear. Down with tradition, no matter its stem, root, source or foundation.
Sebastian, your comment reveals that you are unaware (perhaps due to living in a news bubble rather than lack of Christian princple) that Pope Francis practiced clericalis, presumption, and hypocrisy when it comes to accompaniment and dialog for those he did not understand and was inclined to be judgmental toward. He was a man of deep empathy and compassion, but not with the consistency of a saintly pope. George Wiegel, who is exlusively Novus Ordo and does not care for the TLM, points out that Traditiones Custodes is “cruel and unnecessary”. When you get into the details you will realize that TC is based on lies as well as being a way of promoting Vatican II by betraying Vatican II. I pray that Pope Francis was manipulated, and was a victim of the lies rather than an architect.
Excellent comments, Mrscracker! You are right on!
“Bishop Martin is Out of Touch”
https://firstthings.com/bishop-martin-is-out-of-touch/
Perhaps the TLM saves more souls, brings the sinner closer to Jesus; has that been considered?
Are we to just look like the Protestant brands?
SWhatDorothy said was nonsensical. The Church still allows the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, Anglican Use, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Maronite (Antiochene) Rites, and more. Pope Benedict XVI was clear that the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms were two forms of the SAME Roman Rite. He also said they could help each – there were some minor changes to the Tridentine, for example – it is NOT pure Tridentine.
Yes, but — for example — the Mozarabic rite does not have the legal fiction of an ordinary form and an extraordinary form: there is one Mozarabic rite. Same with the other rites. Similarly, there is one Roman Rite: the post-Vatican II evolution of the Roman Rite, which is the Missal of Paul VI.
There are approved “uses” of the Roman Rite, but they all follow the post-Vatican II form of the rite. The TLM cannot be considered a “use” of the Roman Rite nor a “form” of the *current* Roman Rite (Pope Benedict was wrong). The TLM is properly understood as a prior liturgical form of the Roman Rite, a form that has been superseded by the new form: the Missal of Paul VI.
That’s exactly what trads like about it: that it is preconciliar, because at heart the trads reject the reforms of Vatican II.
The permissions to celebrate the TLM have their origin in pastoral concessions to avoid schism, not in the intent to preserve the celebration of the TLM in perpetuity. Trads have wrongfully turned a temporary pastoral concession into a hope for perpetual indulgence of their preconciliar proclivities.
Pope Benedict was a careful scholar who studied and wrote on the Divine Liturgy. Pope Francis was often rash and rarely a nuanced thinker (though he had some good ghostwriters). As Father Stravinskas has pointed out the Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite Mass with parts removed and some parts added. Basically, it is to the TLM what a movie adaptation is to a classic novel. When staying close to Sacrosanctum Concilium it can be a quite adequate and satisfying abridegment. But as you know, some movie adaptations are both unfaithful and horrid messes. Pope Francis was much less zealous about fixing actual abuses; one hopes that only his mind and not his heart was in the wrong place.
Rads have wrongfully turned episcopal power into a hope for perpetual eradication of their postconciliar proclivities.
FIFY, you’re welcome.
Yes. Many rites, one Faith.
No, Dorothy, we “Trads” do not have to accept and live with the reality that TC requires bishops to phase out the TLM. The bishops (and you) need to accept and live with the reality of Pope Pius V’s Quo Primam Tempore. Read it and you will see that Traditiones Custodus is invalid and anathema.
Quo Primum was a liturgical directive that bound the Church at that point in time, and was understood to be in force in perpetuity until a subsequent change occurred by a future pope. It was an ecclesiastical law, not a Divine law. It set policy for worship, but was not a definition of faith in and of itself. “Trads” have used this document (especially the SSPX) to further their argument as proof that the Tridentine Mass can never disappear or be limited because it is necessary for salvation to the exclusion of the so-called Novus Ordo Mass. But Tradition is not more important than the living authority of Christ via His Church. Like it or not, the OF form of the Mass is an acceptable and valid form of worship. To claim otherwise is private judgment and Protestant in spirit.
