It has come to my attention that some of the email/newsletters being generated by this blog are not reaching their intended recipients. This has been in large part due to technical reasons of the third party software/applications that are being used to generate this blog. I have been working diligently to avoid these problems.
It has also come to my attention that some email/newsletters have been reaching readers who have not subscribed, my presumption being that they are forwarded by other recipients. Please note that Venite Missa Est does not make use of mass mailing lists or mail to unsolicited email addresses. FYI: for those who have received this email/newsletter, we are online at http://venite-missa-est.blogspot.com/ if you were not aware.
One final housekeeping note: Since St. Anthony is the only local church celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass (EFLR) we are loosely centered around this parish but by no means in any way are we, this blog, an official voice of,or for, St. Anthony or the Diocese of Wichita. Venite Missa Est is strictly a private layman's endeavor....lest some of you find some content objectionable...don't get your socks in a knot.
Visiting Monk from Clear Creek Monastery
Pictures of Mass at St. Anthony
Father Bethel, a monk from Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma, offered the Latin Mass at St. Anthony's on Sunday, Feb. 22, and celebrated low mass on Saturday, Feb. 21. There are many pictures available for viewing in my public gallery: View all pictures of that mass here. Feel free to download and enjoy. Click on the pictures below for bigger views.
Douay-Rheims Bible: Online and Searchable
The site is fully functional and searchable and includes the 1989 Preface, writings entitled The One True Church, The Church & Her Enemies, Pope Leo's Encyclical and more.
A.M.D.G et B.V.M.H.
"To many this seemeth a hard saying: 'Deny thyself, take up thy cross, and follow Jesus.' But it will be much harder to that last word; 'Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.' For they who now love to hear and follow the word of the cross shall not then fear the sentence of eternal condemnation. This sign of the cross shall be in heaven when the Lord shall come to judge. Then all servants of the cross, who in their lifetime have conformed themselves to Him that was crucified, shall come to Christ their Judge with great confidence."
(from Book II, Chapter 12 of The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A'Kempis)
By James Akin
According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, "Lent is a preparation for the celebration of Easter. For the Lenten liturgy disposes both catechumens and the faithful to celebrate the paschal mystery: catechumens, through the several stages of Christian initiation; the faithful through reminders of their own baptism and through penitential practices" (General Norms 27).
Is Lent actually forty days long?
Are Sundays excluded from Lent?
Some people customarily allow themselves on Sunday to have things they have voluntarily given up for Lent, but since these forms of self-denial were voluntarily assumed anyway, a person is not under an obligation to practice them on Sunday (or any other specific day of the week).
Why is the season called Lent?
Why is Lent approximately forty days long?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "'For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning' [Heb. 4:15]. By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert" (CCC 540).
What are fast and abstinence?
Is there a biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of repentance?
Isn't abstaining from meat one of the "doctrines of demons" Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5?
We know that Paul has in mind those who teach sex and certain foods are intrinsically immoral because he tells us that these are "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. 4:3b-5).
Sex and all kinds of food are good things-which is why the Catholic Church has marriage for a sacrament and heartily recommends the practice eating to its members. This is why it is fitting for these things to be given up as part of a spiritual discipline. Thus Daniel gave up meat (as well as wine, another symbol of rejoicing), and Paul endorses the practice of temporary celibacy to engage in a special spiritual discipline of increased prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). By denying ourselves these good things we encourage an attitude of humility, free ourselves from dependence on them, cultivate the spiritual discipline of sacrifice, and remind ourselves of the importance of spiritual goods over earthly goods.
In fact, if there was an important enough purpose, Paul recommended permanently giving up marriage and meat. Thus he himself was celibate (1 Cor. 7:8). He recommended the same for ministers (2 Tim. 2:3-4) and for the unmarried in order to devote themselves more fully to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-34), unless doing so would subject them to great temptations (1 Cor. 7:9). Similarly, he recommended giving up meat permanently if it would prevent others from sinning (1 Cor. 8:13).
Since the Catholic Church requires abstinence from meat only on a temporary basis, it clearly does not regard meat is immoral. Instead, it regards it as the giving up of a good thing in order to attain a spiritual goal.
What authority does the Church have to establish days of fast and abstinence?
