When Will This Division End?!!!

[PaxCordisJesu]

Okay guys, I'm here to rant..  I really need to get this out of my system, so forgive me if this post is long and/or unintelligible! 

Just today I overheard someone saying some very nasty things about someone else, for no other reason than that they like the TLM. And I was like "what the heck is wrong with you?" I've seen so much if this, I am sick and tired of people hating on each other because they attend a different liturgy!!! Who cares! We're all Catholic and share the same beliefs, right? What does it matter if someone has different preferences? Both the OF and EF Forms of the Roman Rite are valid,good, and beautiful. In essence, they are the exact same thing: the Sacrifice on Calvary!! Why do people fight over these two liturgies? No one hates the Byzantines because they have a different liturgy. It's not just NO goers hating the TLM, I've seen it go both ways and to extremes... though I do believe the Latin Massers are generally a lot more charitable in the way they treat others. I've never felt judged when, at a TLM, I haven't worn a veil, or I have shown up in pantaloons. Yet I've heard very close friends openly make fun of the way traddie girls usually dress (long skirts, no makeup, veils). And it hurts, it really does!! How is it that so many Catholics have allowed us to become divided like this, and over such trivial matters? I can't stand it, I have seen so much hating in my life. It's bullying, and it's wrong! Is this ever going to end? In the early Church, Christians were known as "the sweet ones" because they're love for one another was so evident. Why can't we go back to that? 

Okay, when I get the chance later I'm going to come back and post more on this subject. For now I have to go.

[Credo in Deum]

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No. 

I wouldn't say the matters are trivial.  Our outward expressions of the spiritual realities of our Faith matters a lot more than you think, especially to those visiting a Mass.  

Let's take an example: Our belief that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Imagine you're not Catholic but you heard Catholics believe this and you go and visit a Latin Rite Mass. 

OF: People standing single file usually being handed a host, sometimes receiving on the tongue, but not just by the priest but also by laity. 

EF: People kneeling at the altar rail, hands tucked under a cloth, with a server holding a golden paten under the priests hand as he places the host on the tongue of each person receiving. 

Which one best expresses the reality of the Eucharist? 

Now I know some will say "but the OF can have that kind of reception too!" and I would say, yes, and yet they don't.  Why not?  Could it be the Liturgy maybe? 

At the EF it is their standard.  Why is that? Could it be the Litugry maybe? 

 

[PaxCordisJesu]

22 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No. 

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The NO Mass is good in its essence (it is the Sacrifice of Calvary renewed- sorry if that's not the correct word) and in its purpose (adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition). Is that not enough for you? If you look at the rubrics and prayers of the NO, how can you deny the beauty of it? Yes, it can and is abused and the music is generally terrible, but that doesn't detract from the beauty of the Mass itself. While I think patens, incense, altar rails etc. are beautiful, that's not true for other cultures and is becoming less and less so in our own. Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others. If you like the TLM, fine. So do I. Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand! There are many different types of beauty! 

37 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

I wouldn't say the matters are trivial.  Our outward expressions of the spiritual realities of our Faith matters a lot more than you think, especially to those visiting a Mass.  

I didn't mean literally trivial. My point was that the particular liturgy you go to isn't the most important thing. Charity is, and that was Christ's prayer for us, "that they may be one."

Anyway, I did NOT start this thread because I wanted people to fight over the "superiority" of their favorite liturgy. Please do not continue to do so. I was simply upset (and still am) over the way Catholics attack each other over things like liturgy, modesty, etc. 

@Credo in Deum, if my previous post comes across as uncharitable or just downright rude, I apologize. I've never been good at communicating through writing, I need to use my voice to give it the right inflection and meaning. So if this sounds bad, I'm sorry! 

[SicutColumba]

2 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others.

In essence the OF is a forced definition of beauty. It’s a deliberate attempt to reengineer the Mass. It’s a completely inorganic reversal and an erasure of nearly two thousand years of natural evolution of the liturgy. Sure, it’s valid, but there’s not much else to be said about it. 

 

2 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand!

