Churches worth driving to

St. John Vianney Chapel, Balboa Island
Exterior of St. John Vianney Chapel

Exterior of St. John Vianney Chapel

Name of Church St. John Vianney Chapel, Balboa Island

Address 314 Marine Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach

Phone number 949-675-2221

Mass times Saturday Vigil, 5 p.m. Sundays 8 a.m., 9 a.m., 10 a.m. Weekdays, 7:45 a.m.

Confessions Make an appointment, or visit nearby Our Lady Queen of Angels Church.

Names of priests Msgr. Lawrence J. Baird, Administrator. Norbertine Priests of St. Michael’s Abbey assist on weekends.

School None. Misc. religious education opportunities, usually for adults.

Interior of St. John Vianney Chapel

Interior of St. John Vianney Chapel

Special events 24-hour adoration, 4th of the month, with a special intention to pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

Liturgy All in English, always reverently done.

Music Weekend Masses usually have a cantor or a three or four voice choir.

Homilies Msgr. Baird is faithful to church teaching. Often preaches in an Archbishop Fulton Sheen style, a prominent figure in Catholic life in America when Monsignor was a child. He is assisted by a Norbertine priest on weekends. The Norbertines are excellent. The most frequently visiting priest is Fr. Hugh Barbour, who serves as Prior of St. Michael’s Abbey. He’s a terrific homilist.

Fellow parishioners Most are from Balboa Island, which is a wealthy community. Most are older and conservative. The church is small and can fill up quickly for weekend Masses, so it’s a good idea to arrive early.

Parking Can be a challenge, particularly during the summer. You can drive the streets on the island looking for street parking, but you might only find a space several streets away. Best to park in the medical facility across the bridge on weekends and walk over onto the island.

Acoustics Good.

Cry room No.

Additional observations A beautiful old church which dates back to the 1940s. It is actually a parish mission of Our Lady Queen of Angels Parish, Newport Beach, hence Monsignor’s title is administrator rather than pastor. It is bright, decorated well and always has fresh flowers in the front. After Sunday Mass, enjoy free coffee and donuts (donations welcome!) and stroll Marine Avenue and enjoy many tourist shops and restaurants. It is also a short walk from Newport Harbor. St. John Vianney is the only church on Balboa Island, and is prominently located on Marine Avenue. It is easily identifiable by the beautiful mosaic about its entryway.

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. St. Christopher says:

    OK, nice older church that is Novus Ordo only. Why no TLM? And, for N. O. are masses said in Latin, and ad orientem? Come on Pastor, where do you come from? The Protestant cabal that wrote the N.O. are not your spiritual fathers. Find our what you are. Lead others to Heaven. Forget P.C. Catholicism, and be a Man, Pastor, stand up for Christ and the hundreds of years of what the saints worshiped.

  2. Ed Lindgren says:

    I have attended Mass at St. John Vianney Chapel when visiting friends on Balboa Island. It is a wonderful place to celebrate the Mass and, as this article states, it is always reverently done.

  3. St. Christopher says:

    Reverence for what? Protestant and Jewish services are “reverent” as are Islamic prayers; this means nothing. Look for and take back the patrimony of the centuries that has been stolen by today’s Catholic Totalitarians. The TLM did not just happen, like the Novus Ordo did; it was the careful worship of Jesus, from the earliest times of the Apostles and disciples. Stand up while you still can, Catholic People.

    • St. Christopher, you continue, ad nauseam, to spew rubbish about the Catholic Church. The Mass of the Catholic Church has two equal formats; the ordinary and the extra-ordinary. The universal church uses the ordinary form for the most part. There are a few people, usually grounded in the past rather than the future, who still like the extra-ordinary form. If that is what they like, they should attend, but stop calling others less than Catholic. Most Catholics have never attended a TLM or know that it exists, so they don’t care if you attend. Stop being a perpetual hater of all things Catholic.

      • St. Christopher says:

        “Bob One” you continue with your fawning apologetics — and badly so — for the Novus Ordo. First of all, the TLM was the norm for hundreds and hundreds of years, then there was a revolution by the Modernists in the Vatican, and obedient Catholics went along. Then they started to leave, which has become a torrent. The N.O. is a sop to Protestants (who ignored Catholics anyway), and was made-up in a hurry; then Catholic Tradition was (mostly) destroyed by Catholic insiders. It is not a mere preference that was expressed, but the need for a complete reformation. People need to be taught their past.

        • St. C, you are correct in much that you say. What we now refer to as the TLM was the norm for centuries and was the Mass with which I grew up. In fact, my parish was what we would now call “high church”, very traditional, very pious, and very much wedded to ritual. As an altar server from second grade through Sophomore, I knew the Mass and loved it. Then the Mass was changed to its present format. It was embraced by nearly all parishes within a very short time. Even the Lutherans rewrote their liturgy to be more like the Catholic Mass.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “….As an altar server from second grade through Sophomore, I knew the Mass and loved it.”