The Jewish Encyclopedia continues: "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.' . . . The various schools had the power 'to bind and to loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta'anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).
"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 8:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). In the same sense, [in] the second epistle of Clement to James II (Clementine Homilies, Introduction [A.D. 221]) Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: 'I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church'" (Jewish Encyclopedia 3:215).
Thus Jesus invested the leaders of this Church with the power of making halakah for the Christian community. This includes the setting of fast days (like Ash Wednesday).
To approach the issue from another angle, every family has the authority to establish particular family devotions for its members. If the parents decide that the family will engage in a particular devotion at a particular time (say, Bible reading after supper), it is a sin for the children to disobey and skip the devotion for no good reason. In the same way, the Church as the family of God has the authority to establish its own family devotion, and it is a sin for the members of the Church to disobey and skip the devotions for no good reason. Of course, if the person has a good reason the Church dispenses him.
In addition to Ash Wednesday, are any other days during Lent days of fast or abstinence?
All days in Lent are appropriate for fasting or abstaining, but canon law does not require it. Such fasting or abstinence is voluntary.
Why are Fridays during Lent days of abstinence?
Are acts of repentance appropriate on other days during Lent?
Why are acts of repentance appropriate at this time of year?
What are appropriate activities for ordinary days during Lent?
Is the custom of giving up something for Lent mandatory?
Why is giving up something for Lent such a salutary custom?
Is the denying of pleasure an end in itself?
Can we deny ourselves too many pleasures?
If we deny ourselves too much, it may deprive us of goods God gave us in order that we might praise him or decrease our effectiveness in ministering to others. It can also constitute the sin of ingratitude by refusing to enjoy the things God wanted us to have because he loves us. If a child refused every gift his parent gave him, it would displease the parent; if we refuse gifts God has given us, it displeases God because he loves us and wants us to have them.
Aside from Ash Wednesday, what are the principal events of Lent?
James Akin is senior apologist at Catholic Answers and a contributing editor of This Rock. His most recent book, The Salvation Controversy, will be published later this year.
Feb. 23, 2009 (CWNews.com)
Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cites a flawed understanding of Vatican II teachings and the influence of secular ideologies are reasons to conclude that-- as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 1985-- "the true time of Vatican II has not yet come." Particularly in the realm of the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith says, "The reform has to go on."
Archbishop Ranjith, who was called to the Vatican personally by Pope Benedict to serve as a papal ally in the quest to restore a sense of reverence in the liturgy, makes his comments in the Foreword to a new book based on the diaries and notes of Cardinal Fernando Antonelli, who was a key figure in the liturgical-reform movement both before and after Vatican II.
The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader "to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to an immediately following the Council." The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council's suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward in the key liturgical document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (doc).
Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes:
Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of "active participation."
The Sri Lankan prelate argues that it in order to carry out a "reform of the reform," it is essential to recognize how the liturgical vision of Vatican lI became distorted. He praises the book on Cardinal Antonelli for allowing the reader to gain a better understanding of "which figures or attitudes caused the present situation." This, the archbishop says, is an inquiry "which, in the name of truth, we cannot abandon."
While acknowledging "the turbulent mood of the years that immediately followed the Council," Archbishop Ranjith reminds readers that in summoning the world's bishops to an ecumenical council, Blessed John XXIII intended "a fortification of the faith." The Council, in the eyes of Pope John, was "certainly not a call to go along with the spirit of the times."
However, he continues, the Council took place at a time of great worldwide intellectual turmoil, and in its aftermath especially, many would-be interpreters saw the event as a break from the prior traditions of the Church. As Archbishop Ranjith puts it:
Basic concepts and themes like Sacrifice and Redemption, Mission, Proclamation and Conversion, Adoration as an integral element of Communion, and the need of the Church for salvation--all were sidelined, while Dialogue, Inculturation, Ecumenism, Eucharist-as-Banquet, Evangelization-as-Witness, etc., became more important. Absolute values were disdained.
Even in the work of the Consilium, the Vatican agency assigned to implement liturgical changes, these influences were clearly felt, the archbishop notes:
An exaggerated sense of antiquarianism, anthopologism, confusion of roles between the ordained and the non-ordained, a limitless provision of space for experimentation-- and indeed, the tendency to look down upon some aspects of the development of the Liturgy in the second millennium-- were increasingly visible among certain liturgical schools.