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others? Why is it always we who have to get rid of our traditions? Just because it’s done elsewhere doesn’t mean that we too have to do it. They have their traditions, we have ours, and there’s no reason we should give ours up (inorganically) for dubious reasons and then claim it’s fine because it’s a tradition in other churches. 
 

The thing about communion in the hand is that, sure, it was practiced in the early Church, but communion on the tongue was developed over time and then later adopted by the Church as a whole not only as a means to show respect but also as a prudent response to abuses that were taking place. It’s the Church’s mature, well-formed answer to problems that She saw happening. Communion on the tongue was instituted out of prudence and the greatest respect for the Eucharist. The Church « grew up » in a sense and saw it was no longer feasible nor respectful nor desirable to take communion in the hand, and this is due to Her wisdom and the experience gained over the first few centuries of Church history. 

To clarify, though, I think your initial point of wanting to get rid of division in the Church is correct. But at the same time the playing field is not entirely level. We were wronged at Vatican II, deprived of our Mass, and I think many trads, especially the older ones, have a sense of a great injustice being inflicted upon them. It’s not an excuse not to be charitable, but the whole affair is much, much more complicated than two camps who prefer two different masses for aesthetic reasons. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by SicutColumba

[Credo in Deum]

10 hours ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The NO Mass is good in its essence (it is the Sacrifice of Calvary renewed- sorry if that's not the correct word) and in its purpose (adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition). Is that not enough for you? If you look at the rubrics and prayers of the NO, how can you deny the beauty of it? Yes, it can and is abused and the music is generally terrible, but that doesn't detract from the beauty of the Mass itself. While I think patens, incense, altar rails etc. are beautiful, that's not true for other cultures and is becoming less and less so in our own. Don't try to force your definition of beauty on others. If you like the TLM, fine. So do I. Did you know the Byzantines always receive Communion while standing? And they also stand during the consecration? Does this make their liturgy any less beautiful or meaningful? Plus, in the early Church (at the last supper too) communion was received in the hand! There are many different types of beauty! 

I didn't mean literally trivial. My point was that the particular liturgy you go to isn't the most important thing. Charity is, and that was Christ's prayer for us, "that they may be one."

Anyway, I did NOT start this thread because I wanted people to fight over the "superiority" of their favorite liturgy. Please do not continue to do so. I was simply upset (and still am) over the way Catholics attack each other over things like liturgy, modesty, etc. 

@Credo in Deum, if my previous post comes across as uncharitable or just downright rude, I apologize. I've never been good at communicating through writing, I need to use my voice to give it the right inflection and meaning. So if this sounds bad, I'm sorry! 

"Isn't that enough for me?"

"Don't force what I believe to be beautiful on to others"

"other cultures and now our own don't find certain elements beautiful" etc etc.

The Mass is enough for me; It was enough for me before Vatican II. Apparently it wasn't enough for others.  I also don't force my belief of what I find beautiful onto others, rather I adhere to what the Church believes is beautiful.  Have you actually read what the Church desired for the OF to retain vs what they would permit it to do? I'll say this so you can understand it, I go to the EF because it is still the Liturgy which best adheres to what the Church finds beautiful vs OF which is a liturgy commonly done to the standards of what the Church permits.  The difference is huge.  The Church permits you to only fast during Lent, Fridays, and other times.  The Church wants you to fast more as an act of penance.  The Church permits you to only be obligated to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation.  The Church wants you to go to Mass daily!  Make sense? When Catholics finally get their head out of their bums and return to a spirit of desiring in conformity with what Holy Mother Church wants in accordance with Her traditions, then there will be unity.

As for the different cultures around the world etc etc the idea that the times should dictate the Liturgy is an incredibly scary statement.  As for the differences between one Rite vs another Rite that isn't even a valid argument within the context of this discussion which is about the Latin Rite.  Last time I was Ara Byzantine Divine Liturgy I didn't fully stand...there was a slight bend in the knee that is take, a clothes placed under my chin, and the communion served to me on the tongue.  Those rubrics absolutely scream that something sacred is being given to me.  

I want to say more but I'm just going to leave it to others for now. 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[dUSt]

Every person must recognize humanity in others, with humility--then it will end.