            Bob One, with all due respect, you are the one who has stated that you never understood anything of what was going on on the altar. Even though you were supposedly an altar boy.

            As for “embraced by nearly all parishes within a short time”, try pressed upon while the TLM was made out to be forbidden (a lie). Sorry, friend, but your reminiscences are a jumble.

            Tell me, did everyone “embrace” New Coke.

            “Public reaction was overwhelmingly negative; some people likened the change in Coke to trampling the American flag.”

            But unlike Coke manufacturers who listened, the Church pretended that the TLM was abrogated (a lie) and shoved…

          • Ann Malley says:

            …. the new formula down everyone’s throat. Even at the expense of mass apostasy.

            “Attendance at most main-line churches declined, the number of people who believed in God lessened, and the belief in the mortal sin of not attending diminished. Then we had the sex scandals where the Church lost all moral authority.”

            Yes, all of that happened and, in part, it was due to the doubling down on a failed experiment. Although failed is a subjective term dependent upon what the desired goal was.

            In the case of Coke it was to compete w/Pepsi. That’s why they listened to their customers and corrected their error. In the Church, it is sadly seeming to be a case wherein the drive to compete with Protestants was more based on wanting to…

          • Ann Malley says:

            … become Protestant. Not become a better Catholic or draw anyone closer to “Catholic” belief.

            You may not have a “study” to read, but you certainly can look to the dearth of actual Catholic Faith and Morals actually being communicated, taught, and upheld at the parish level to get the picture. If not, then even a “study” wouldn’t be enough for you, Bob One.

          • Your fellow catholic says:

            Excuse me Ann Malley but the TLM was forbidden in parish masses for several decades. That is no lie. That is different than saying it was never abrogaded. It was always permitted in private masses by older priests and other certain circumstances. But as a parish celebration, TLM was forbidden for a time, as it will soon be forbidden again if people keep insisting that it is the True Mass.

          • Anonymous says:

            there is no “mass apostasy” Miss Malley. Celebrating the Holy Sacrifice is never and never will be “mass apostasy”. Please stop denigrating Our Lord in his Sacrifice.

          • St. Christopher says:

            It was not “embraced” it was dogmatically, and in smash-mouth fashion, demanded of all Catholic parishes. No choice, no “safe zones,” no discussion, nuttin’. The manner of the imposition of the N.O. will go down as nothing more than a totalitarian cram-down, experienced by the populations of political revolutionary countries. Of course, the N.O. crowd tries to pass this off as a world-wide embrace, but it was hardly that. Time to return to ourselves.

          • Ann Malley says:

            …apostasy en masse, Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Anonymous. Relax. Please stop denigrating our intellects with this nonsense.

          • Ann Malley says:

            ….excuse you, YFC, but the pretense that the TLM had been abrogated is what led to parishes banning it. Much like a baby sitter may insist that Mom and Dad forbade the playing with a certain item that just annoys the babysitter. Perhaps because the use of it interferes with the babysitters ignoring the children to chat it up with her boyfriend while on duty.

            Again, I am sorry for your lack of proper catechesis in your conversion. So much has been taken away from Catholics under false pretenses.

            But I do agree that the powers-that-be are quite fearful of the TLM being described truthfully. They are afraid of the truth, YFC, much like those who pretend that everyone coming across US borders are afraid of the reality of drug running,…

          • Ann Malley says:

            …human trafficking, terrorism and similar exploitation becoming fully understood.

            The truth will always out, YFC. The TLM was suppressed for malicious reasons. You may not agree. But the reality of the situation will bear out despite your ideological opposition.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley continues to miss the points. The TLM is not a “truth” that the NO is not. I really believe that if advocates of the TLM don’t convert and desist attacking the NO, the TLM will once again be forbidden in public masses. The hatred that some TLM proponents have for everyone else in the Church is pretty unseemly.

          • Ann Malley says:

            YFC continues to vault over the point by misdirection. The truth is that the TLM was never abrogated and that at the parish level the misunderstanding that it had been forbidden is what led to unjust suppression of the TLM.

            I really believe, or rather am being educated, about the level of fear experienced by those who are within the Church, yet despise the Faith, that the TLM (and the truth surrounding it) represents.

            The hatred you have for truth and clarity is unseemly, YFC. And pretty off the mark as Our Lord is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The truth shall set you free. But perhaps that is not what you seek… within the Church.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            There was no “”parish level misunderstanding that it had been forbidden….and unjust[ly] suppress[ed] the TLM. Are you really suggesting that a quarter of a million parish pastors throughout the entire world misunderstood what was being asked of them by the hierarchy? And that the Bishops allowed them to misunderstand things for decades? And that Rome did nothing about it? Really? And that when Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum that it changed nothing with regard to the celebration of the TLM? And you think I have a hatred for truth and clarity? Really? Unbelievable!