Everything you wrote can be applied to Traditiones Custodus.
Given that “Trads” (I note this is used as invective, especially if you are part of the FBI-are you part of the FBI?) are the ones doing the marrying and having children, perhaps they should be accommodated.
If it was up to me, I’d allow both forms. If it fifty or a hundred years, we see a growing, pious and faithful Church because of Novus Ordo, even if the music is guitars and flutes-so be it.
But if the TLM is what fills pews, so be it.
I agree Pitchfork. But I also have qualms about both forms being in competition with each other. I like the premise of the EF being preserved, and people having a choice, but I dislike the outcome of one eventually winning and the other losing. Which in effect means we all lose. The EF was never intended to remain in force, it was to be phased out. And many adherents weaponize it to discredit Vatican II. On the other hand, we are all too familiar with the lousy implementation of the OF and all the satellite nonsense surrounding it, crummy music being at the top of my personal list. Traditionis Custodes is the last current document in effect and until Leo or a future pope changes it, it should be accepted.
Did you see Pope Leo XIV talk to the Eastern Catholic Patriarch after the Conclave? He said their ancient orthodox rite was beautiful and should continue on. If the Eastern Catholics can have their ancient rite, then why can’t we have our also ancient Latin rite? What’s the difference?
Looking back on the last 69 years, 60+ of which I can remember, including starting as an altar boy, and choir boy, in the ancient Mass, and having lived through the ugly, brute force NO implementation, and over the last 30 years reading deeply and widely about the “reform of the Mass,” and the “reform of the reform,” it seems that the plan of the Church establishment is to commit cultural suicide.
Chris, we might paraphrase Orwell’s famous 1984 quote:
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a Novos Ordo boot stamping on the Latin Mass forever ?
Neither form of the Mass are the enemy though. This is about fallen human nature, not liturgical preferences.
Too true, alas. I have no idea why the Tridentine Mass went from the visible symbol of Catholicism’s universality–the thing that made a Catholic feel at home no matter where he was–to the epitome of liturgical evil. And, of course, made thd Catholics who still cherish it outcasts in their own Church…
The answer is simple: the liturgical reforms of Vatican II changed the form of the Mass for the whole Roman Church. The new form of the Mass is the current liturgical form to which all Roman Catholics are expected to adhere. The TLM is the former, preconciliar form of the Mass, which has been superseded by the conciliar mandate to revise the liturgical books and the subsequent promulgation of those books.
I don’t understand why trads can’t understand that simple logic. Nor why they won’t accept Vatican II.
Sebastian, in an effort to help you to understand why trads can’t understand “that simple logic” I suggest that you read Quo Primum Tempore. You will understand quite clearly that the TLM cannot be abrogated or suppressed. It is there for all to read.
It’s time for all Roman Rite Catholics who care deeply about reverent liturgies to switch affiliation from the Roman Rite to the Anglican Rite or any of the multitude of Byzantine Rites.
The Roman Rite extant in 1960 worked for the vast majority of Catholics and churches were filled to the brim. That “good-enough” Roman Rite was tossed aside and now only about 19% of Catholics attend the new rite Masses on a regular basis. Draw your own conclusions.
The New Mass, written by a committee which included Protestants, did not follow the guidelines of Vatican II in many ways. The Council Fathers wanted minor changes, such as perhaps the scripture readings in the vernacular and perhaps the congregation joining the priest in the Our Father, but not the wholesale tearing up and starting over (in large part) of the resulting mass. They definitely wanted the Roman Canon to remain as it was, and always to be in Latin. Now there are at least 8 Eucharistic prayers, one of which is mostly the Roman Canon. Depending on the whim of the priest, there is almost infinite variety in the new mass, and complete uniformity in the old rite.
“I don’t understand why trads can’t understand that simple logic. Nor why they won’t accept Vatican II.”