[Peace]

17 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Valid? Yes. Good? What do you mean by good? Beautiful? No.

If you can't see the beauty in the Mass, that is more likely to be a problem with you, than the Mass. Prayer and penance my friend. Prayer and penance.

[Peace]

@SicutColumba Everything you wrote is hopelessly subjective and subject to debate. Trads take the view that the TLM developed "organically" and stuck with tradition while the NO developed "inorganically" and was a clear break with tradition, but that is simply trad-opinion and cannot be demonstrated objectively. That debate has been had on Phatmass a thousand times before and the trads on this site have still yet to demonstrate it. You should be able to search through the site and find all of those threads. I recall that myself and @Nihil Obstat were involved in a few of them.

Quote

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others?

It’s the Church’s mature, well-formed answer to problems that She saw happening.

Quote

Communion on the tongue was instituted out of prudence and the greatest respect for the Eucharist.

No, forcing communion on the tongue was a forced definition of beauty. It was a deliberate attempt to reengineer the Mass. It was a completely inorganic reversal. Why did the Church have to get rid of her traditions and force communion on the tongue for dubious reasons?

Those are basically your own words. 

Now that's not really my opinion, I love the TLM and the NO, but the point is you can make arguments like that about almost anything under the sun and you will never be able to prove that you are correct. It's just your opinion.

But if you like the TLM, I hope that you have opportunities to attend, like I do. You do you.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

Good bait.

[ReasonableFaith]

16 hours ago, SicutColumba said:

Sure, certain things are done in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are different from what we do in the West yet are what tradition has dictated for their liturgies, but why does the Roman Catholic Church has to change its own liturgy to look more like the others? Why is it always we who have to get rid of our traditions?

In light of the centuries long strong arm efforts to latinize eastern Catholic sui juris churches, eastern rites, extra liturgical practices, and clerical discipline this view seems quite myopic.
 

Some concessions were made in an attempt to prove eastern Catholics are ‘real’ Catholics and some were forced despite occasional papal disapproval of such actions. 
 

Thankfully many of these adaptations  have been reversed or removed since Vatican II. However, some remnants are stubborn, particularly in regard to clerical discipline. 

[dUSt]

I remember when I was really into debating TLM vs NO. Now I'm just really into trying to be a better Catholic.

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I remember when I was really into debating TLM vs NO. Now I'm just really into trying to be a better Catholic.

The two aren't really all that different IMO, unless one is super-hung up on aesthetics. Most of the major parts are present in both forms of the Mass, but people are tripping out because the priest faces this way as opposed to that way, or because people are receiving communion in this posture as opposed to that posture.

[Guest]

Both forms enshrine the most incredible mind boggling wonder ever in the whole universe and therefore deserve utmost respect.  I have also attended a Mass celebrated by an Anglican Ordinariate Priest and it was beautiful.

Anglican Ordinariate

 

[dUSt]

7 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Both forms enshrine the most incredible mind boggling wonder ever in the whole universe and therefore deserve utmost respect.  I have also attended a Mass celebrated by an Anglican Ordinariate Priest and it was beautiful.

Anglican Ordinariate

 

Me too! It's actually the closest mass to my home and I'll often attend their Sunday evening mass if I miss the early masses at my regular parish. Beautiful.

[PaxCordisJesu]

I love the Mass of the Personal Ordinariate! It has some really lovely prayers that I've never heard at any other liturgy, like The Comfortable Words, The Collect for Purity, The Summary of the Law, the Penitential Rite, etc.

Edited May 20, 2021 by PaxCordisJesu

[Ash Wednesday]

I support traditional liturgies, communion rails and architecture, and I have my reasons. For the most part I no longer discuss it online though. In my experience the discussion often turns into a time-wasting dumpster fire because people can take opinions about the liturgy very personally, and I've found it difficult to navigate the topic without pushback because it's easy for people to get overly defensive and mistakenly view you as being judgmental of others. So I no longer waste my time. Too much time arguing online is not good for spiritual health. There are plenty of books, documentation and debates out there online about the liturgy and now I just encourage people to just do their research and discern for themselves.
 