          • Ann Malley says:

            ….yes, indeed, unbelievable. Shocking even. (…much like other things are, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t occur. Pedophile crisis anyone? Indeed.)

            And yet the TLM was never abrogated, YFC. It was suppressed unjustly. Suppressed by the fomentation of the impression that it was forbidden. But it wasn’t. And Vatican II also contains pastoral assertions that are not binding doctrine. Go figure. And yet, somehow, they’ve been treated as if they were for decades.

            And I know that you have a hatred for truth and clarity. Really. You demonstrate as much daily on this forum.

            But I do enjoy the hauteur. Excellent theater, YFC. You never fail to deliver.

            Thank you ;^)

        • St. C. you are also correct that within a few short years the number of Catholics attending Mass dwindled to about 25% of the total population. But, I don’t believe, and have seen no studies to prove that it was related to the new Mass format. Attendance at most main-line churches declined, the number of people who believed in God lessened, and the belief in the mortal sin of not attending diminished. Then we had the sex scandals where the Church lost all moral authority.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Jesus did not say the TLM, Chris don’t be silly. He probably didn’t even know Latin.

      • “Jesus didn’t say the TLM”. Ingenuous self-deception.

        Well, He certainly didn’t “say” the Novus Ordo form.

        The structure and components of the TLM are historically consistent at least to elements with specific prayers attested to by St. Ambrose (d. 397); certain fragments in Roman catacomb inscriptions (“a place of light, happiness and peace” is actually recorded on one or more cenotaphs), directly taken from the TLM Roman Canon. S. Peter “said” the Mass in the home of the daughters of Roman senator, Pudens, Ss. Pudentiana and Praessede. The TLM tradition is consistent and unbroken.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          No of course Christ didn’t say the Novus Ordo form, nor did I EVER make that claim, unlike the claim made by “Saint” Christopher Oct 1 at 9:01 AM about Jesus and the TLM. The Ambrosian liturgy is one of several extant at the time, and the liturgy had presumably undergone a LOT of development from 33 AD to 397 AD. There is nothing about that liturgy and nothing about that time period that makes it more valid or better than other liturgies developed before or after 397. If you don’t believe me, look at the various liturgies used for centuries in non-Latin rite Churches.

          • However, I believe Angelo’s point, or one of them, is that the Mass said by St. Peter at the home of SS. Praessede and Pudenziana (ca. 50-60 AD) certainly was the form and essential structure of the Mass said by Christ, and that Mass, actually pre-dating the Ambrosian liturgy by over nearly 4 centuries, was the Roman Canon.

            It seems that there is a great fear among many: that fear is, in fact, that the TLM might be the nearly-exact traditio, vernacular language aside, that Jesus Christ instituted in the Upper Room. (cf. Rev. James L.Meagher’s classic, “How Christ Said the First Mass”)

            Accept no substitutes.

          • The Church of St. Pudenziana is the oldest place of Christian worship in Rome, built over an at-least 2nd-century house-church which abundant traditions state was the house of the Roman senator, Pudens, and his two daughters. The earliest Roman pontiffs resided here, as S. Peter had, prior to his incarceration: a nice little thumb-nail tour-guide sketch is this one.

            http://autrey.angelfire.com/santa_pudenziana.htm

            Point: It really is OK to believe that the traditional Mass dates through S. Peter (and S. Ambrose) to the sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. We believed that as a matter of faith until 1969.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Campion, some nice historical points and nice link to the angelfire site. However, NONE of that proves that Peter celebrated the TLM, and even less, that Jesus did.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Saint Peter did not use the Roman Canon. Period. It just simply hadn’t been developed yet. Were there fragments or two in what he said that might have found their way into the Canon, sure, I suppose that is possible. But the notion that the Mass of St. Peter resembles more the TLM than it resembles the NO is just nonsense.

          • Well, fine, it is your belief that “S. Peter did not use the Roman Canon…It hadn’t been developed yet.”

            Just know there is more evidence to the contrary, namely an unbroken tradition of the Roman Canon, and therefore the TLM, than there is to any evidence of some other liturgy, which we would have to suppose was somehow “lost”. It is also highly unlikely that S. Peter celebrated a Mass completely in Greek for Pudens, SS Pudenziana & Praessede, and their household ca. 50-60 AD.

          • By the way, a really good discussion, at least of what language was used in the early Mass (Greek vs. Latin) is here, sizing up the points pro and con. The points “in favor of Greek” are shown to be pretty weak.

            https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/did-st-peter-say-mass-in-greek/

          • Your fellow catholic says:

            I did t even mention Greek. But weak is what one could call your entire sad line of thought.

          • Your fellow catholic says:

            The point that you keep missing is that whatever language was used, was because it was the current language, not some ‘eternal’ language.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Actually St Ambrose recognized the diversity of liturgies extant in his time, and supporte the notion that various forms of the liturgy were valid.

          This idea that the Roman Canon was said by Christ and Peter and even by Ambrose is just ridiculiously silly a-historical unsubstantiated nonsense!