Have you read the documents which outline Novus Ordo, I mean HOW it must be celebrated? It clearly states such rules as priests facing the same direction as parishioners is a major choice; Gregorian chant is a major choice; silences and solemnity and so on. I do not go to TLM but two things are clear to me:
1 – Novus Ordo can and must be celebrated according to the actual prescribed rules (see above)
2 – the reforms of the Vatican II were overtaken and “interpreted” by the people who want to worship themselves instead of God. And so, when you speak about NO which “superseded” TLM and thus must be accepted, you in fact speak of its narcissistic “interpretation”. Alas, the possibility of such an interpretation, up to sacrilege, seems to be inherent in some aspect of the NO. It probably shows that the Church must not allow a choice when it is a liturgical matter; too many priests take it as a license to perform and improvise, making the worship impossible. The very predictability, word after word and solemnity makes Mass universal i.e. belonging to everyone. When you are free from a fear of “improvisations” bordering on sacrilege you actually can pray. This is why, I think, people appreciate the Latin Mass.
The God-orientation of TLM, so often being compromised by NO, is, I believe, the major reason why it is being suppressed. NB: Novus Ordo also has the God-orientation and can be done splendidly, but it is far easier to “bring it down” to the level of “us, beloved”.
I was a young adult around the time of Vatican II. While the vernacular Mass was instituted worldwide, the Tridentine Mass was not abolished, and in fact was to continue to have a place in the Church. There is no particular reason why Mass in both forms cannot continue to be accepted. But it is the intensity of its rejection that I find especially troubling.
Jo-Anne, the TLM was never hated as much since 1789. Today’s freemasons can idly watch on, as the post-conciliar-catholic bishops finish the work of the 18th century Luciferian sects for them. The devil hates latin…
IMO this is the first real test for our new Pope.
Let’s hope and PRAY that he passes.
Terence; Sadly, whatever he decides will never please all. He doesn’t have a chance of passing “the test”, for there is no correct answer.
Br. Jaques. I think there IS an answer. As with all other PROTESTANTS , they can leave, cross the Tiber and join their Vatican II deniers on the other side.
Please define what a “Vatican II denier” means. It was a legitimate council of the Church, and a legitimate disaster for the Faith. Does that make me a denier? According to every study I have seen, 67% of Catholics attending Mass today deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist. How does that fit into your “denial” litmus test?
Agree
Pope Benedict XVI on the Traditional Latin Mass:
‘What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Pope Benedict XVI used his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum to affirm the use of the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) alongside the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo). He stated that the TLM was not “forbidden” but should be honored and preserved as part of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition. He also emphasized that the Tridentine Mass was not a “faulty” Mass and was valid and could be celebrated freely by priests.
YES! Also, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
“What happened AFTER THE COUNCIL was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came FABRICATED LITURGY. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a MANUFACTURING PROCESS–with a FABRICATION, A BANAL ON-THE-SPOT PRODUCT.” [Emphases added.]
~From the Preface to the French Edition of “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background.”
He’s not the pope anymore. He was overturned by Pope Francis. He was also wrong. You’re quoting a document that is obsolete. You have to do better than that.
Francis too is no longer the pope, so by your logic, are his documents not also obsolete?
Also, what relevance does Scripture hold under your understanding of obsolescence?
Finally, what authority gives you the right to claim that Benedict was wrong?
Finally, no one ‘overturned’ Benedict. A successor pope simply chose to dishonor the beauty, truth, wisdom, and goodness of some of Benedict’s work. QED.
It’s not a court decision.
What is accomplished by the delay if the end result is to cancel Latin Mass there anyway? I am not a Latin Mass attendee, have not been to one in 50 years, but I dont see what harm is done by allowing people to worship at what had been a legitimate form of Catholic Mass for thousands of years. Who are they bothering?? Except of course, the control freaks, of which this Bishop appears to be one. Its my opinion that this Bishop has already squandered what little good will he had among the members of his diocese, and he will be ineffective going forward. He appears to have been primarily an administrative type before this assignment and it shows in his “my way or the highway” attitude. Would not be in his diocese for anything, nor would I donate a dime while he was still in power.