On 5/19/2021 at 1:17 AM, PaxCordisJesu said:

Just today I overheard someone saying some very nasty things about someone else, for no other reason than that they like the TLM. And I was like "what the heck is wrong with you?" I've seen so much if this, I am sick and tired of people hating on each other because they attend a different liturgy!!!

For me, growing up post Vatican II in the 80s and 90s, there was a deep rooted hostility against the TLM and anything traditional. It was a hostility that existed in my CCD classes and from some of our older pastors and youth group leaders.  The reasons for the fear and bias among older generations and how that differs from younger ones is an interesting topic in itself. Either way, that fear or bias runs pretty deep and it's easy to pass that on.

With the resurgence of the TLM post Benedict Motu Proprio, especially among younger Catholics, there's going to be friction and growing pains on the matter. We're probably not all going to agree anytime soon. But yeah, the disagreements are no excuse for us to not all try to be humble and treat each other with respect.

Sorry for writing a book.

[Peace]

16 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I support traditional liturgies, communion rails and architecture, and I have my reasons. For the most part I no longer discuss it online though. In my experience the discussion often turns into a time-wasting dumpster fire because people can take opinions about the liturgy very personally, and I've found it difficult to navigate the topic without pushback because it's easy for people to get overly defensive and mistakenly view you as being judgmental of others. So I no longer waste my time. Too much time arguing online is not good for spiritual health. There are plenty of books, documentation and debates out there online about the liturgy and now I just encourage people to just do their research and discern for themselves.
 

For me, growing up post Vatican II in the 80s and 90s, there was a deep rooted hostility against the TLM and anything traditional. It was a hostility that existed in my CCD classes and from some of our older pastors and youth group leaders.  The reasons for the fear and bias among older generations and how that differs from younger ones is an interesting topic in itself. Either way, that fear or bias runs pretty deep and it's easy to pass that on.

With the resurgence of the TLM post Benedict Motu Proprio, especially among younger Catholics, there's going to be friction and growing pains on the matter. We're probably not all going to agree anytime soon. But yeah, the disagreements are no excuse for us to not all try to be humble and treat each other with respect.

Sorry for writing a book.

Yeah I don't know why there needs to be such a big beef about it. If you prefer the TLM go to the TLM. If you prefer the NO go to the NO. It really should be as simple as that.

I don't know why folks have to be like "The TLM smells of elderberries we should only have the NO" or "The NO smells of elderberries we should only have the NO." There have always been different variations of the Mass within the Church that have co-existed at the same time, so taking either stance seems flat-out-wrong to me.

I can understand the TLM folks who feel like they don't have an opportunity to attend the TLM, but at least where I am at that doesn't seem to be the case, where you can find it easily. I would say that there is even an "oversupply" of TLM in my area. There are at least 3 TLM masses at my church each week and I'd say off-hand they are the least attended.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Peace

[Guest]

On 5/27/2021 at 12:13 AM, Peace said:

I don't know why folks have to be like "The TLM smells of elderberries we should only have the NO" or "The NO smells of elderberries we should only have the NO."

?  

.... and sometimes stated that we should only have the  TLM.

Quote

 Ash Wednesdady: "For the most part I no longer discuss it online though. In my experience the discussion often turns into a time-wasting dumpster fire because people can take opinions about the liturgy very personally, and I've found it difficult to navigate the topic without pushback because it's easy for people to get overly defensive and mistakenly view you as being judgmental of others."

Not my forte - but well said, particularly elsewhere in your post that it is not good for one's spiritual life.

This a very long post, which is my 'forte'.

I could not state that I support any particular liturgy of The Mass.  My personal preference is the NO or, for me, The Mass celebrated in English because the words stay with me longer. I am able to reflect on a Mass content and homily after I come home at some point. The Mass in Latin can distract me even though we do have, or used to have pre V2 (I don't know which, still have my pre V2 Latin Daily MIssal)  English in one column and The Latin in another.  But that is just me.  As a sufferer of bipolar, I do have some features of a bipolar mind all the time.  This is why I like the written word as I can take my time and review, perhaps a few times, before posting.  I can transfer my post to Word as sometimes I have returned to Pham to review what is written and it has disappeared.  It is just a software thing or something I have done I should not do on the computer.   I just say to myself "not meant to be" and move on.