          If we agree that by the fourth century, the Canon became “caononized”, and with it the Creed, and the Canon of scripture with it, then we can get somewhere.

          • “St. Ambrose recognized the diversity of liturgies extant in his time and supported the notion that various forms of the liturgy were valid.”

            Reference and citation, please?

            Also, you are aware, despite certain differences in the order of the Mass (ex., the Creed is after the Offertory) and some differences in the Eucharistic Prayer, that the Ambrosian Rite was derived from the Roman Rite (cf. “Catholic Encyclopedia”, “Ambrosian Rite”). It was not a parallel liturgy to the Roman Rite, but developed later.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ambrose was a fan of diverse liturgies. Look it up. You are the one making the argument that there has been one liturgy since the beginning, not me.

          • Excuse me, or better, excuse your rudeness, “‘Fellow Catholic'”: but I asked you for a supporting citation and reference for your claim that S Ambrose was “a fan of diverse liturgies” and “[he] supported the notion that various forms of the liturgy were valid”— and you cant supply it. We can conclude it doesn’t exist. You made it up.

            I am familiar with S. Ambrose’ writings, hence why I asked. His writings do not support “diversity” of liturgy, quite the opposite, and De Sacramentiis in particular mentions specific Roman Rite prayers.

            Also, you may want to “look it up” on the Ambrosian liturgy, which was a later development from the Roman Rite. It is apparent you did not know that.

      • Although Jesus didn’t say the TLM in Jerusalem, he instituted the Mass as a genus, one species of which is the TLM. In instituting the genus he instituted all species within it, so in that qualified sense he did say the TLM. Also, since each Mass is primarily the action of Christ, he says the TLM whenever it is offered.

        Jesus knew Latin: in his divine intellect he knows all things; in his human intellect he had infused knowledge of all things as would befit the perfection of human nature. Jesus understood particle physics too.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          That’s a clever but silly theology, Sawyer. Does Jesus also say the NO whenever it Mass is offered? Is saying the TLM when the Eastern Rite masses are offerred?

          • Is Sacrosanctum concilium silly theology? “…every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others….” (7)

            Or the GIRM: “The celebration of Mass, as the action of Christ and of the People of God….” (16)

            Yes, Jesus says the NO when it is offered. Yes, Christ says Eastern rite liturgies when they are offered.

            Since each Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary, it follows that by offering any Mass in any valid rite or form, all of the other valid rites and forms are implicitly offered as well. It is the unity of Catholic faith and liturgy.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            You seem to have misspoken Sawyer, your post at 2:37 was ambiguous. What you SAID was that Christ says the TLM whenever the Mass is said, not whenever the TLM Mass is said. OK, that’s fine, we all do that. No biggie. It is still a bit of a stretch to say that he says the rite that the Mass is offered in, but I’ll go along with you for now. Christ certainly participates in the Sacrifice. But then what was your original point? If Christ is participating at the same level in the TLM and the NO, why shame the NO and its adherants?

          • I see how my statement was ambiguous, but I would argue for its truth in either sense according to which it could be construed.

            I don’t shame NO adherents, YFC. Perhaps you are confusing me with others, which is understandable because there are many who post here that unfortunately shame NO adherents. I think the NO could be celebrated more reverently in many places, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the NO Mass.

          • Ann Malley says:

            It is similarly unfortunate that those who claim not to shame NO adherents do, whether they believe they are doing so or not, do go out of their way to shame those who attend the Society of Saint Pius X chapels. As if there is no necessity and under the guise of promoting unity.

            There is intrinsically nothing wrong with being wholly honest and forthcoming, Sawyer. That said, I find your posturing with YFC to be precisely that in many instances.

            As we have seen the issues surrounding those you do marginalize, albeit more subtly, the reality is that there are sound reasons for the Society’s having taken the position they have. If not, there are a good many who would still believe that “acceptance” of Vatican II translates into…

          • Ann Malley says:

            …pastoral conjecture having to be taken as binding doctrine; something that is wholly untrue. And has wreaked the kind of havoc on the Church that you are even now battling with YFC.

            I do hope we are all able to unite in truth, Sawyer, the fullness of truth. Not just the label of full communion. Also, I hope that CCD doesn’t edit my comment to you as this type of undercover marginalizing is what gives rise to the unabashed, and unwarranted castigation of clarity.

            Perhaps if we act as we truly desire unity and understanding, God will answer our prayers. Otherwise all of the praying is merely an empty gesture for our actions and other words betray our true sentiment.

        • St. Christopher says:

          All responses to “YFC” are helpful, and valid. You know, YFC, and Bob One, the NewChurch is the captive and creation of the Post-Vatican II-Implementation-Squad. These folks simply despise everything that they, well, overthrew. Take a look at what happened to the Romanovs and the entirety of the then extant Russian middle and upper classes, as well as the entirely of French culture and society, through their revolutions. You have to kill everything that could remind “The People” of how things were. Why? They could toss you out of power.