This type cant admit the installation of V2 changes heralded large scale damage to the church. The effect of fleeing clergy, non-church going parishioners, drop in donations, and flat out stripped, ugly churches resulted in damage to the Church which is felt to this day, decades later.
I come from a long line of Protestants. If I wanted to pray in a stripped down church devoid of inspiration , I could select from any number of denominations. Our parish church says the “Lamb of God” response in Latin during lent. So far no one has died from the experience . I would not mind keeping a touch of Latin all year round. It adds a bit of special beauty to the liturgy.
My parish church is primarily done in marble and which was too expensive to remove during the V2 tragedy. Thats why it survives to this day. Beautiful. The interior looks traditional and yet a reverent NO Mass is offered there. For us it works. But I think traditionalists should be free to attend a Latin Mass if they want to.
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Clown Masses”? (we had those in our parish church in Ridgefield, CT).
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Balloon Masses”? (we had those too).
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Religious Sisters doing interpretive dance in the center aisle”? (saw that at a Jubilee celebration at the Motherhouse of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Wilton CT)
BUT “NO” TO COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE!!!!
(BTW, I’m not one who attends to Extraordinary Form )
It is truly sad that this Mass was ever let go! I grew up with it, as did so many, and they took it away! We always had translations in our St. Joseph Daily Missal! WE HAD TO CHANGE!!! Bishop Martin needs to see the many folks who attend this Mass at Our Lady of Grace, Greensboro! I appreciate his delay, but he really should reconsider his decision! It is truly a beautiful, well attended Mass! In my opinion, it should remain! Many young families attend every Sunday! We are all praying for Bishop Martin and for ourselves that we will grow closer to Christ! Thankyou!
Every argument that traditionalists use for the TLM has its exact counterpart among LGBTs who want gay marriage blessed by the church.
We just want to worship/love the way we want.
The church is persecuting us, a minority.
Why won’t the church just listen to us about our experience?
This is how we connect with God.
There should be room for diverse expressions of faith in the church.
The church does not have the authority to ban our worship/our love.
I’m going to do what I want anyway, regardless of what the church says.
Et cetera.
Wake up call.
I’d be very interested if you could state the source of your belief that traditionalists think such as you’ve listed. How does continuing in a state of make-believe differ from living a lie?
You might try better reading material:
The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy (Revised and Expanded Edition), by Martin Mosebach.
Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed, by Peter Kwasniewski, Ph.D.
A Forest of Symbols: The Traditional Mass and Its Meaning, by Abbé Claude Barthe, translated by David J. Critchley, with a Foreword by Robert Cardinal Sarah.
Bolderdash, Amy. Absolute bolders.
There is no link what-so-ever between sacred apostolic tradition being trashed and the promotion of sodomy and alphabet derivitives. No link, other than this: the novos Ordo protestants are also the pro-sodomites.
It would seem to me that what would suffice is a concise letter or homily reminding the Faithful that they should not assume attendance at a Latin Mass confers greater individual holiness or superior spirituality. However, in my experience, attendees do tend to show greater reverence, and it is a beautiful Mass. Personally, I am more drawn to the centrality of the Eucharist.
Martin’s restrictions included: “Neither an upright crucifix nor fixed candles may be placed on the altar, lest they interfere with the sight-lines of the congregation.”
Bishop Martin ‘sees’ a crucifix or a source of light on the dining table interfering with vision! Does he not understand irony?
He obviously prefers the congregants not to be reminded of the light of the world nor of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
Personally, I remember the last meal and the bold details of the deathbed of my dear mother.
This priest/bishop Martin is clueless regarding the riches of vision and memory as they pertain to the Lord.
Jesus: “But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. ~Matthew 13:16-19.
Good Jesus, have Mercy on us, and deliver us from evil.
I remember the lighting in the room where my mother died.