Today, Archbishop Ranjith writes, the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should "help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy." A much-needed "reform of the reform," he argues, should be inspired by "not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be."
Archbishop Ranjith's 10-page Foreword appears in the English-language edition of a book entitled True Development of the Liturgy is written by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, who serves on the staff of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It will be available in September from Roman Catholic Books.
The Baltimore Catechism
Lesson Sixth: On The Incarnation and Redemption
A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to
satisfy for man's sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven.
61. Q. Who is the Redeemer?
A. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind.
62. Q. What do you believe of Jesus Christ?
A. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true
God and true man.
69. Q. What do you mean by the Incarnation?
A. By the Incarnation I mean that the Son of God was made man.
70. Q. How was the Son of God made man?
A. The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb
of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
74. Q. On what day was the Son of God conceived and made man?
A. The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation day-the day on which the
angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.
75. Q. On what day was Christ born?
A. Christ was born on Christmas day in a stable at Bethlehem, over nineteen hundred years ago
By Grace at Spring Whimsy
Venite Missa Est! note: This young lady's blog popped up in my email (you can set up Google alerts to send emails to you about any given subject that shows up on the web, I have it set for "Traditional Latin Mass"). I post this not as official Church doctrine or as an aplogists source of information but because this young lady, at fifteen (from her profile) seems so focused and bright and her writing made a good read. That being said, accuracy of information is not verified by Ventie Missa Est.
In some passages it references that “only in faith...” yes, but the Protestants take it to a different level as in literally FAITH ALONE without works, without sacrifices. History is necessary to learn as a companion to studying the Bible. Back then, when the evangelists had written for the salvation of man to be by faith itself, he was correcting how the common thought of the salvation (or 'measure') of a man is by his riches. Throughout the Bible, you will see all of the evangelists mention our need to not only have faith, but practice it by sacrifice, penance, good works...etc.
The reason for Sola Scriptura’s not being biblical is because Martin Luther had said that one can take what he pleases out of the bible that does not suit his own liking, yet can put in or replace what he thinks suits. I was conversing with a “Sola Scriptura” Protestant earlier and they said to me: “That’s what I say it means, I’d like to know your opinion on the passage.” Here’s an example they argued with me:
John 3 :3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
They did not believe baptism with water and the spirit was necessary but just a “symbol”. Protestants take this literally, being born again, and then take it that when you have faith you may be born again in Christ or “free from sin”. But thus, one can not call themselves a follower of Christ, if they do not follow His teachings, but of “Sola Scriptura”.
Replying to them, I gave them this verse:
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
“Born again” newborns go through baptism to be cleansed of Original Sin which we all have inherited from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3). John the Baptist was baptizing people obviously in the river of water and blessed them. By ‘born again’ we are entering into a ‘new life in Christ’ after baptism. But thus, in the passage before this one, it says that one can not “see” the Kingdom of Heaven without being ‘born again’ and then it says below that one can not “enter” into the kingdom without ‘being born of the water and of the spirit’.
I am giving you this above argument because it shows how the Protestants with “Sola Scriptura” take the bible literally and as Martin Luther said, basically ignore or take out what they do not like. This in Martin Luther’s false doctrine is so very wide-spread. But one can not make his own doctrines!
1 Cor. 3:11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.
The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity.
Ephesians 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:21 In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. 22 In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.
This is truthfully stating that a visible church is indeed necessary, but One Church, the Catholic Church which has been since Jesus came as the New Covenant.
1 Peter 2:5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.
This is the calling again of a visible church, a holy priesthood to “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus”! So thus, indeed a visible Church is necessary and a holy priesthood. “Chief corner stone” whereas Peter interpreted is that stone, or he is also known as “Cephus” with a capital C which is “the Rock” which Jesus thus then named him “the Rock” to be head of Christ’s visible church. Thus, God is always head of the Church but both visible and invisible. Peter was made the first Pope therefore “all that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.”
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus told us to teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28: 19) to teach Christ’s religion (Matt. 28: 20) to offer the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ (John 22:19) to loose and bind (Matt. 18:18) to forgive sins (John 20:23) to exercise Christ’s own authority (John 20:21).
Therefore concluding that “Sola Scriptura” does not rely on the Word of God nor is it even biblical.