          • St. Christopher says:

            (Part Deux): ” . . . But, regardless of one’s views of political ancient regimes, the Traditional Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and nurtured and developed over centuries and centuries. It cannot be anything but perfection on this Earth. Why overthrow what worked so splendidly to assist Mankind towards salvation?

            One only has to think about, oh, two seconds, to contrast Pope Francis’s observation about not proselytizing versus Christ’s Great Commission. The Catholic Church has always been structured to serve the Will of God, not to accompany those in mortal sin who refuse to repent.

          • St. Christopher, we know that the Church was founded by Christ. I don’t think that is an issue with which anyone disagrees. It was developed and nurtured over centuries. Most people agree on that. You make a good point. The Church was developed over centuries as was the Mass. It has developed from a typical Seder Supper to what it is today, over the centuries. It is always structured to serve the Will of God. Couldn’t we just be in one of those periods where the Church and Mass is developing to meet the needs of this century. We are only into a half century of VII.

          • St. C! Pourquoi dites-vous toujours partie deux. Ne serait-latin mieux que le français? Duo!

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Christopher@6:15&6:21 AM:
        Sorry to disappoint but “Traditional Catholic Church” was NOT founded by Christ. Catholic Church WAS founded by Christ. Happy to see TLM in as many places & times as want. I’ve no desire to “overthrow” anything, but you disparage: “NewChurch is the captive &creation of the Post-Vatican II-Implementation-Squad”.

        The pretense that TLM is somehow the same words celebrated by Christ or Peter or even maybe St Ambrose is just silly.

        As Arianism grew, creeds &liturgy became solidified. Before that, what people believed &how they worshipped varied tremendously from place to place, yet all managed to say same basic thing: Christ loves us, sacrificed himself for us & is present on the altar evertime we gather…

        • St. Christopher says:

          Actually, “YFC” you are wrong again. Christ provided the first consecration, He provided the True Sacrifice, and He provided full power to the Apostles to develop the Church on Earth, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Apostles, much literature suggests, develop rubrics and prayers, a number of which were carried forward into the TLM. Whether or not people here and there offered their own versions of the Mass is not relevant to whether the TLM was organic, growing from Christ’s own actions and his grant of power to the Apostles. The NO suffers by contrast.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Chris, there is nothing wrong in what i wrote, and there is no evidence that the Apostles developed rubrics and prayers that conform to what we would recognize today. There is evidence that the notion of what it means to be Church, bishop, presbyter, and deacon began to develop, as we know that Ignatius spoke of a Church catholic, and Clement of the centrality of the Eucharist and the real presence, the dual nature of Christ, etc. But liturgy was not really written down much. Even the liturgy in the Didache was pretty crude compared to what became recobnizable in the 4th century.

          • St. Christopher says:

            You are completely wrong “YFC”. Much literature exists that elements of the TLM can be traced to the Apostles. Your commentary, however, is understood in that what you say is what the N.O. Liturgy-Destroyers push, that their “alterations” to the Mass are more in keeping with historical practice than was the TLM. Come on, YFC, you can do better.

    • Bob One is modernist liberal who detest Catholic patrimony, note his statement “. There are a few people, usually grounded in the past rather than the future, ” meaning all that is past is bad and wrong and the future is what matters. He will smash Catholic tradition just to be sure that no protestant is offended. He is blind to the fact that the modern Church in the West is in death throes, the Faithful remnant will cling to our traditions.

  4. I wonder if the recommended parking location the medical facility has a ‘no parking tow away’ posted. Look carefully before you leave the car on the property.

  5. The Novus Ordonarians always use the “reverent” label, but they still hold hands, kiss each other, take holy communion in the hand, altar girls, dancing girls, polka, rock, folk, mariachi music, felt banners, dress in shorts, tank tops, flip flops and so on. Folks call it what you want, it is not the True Mass of All Times, the TLM!!

    • Using the ‘reverent’ label betrays insecurity about the NO itself. As long as it’s said ‘reverently,’ it’s beyond reproach, right? But what if it’s not? Is even the ability to say it less than reverently an inherent deficiency? I waxed my Honda all weekend, treating it with all the love I have for it.. But I am so idealistic. When I opened the garage door this morning, I must admit a begrudging disappointment that all my work just had not succeeded in turning my Honda into a Cadillac.

  6. From the photos it would appear the high altar has been ripped out along with the communion rail, so wreckovation has occurred there as per-Vatican II directives, and then you will hear, well Vatican II NEVER said to rip out the high altars and communion rails and purge Latin, well explain why all of this did happen??? There is never an answer however.

  7. Here we go again with Jesus did not know Latin! Sir, Jesus was the Son of God and knew everything including the Latin language, it was the lingua franca of Judea ruled by the Roman Empire. So stop with the Jesus did not know Latin silliness Modernists always love to use that silly remark.