It rather reminds me of the texts of St Teresa of Avila's works or commentary on them - in that we are all different, unique creations -- as is the action of The Holy Spirit in journeys.  And why I need a spiritual director if I can find one. St Teresa and/or commentaries I have read, states that one does not HAVE to go A then B then C on the spiritual/mystical way as she has presented it in an A B C type sequence - that we are all different and might go B then C and then A etc, and variations.  Commenting on the Dark Night of The Soul I know either St Teresa or St John of the Cross (unsure which - I think it is St Teresa) states that this Dark Night can re-occur for differing lengths of time throughout a lifetime, with daylight and breaks in-between, and that he/she knew a person who suffered The DNofTheSoul until death.  Now we have a written text by St Mother Teresa as an example of lasting a lifetime. Our mystics too are particularly aware of actions of The Holy Spirit, it seems to me.

A couple of years ago, our pp was relieved (while having surgery) by an Anglican Ordinariate priest, married with children.  He would celebrate our 6pm Mass. The Anglican Ordinariate is fully united with Rome and we can go to go to Mass and Holy Communion for example celebrated by an Anglican ordinariate priest - they do need to be re-ordained .  They do not have a bishop here in South Australia as yet, so those Sacraments requiring a Bishop must be celebrated by a Bishop.  Their more commonly used title seems to be "Anglican Ordinariate in The Latin Rite".  The strictly correct title apparently is "Personal Ordinariate" HERE.  Some in the parish would walk straight past him even if he held out his hand.  What was said about Father at times in the parish was rude and sometimes nothing but overt bigotry.  One lady said that he was a faux-priest .  He now celebrates Mass late morning on a Sunday in my parish Church here.

I have had chats and one quite lengthy conversation with Father and I have come away impressed by him.

To me, personally, the Magisterium is guided by The Holy Spirit.  Can mistakes be made?  Yes they can, if not on Faith and/or Morals, but in the Doctrine of Divine Providence, anything at all negative in life can only occur if permitted to do so by The Holy Spirit i.e. God.  And only good will come of it even if we cannot identify that good.  We only have to reflect on our Doctrine/Divine Providence CCC behind the barbaric crucifxion of Jesus.   If our Holy Father said tomorrow that something was wrong and must change.  I would be obedient to him and try to change my attitude to whatever.  If at some point, another Pope after him changed that, then I would be try to be obedient to him.  There can be exceptions.

All the above are only my personal content only.  I love the LTM - but personally prefer the NO. 

To me, personally, some of the wording in the Personal Ordinariate liturgy are particularly beautiful too.

___________________

Quote

https://ordinariate.net/q-a "Anglican clergy seeking to be ordained as Catholic priests must first complete an extensive process that includes background checks; approval by the head of the Ordinariate and by the Vatican; completion of an approved Ordinariate formation program; and an examination. Celibacy is the norm for the clergy. Permission has been given on a case-by-case basis by the Pope for former Anglican priests who are married to be ordained Catholic priests for the Ordinariate. If widowed, they may not remarry."  Ordination Procedure for Anglican Personal Ordinariate (you will need to scroll down)

 

[Peace]

10 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The Mass in Latin can distract me even though we do have, or used to have pre V2 (I don't know which, still have my pre V2 Latin Daily MIssal)  English in one column and The Latin in another.

Yeah I've always thought that if there is any legitimate disadvantage of the TLM this would be it. Having Mass in a language that is not used by the people seems to go against the spirit of what happened at Pentecost, and even against the reason why the Mass was said in Latin in the first place (it was said in Latin because at the time Latin was the widely-spoken language).

The TLM folks will argue that the TLM is better because it makes things like the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the reality of the real-presence more apparent to those attending the Mass, but I think that nothing could be further from the truth. If you go to the Mass in English all you need to do is listen to the words being said and these are 100% apparent. If you go to the Latin (especially as a non-Catholic not already familiar with the NO) - you will literally have no idea what is going on.

