US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs


Submitted by THOMAS PATE (not verified) on

The latin mass is a good thing and should be available in all parrishes for the faithful who wish to attend. Every cathedral should have at least one latin mass for the faithful. The latin mass is the true catholic form of worship and should be nourished in every parrish evetywhere. This form of worship [the latin mass] WILL BE AN ANCHOR OF FAITH IN THE CHURCH UNITING THE WHOLE CHURCH AS ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH!

Submitted by Dave Phillips (not verified) on

Thomas Pate has a love for the Latin Mass, for which we should commend him.

I want to share this webpage I found today.  It gives a good summary of who "traditional" Catholics are (and helps me recall that I am one myself)... it's called "Traditional Catholicism 101".... Please read it:

Now as for me, I can see a few positive aspects to the Vatican II era.  These would include renewed emphases on Scripture, seasons of the Church year, the poor, social justice, the laity.   I feel bad because I think a real renewal could have happened- I feel bad about 'what might have been'.

On the other hand, I deplore that major errors (detailed on the link above)- errors that go beyond the Liturgical changes-  saw a (temporary) era of victory.  These errors concern not only liturgy and the priesthood, but also the papacy, the Church, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, Scripture, Church and State, and even the concept of truth itself.  And then there were the changes in the sanctuaries and interiors of most churches, also to be deplored.

What is needed is for traditional Catholics, despite their differences, to unite and cause a real restoration and renewal of the Catholic Faith.  We must build, while others tear down.

Submitted by Eminem Relapse ... (not verified) on

i am retiring from all controversy.   much love. 


Submitted by THOMAS PATE (not verified) on

The latin mass which survived hundreds of years is the true form of catholic worship that came from the early church. When pope paul in the late sixties and early seventies changed to the new mass things were changed in an extremly fast "ax and fire" manner. Also many priest change things just to change not doing so in a reverant holy way and not consisdering the faithfuls feelings on the matter. So many aspects of our faith were changed and it seems like many parrishes love change just to change. The catholic church has always stood for and represents holding fast to no change in worship that is considered to be holy and from GOD .It is my oppion that all the change in form of worship has caused more bad than good in the CHURCH. Sacred rites and practices were abolised and replaced in a matter of a few years shaking many persons faith. Catholics were always taught that are faith was solid , unchanging ,a gift from GOD.then In the seventies it was nothing but change for years. It is my oppion that many catholics lost a sacredness for even the sacraments. [ this is a corrected document, MY replaced by MANY in last line]

Hi Thomas,

Be sure to look for an upcoming Glad You Asked article on the history of the use of Latin in the church. It should appear in one of our summer issues.


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The Traditional Latin Mass is really the truest form of the Mass. It has not been dumbed down. The Novus Ordo Mass with its lay ministers, its communion in hand, its awful Protestant-style hymns, its casualness, its lack of incense and mystery is responsible for the empty pews in Catholic churches all across the world. Add to this the wreck-o-vation of Catholic churches by modernists--the destruction of high altars, the removal of icons and statues, and you have a disaster. Since Vatican II the entire Church has fallen apart, from sex abuse scandals to empty convents and seminaries. Read and weep.

Submitted by Dennis (not verified) on

So you say the church of today is the product of these things. That communion in the hand and protestant hymns have caused the "downfall" of the church. What do you base this opinion on, or are you parroting someone else. I'm just wondering because while these changes to the church were being made society was also changing.

If the "downfall" was caused by the changes that would be causality, and you would be right.

If the church changes, and the "downfall" were caused by another element, say societal changes, education, whatever, that would be correlation. Changing one correlated element doesn't change the other. (the social changes, education or whatever are causally related to both the church changes and the "downfall"

If the church changes and the "downfall" were unrelated and they happened at the same time like wearing red socks and flipping a coin heads five times in a row, that is synchronicity.

I tend to think that the changes in the Church and the difficulties we are experiencing today are correlated, with the societal changes being the causal element. If the Church would have stayed in it's immigrant, insular, authoritarian structure of the 30's and 40's we would certainly look different than today, probably not better but certainly different. I can't imagine what the Churches problems would have been blamed on then.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Its' inherent flaw is all the options and the idea that the NO Mass can be abused. Give people an inch they will take a mile. This may lead to the NO 's suppression. Not because it is invalid, but because no one, but a few, will celebrate it as written. It will always be tainted. Better to scrap the NO and return to the 1965 Missal for those who wish a vernacular Mass and work on bringing the 1962 Missal to what the Second Vatican Council called for. Read the documents on the liturgy and you can plainly see the NO Mass as is, is NOT what the Council called for. Too many people who do not take the time to learn more think the NO Mass was actually what the Council was about and that it was "created" there. I kid you not.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

And the unlawful suppression of the 1962 Missal did not cause any dis-unity? Introduction of the NO Missal was sometimes done with brute force. People who continued to observe Latin responses, which is always valid, were often yelled at by frustrated Priests who were forcing liturgical change on an unwilling people. Go back and visit the facts, much violence was done to the Mass and to the spiritual health of the people. Many our own relatives and family.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The Latin aka Tridentine aka extaordinary form is NOT hundreds of years old , try thousands, parts of this ancient liturgy harken back to the 2nd & 3rd century A.D. The Latin Mass as we know it was codified "solidified" at the Great council of Trent in the 16th century.The Latin Mass has in it, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and the venacular.One of the blog commentor stated that Orthodox Traditional latin rite Catholics need UNITY. He/She is right, to restore the Mass in the wake of the vatican 2 mess Orthodox Roman Catholics MUST unite, no more BS,unity from Sedevacantist to Conclavists to SSPX to Church recognized traditionalism is necessary to restore the Catholic church and dump the liberal revisionism of the last 40 years. Got news for you Dennis, the mess from pedophilic clerics to the farce called the novus ordo missae to the crap called evangelical hymns now sung in catholic parishes to the clown, perogy, halloween, dancing, guitar and cheesehead masses are a DIRECT result to the liberal hiararcal take over after the close of Vatican 2 coupled with succesively weak Popes and violent liberal Bishops religious and "theologians, wake up man.