    • Janek, you may be correct, but … Latin was the language of the elite at the time of Jesus. He came from a village that spoke Aramaic or a dialect of it. He may have also spoken Greek, since that was the langue franca of the time. But, its really not important. The Mass in Latin came about much later by the use of vernacular and one of the Councils that codified how it was to be said for that time. I know that the Latin Mass is important to some/many, but it is also something that is man-made, so it can change. Chaquin a son gous.

  8. If we want the mass to go back to the original i.e. The Last Supper, wouldn’t it resemble a Passover seder rather than either the TLM or Novis Ordo?

  9. It is such a crime what the modernists did to OUR churches and cathedrals the world over, why in God’s name would you rip out lovely marble altars and communion rails, statues, paintings, kneelers, tabernacles, all donated by the people themselves. Funny thing is what Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli and the other heretics did not finish Roman Catholics completed the destruction, how ironic is that?

  10. St. Christopher is a defender of ALL things Catholic Bob One you Sir are the one who hates the TRUE MASS OF ALL TIME!! Your Novus Ordo “dinner service” was a man-made service created by six Protestant ministers and Bugnini a Freemason!!! Stick with the facts Bob One, but as we all know modernists and Liberals only resort to name calling because they cannot defend the disaster called Vatican II nor present the facts!

    • Janek, let’s get one point correct: I do not hate the the TRUE MASS OF ALL TIMES. I grew up with it, served at it and it was all I knew for much of my early life. I don’t hate people who attend the TLM. I don’t name-call those who attend the TLM. I do, however, get a bit worked up when people indicate that the current Ordinary form of the Mass is not quite real Catholic, or that those who attend aren’t quite real Catholics. The TLM is the extra-ordinary form of the Catholic Mass. I just don’t choose to attend on a regular basis. I like English better.

      • Catherine says:

        “I don’t name-call those who attend the TLM.” = WRONG! “Let’s get THIS point correct”! B.O. has once again been caught red handed on the keyboard in a big juicy lie! I’m sure though, that Cardinal Burke, will still forgive B.O, for all of the times that B.O. hatefully mocked him and also made fun of traditions that Our Lord told us to hold fast to, including, the mocking of the “lacy tablecloth vestments” worn at the TLM. We all can pray for the conversion of our trolls, especially the very active ones who pretend to be fellow Catholics.

  11. Dancing girls, altar girls, hand holding, kiss of peace, felt banners, female lectors, gutiars, drums, banjos, clown masses, standing during Holy Communion, rock, polka, mariachi, folk music, this is the NOVUS ORDO my friends a complete and utter fraud, the Saints of the past would think they were in a twisted and ghoulish nitemare if they saw what was going on since Vatican II.

    • FromThePew says:

      Janek is right. Too much ‘un-necessary’ relaxed music/celebration stuff occurs (not every time) but too often at the NO mass & takes the bones of the NO mass into a party atmosphere. I love each & every mass (because Jesus is there) & I have to say I ‘offer up’ my inclinations for more reverence & my irritation at less then perfect attention to the worship of Jesus, for the poor souls in purgatory.. But how can you can you ever have too much reverence when it comes to worshipping our King? I am joyful when the NO is reverent. But it can not hold a candle to the reverence of each & every TLM! That’s the truth.

  12. Vatican II which precipitated the continuing de-construction and exodus of Catholics from the Church.

    From Rorate Caeli:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/no-reservations-about-supporting-this.html

    • The Rorate Caeli story, “No Reservations..” 4/27/2016, is echoed again and again on the Native American Reservations, and this tribal elder could be the voice of hundreds of thousands, nay, millions, of Catholics:

      “It was really easy for Indians to be Catholic. There was so much that came natural to us. Like a priest praying to the East, we’ve been praying to east long before the Black Robes came to us.”

      He went on to say, “Then in the 60’s the Church changed, and a lot of people left the church because they felt that the Church had lied to them. They said this was important and a part of God, then all of sudden it didn’t matter anymore. Our people felt lied to, like the white man has done so many times before.”

  13. Peoples—be not deluded by the posts up there denigrating the Ordinary Form. If a Mass is offered by a priest validly ordained and offered licitly, it is efficacious in transmitting the grace of God. If is not offered legally (such as Masses offered by your beloved SSPX), it is an act of disobedience. Can an act of disobedience effectively transmit God’s grace? Reflect on that. I say, no, especially if the priest and assembly know it is illegal.

    Anyone who denigrates the Ordinary Form (and the EF for that matter) commits the sin of heresy as taught by the Lateran Council. There are posts above that have belittled the OF, and therefore are heretical. Do not listen to those posters.

    • St. Christopher says:

      “jon” try to learn something about Catholicism, even in the Francis-Age watered down form. The NO is “licit” and Catholics can attend it, per the Doctrine of Indefectibility. Even so, there are added graces to be attained by attending the TLM. The SSPX priests say a “valid” Mass, which fulfills your SUN obligation (although some, but not all, say that the SSPX-said Mass is “illicit”). You can talk about and criticize the N.O. all you believe is appropriate, and in fact, given the truly crazy tastes of some priests (balloon masses, clown masses, etc.), it would be sinful not to. A return to the TLM will ultimately happen.