Then the TLM folks will turn right around and say "Oh well but the Mass is not for teaching." OK. Then why are you handing out the missal with the English right next to the Latin, so that people can understand the meaning of the Latin? It makes no sense!

[Guest]

On 5/29/2021 at 4:48 AM, Peace said:

Yeah I've always thought that if there is any legitimate disadvantage of the TLM this would be it. Having Mass in a language that is not used by the people seems to go against the spirit of what happened at Pentecost, and even against the reason why the Mass was said in Latin in the first place (it was said in Latin because at the time Latin was the widely-spoken language).

The TLM folks will argue that the TLM is better because it makes things like the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the reality of the real-presence more apparent to those attending the Mass, but I think that nothing could be further from the truth. If you go to the Mass in English all you need to do is listen to the words being said and these are 100% apparent. If you go to the Latin (especially as a non-Catholic not already familiar with the NO) - you will literally have no idea what is going on.

Then the TLM folks will turn right around and say "Oh well but the Mass is not for teaching." OK. Then why are you handing out the missal with the English right next to the Latin, so that people can understand the meaning of the Latin? It makes no sense!

Excellent post - you raised a few points I had never thought about before.  Thanks heaps!

I dont understand the bickering either and certainly not that the NO should go and TLM return.  What is bickered, even with bigotry type of statements, to me is definitely uncharitable statements.  I am flawed almost by 2 things:

Firstly, some do not seem to realize that they are speaking about The Holy Mass where the miracle of Transubstation occurs i.e. changing bread and wine in to The Body and Blood of Jesus - the esseence of Holy Mass.

Seconly, Liturgies are only ceremonies around the essence of The Mass and Transubstation.  

I was only thinking this morning that the shocking and cruel Passion and Crucifixion, Death of Jesus in a slow and agonising way.  It is such evidence that His Love for us just boggles the mind.  Not only that, and totally astounding, He is staying with us in His Body and Blood in Holy Communion.

Quote

There is a beautiful text from Fulton Sheen here: Fulton Sheen "Calvary and The Mass" (from EWTN website) "But how is it made visible? Where shall we find Calvary perpetuated? We shall find Calvary renewed, re-enacted, re- presented, as we have seen, in the Mass. Calvary is one with the Mass, and the Mass is one with Calvary, for in both there is the same Priest and Victim."

It is Jesus who is both Priest and Victim at Holy Mass.

It is The Holy Mass for goodness sake, never changing the essence, no matter what The Church decides to 'build around the essence in what we call liturgy.  Honestly, even if it went into ancient Aramaic, it remains our Holy Mass and the essence remains.

A Mass in Latin can distract me and I can get caught up in the beauty and majesty of a LTM and be perhaps unaware of The Mass itself.  Hence, my personal preference for NO is also because this.

I just don't get what is posted on Pham sometimes, in fact it can really and truly sadden me to the core - but I too try to stay away from the hot and argumentative, bickering,   threads. It is no good for my spiritual life at all, as AshWednesday stated, if I am totally down in the dumps and saddened by what I have read.  I read the thread and at some time I can think "Nope, time to butt in"

The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Universal - defined by The Church as the 4 marks of The Church and it summarizes Her meaning as the mission of The Militant Church of The Mystical Body of Christ..  It is in the CCC.  

In a sense, I am The Church as is every single baptized person practicing or not.  Therefore, it seems to be that I should be striving for unity, for holiness, for Catholic (embracing of all varieties of mankind) and to be missionary whatever my vocation in The Church for universality, committed to spreading Jesus and HIs Gospel in the situation or environment to which we are called, our particular little vineyard (environment) to which we are called.  And we might have a few.  On Phatmass too, being a member, I am called to remain the above.

Someone somewhere made a bit of nasty sort of comment about posts which quote some authority at times.  I had to giggle and thought to myself "Man oh man, mate, if you knew what I go through, for example, that thought would never occur to you.  

In posting, I think we should be very much aware that we have readers only, not members only, and sometimes if an enquirer reads some posts.  Well, say no more.

Mea mamixa culpa, Deo gratius, laudate Dominum.