      • Excuse me SC but Pope Benedict himself judged that the SSPX has no legal ministry in the Church, therefore their sacraments (except for the Sacrament of Reconciliation during this Year of Mercy) are INVALID! I attend the TLM on a regular basis. The validity and efficacy of the TLM validly offered is not in dispute here, only the sacraments offered by your beloved SSPX.

        • Ann Malley says:

          ….”judging” that there is no legal ministry is not the same as stating simply that there is no “official” ministry, jon. Let’s be clear. You betray your animus by using “beloved” all the time, projecting an emotion that is misplaced. Almost as if you need to assert others having a love attachment in order to justify your inexplicable hatred and fixation. But as Benedict also pointed out in that same – ahem – judgment, there are those who are unhappy unless they have a pariah upon whom to pick. The Society would seem to fit that bill for you. For what reason? Who can say. A psychiatrist?

          Capitalizing invalid will make no difference one way or another. And, whether or not you choose to acknowledge the reality, Canon law provides…

          • Ann Malley says:

            …for states of emergency.

            And while you may claim that “emergency” must mean a myriad of understood exceptions, the reality is that emergency is not defined. This is just another example of why clarity – especially in defining that which is binding – is critical.

            Best to you ;^)

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          jon, I’m no fan of the schismatic sect known as SSPX, but their Masses are valid but “illicit” (a term of art that means illegal). However, marriages and confessions of SSPX are usually both invalid and illicit, because those sacraments require the faculties issued by the local ordinary. During this Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has used his authority as ordinary of the entire Church to grant faculties to SSPX priests to hear valid confessions. I believe (and, frankly, I hope) he will extend those faculties for at least another year. We earnestly all should pray that the SSPX returns soon to full communion with the Roman See.

          • YFC is right about this.

            Furthermore, attending an SSPX Mass on Sunday fulfills the Sunday obligation, precisely because it is a valid Mass in a Catholic rite.

            A Catholic who can easily attend a Mass celebrated in full communion with Rome should not receive Communion at an SSPX Mass, however, because of the society’s irregular status regarding communion with Rome.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Sawyer, I understand, for that is what I attribute it to, your desire to promote unity within the Church. But to pretend that one may not accept Holy Communion at a Society Chapel when a mass that is merely “in full communion” (in light of the ongoing crisis) is misleading and… disingenuous.

            So let us all pray for full unity. But unity with the truth, not unity of facade. The latter is nothing more than what has been scandalizing faithful Catholics for decades, leaving them with no…

          • Ann Malley says:

            … other option than to avoid the occasion of the heretical.

            This is my third response to you. Cal-Catholic has been editing my posts to you. For what reason, I cannot say. But the truth needs to be said. And biased facades that hold the party line need to be dismissed, if only to stop shaming those Catholics who have done what needs must to uphold the Faith – beyond obedience for “obedience” sake.

          • Catherine says:

            YFC writes, “jon, I’m no fan of the schismatic sect known as SSPX,”

            Well, It sure looks like this Italian Archbishop isn’t obeying or hasn’t read YFC’s or jon’s very unloving posts. Speaking of being inconsistent…How interesting that the SSPX are just fine and dandy when the need arises! No need to pat YFC on the back Sawyer….Like Hillary Clinton, he’s announced his agenda, he’s not the least bit interested in the same type of unions that are pleasing to God.

            Italian Archbishop Invites SSPX Priest to Offer Bimonthly Mass for His Faithful

            http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2078-italian-archbishop-invites-sspx-priest-to-offer-bimonthly-mass-for-his-faithful

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley, you write things without any substantiation whatsoever in order to justify your own disobedience to the lawful authority of the Church when you write things like “the truth needs to be said. And biased facades that hold the party line need to be dismissed, if only to stop shaming those Catholics who have done what needs must to uphold the Faith – beyond obedience for “obedience” sake.”

            In 2009, Benedict XVI reaffirmed that: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

            Ann Malley, you don’t ‘uphold the Faith’, you sow…

          • Ann Malley says:

            YFC, you call yourself a fellow Catholic while, quite often, advocating your own agenda based on an ill formed conscience.

            What I uphold is the truth about the situation, not the status quo promoted by those who are in a position to cover up the truth. Like those who feign that the TLM was abrogated in order to enforce a jack-boot ascendancy of a rite that has proved more than merely problematic.

            The Pharisees were the lawful authority, too, YFC and yet they misused their position to oppress the people. Again, truth needs to be stated, YFC. Why? Because history repeats itself as those in authority are seeking to cover-up the truth.

            Authority is for the sake of building up and protecting, YFC, not persecuting and penalizing. You of…

          • Ann Malley says:

            …all people should agree with that. That you do not speaks volumes.

            But your objective is to sow division between the truth and the flock. That is shameful.

          • Ann Malley says:

            And, yes, YFC, “In 2009, Benedict XVI reaffirmed that: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

            The doctrinal questions are precisely the necessity to make CLEAR that there are aspects of VII documents that are pastoral novelties, not binding doctrine. So, indeed, that seems to be settled. Or getting there.

            The false assertion of those who high hand, “Vatican II must be accepted,” like Sawyer was wont to do, well, have been proved misguided. Accepting VII is to understand that there are aspects that do not bind Catholics.

            So do…

          • Ann Malley says:

            ….let’s be clear, YFC. And let us be clear, Sawyer (and thorough). And let us be clear, jon. For if we are not clear, but rather subtle and exclusionary about those details we find too tedious, we will continue to manifest that which is divisive. That is what divides us all from the fullness of truth, not just the repeated assertion of who is the lawful authority.

        • St. Christopher says:

          Wrong, again, “jon” (although good that you regularly attend the TLM). The SSPX is in an “irregular” canonical status — meaning nothing more than that it may lack “jurisdiction” to offer the sacraments in certain circumstances. It is everywhere agreed that masses offered by the SSPX are “valid.” See Rorate Caeli, citing a mea culpa from Diocese of Richmond (VA) on this, here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-stunning-mea-culpa-regarding-sspx.html

          It is OK to attend the SSPX masses. Pray for their “safe” re-incorporation into the Church.

          • OK to attend a Mass that’s illicit? A Mass that is in disobedience?? I think not St. Christopher. Many of you folks talk about how the grace of God may be impeded by the goings-on at Ordinary Form Masses. Quite so, but these liturgical misdeeds are incomparable to the blatant disobedience, dissent, illegality of a Mass offered by your beloved SSPX. It is MORE of a hinderance to God’s grace to offer Mass KNOWINGLY that is illegal.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “…Quite so, but these liturgical misdeeds are incomparable to the blatant disobedience, dissent, illegality of a Mass offered by your beloved SSPX.”

            What is incomparable is that the shepherds of the Church would be so bold as to scandalize the flock into the need of seeking alternative. Shame on them. And shame on you.

            Again, your only beloved is obedience for obedience sake, jon. Lording it over the sheep to denigrate them for seeking solid food.

            And, Sawyer, it is posts such as yours that only encourage this type of post from, jon. Time to stop riding the fence, Sawyer.

          • SSPX Masses may be valid, but they are illicit in the eyes of the Church. They are unlawful. Knowingly offering such Masses for the public, and members of the public knowing about the illegality of the Masses are enough of an impediment to God’s grace.

            Who said anything about obedience for the sake of mere obedience? You’re wrong AMalley. They Magisterium are the only legitimate interpreters of Scripture and Tradition. They have not interpreted it wrongly for the Spirit of the Lord guards their teaching from error. To say that the Magisterium has erred in matters of faith and morals since the Council is heresy for it negates the power of God, it negates Catholic dogma that the Spirit protects the Church from errors on these…

          • matters. Therefore AMalley. You are wrong and are in heresy.

          • Ann Malley says:

            …you need to learn what heresy consists of, jon. But good on ya for being consistent in your ignorant bias to lead the sheep into the pit!

            “Who said anything about obedience for the sake of mere obedience?

            You do, jon, by your adherence to the ridiculous. You don’t understand the actual meaning of words which is why it is so easy to mislead you. But others, sorry, aren’t as gullible or willing to dive into the pit just because everybody’s doing and they all say the water is fine. ;^)

          • Ann Malley, I’m not straddling the fence; I’m applying Canon Law: 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone… §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

          • Canon 844 requires that Catholics ordinarily receive sacraments only from Catholic ministers. SSPX priests are not Catholic ministers, even though they are validly ordained and consecrate the Eucharist.

            The second part of the canon foresees circumstances in which it could be acceptable for Catholics to receive valid sacraments from non-Catholic ministers. Nearly all Catholics in the US are physically and morally able to approach a Catholic minister, hence they should not receive sacraments from a non-Catholic minister.

            Those who prefer SSPX Masses to the local Catholic parishes for whatever reason may attend, but they should not receive communion from the SSPX. They should receive Communion only at a parish in communion with the…

          • I am not on jon’s side; I’ve stopped responding to him.

            I am on the side of truth. If YFC states the truth (and I’m well aware of his departures from the truth) I will affirm him in that.

            If Ann Malley departs from the truth (even though she and I agree about most matters) I will object.

            I have no agenda other than upholding the truth, and the truth is that Catholics should not receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers; that includes the SSPX, except for the Year of Mercy indult regarding the Sacrament of Penance.

            Attend Mass at SSPX — fine, just don’t receive Communion there. Go to a parish in full communion to receive Communion when you want to.

          • Anonymous says:

            jon, we are looking at online sources to try to find people who are 100% in keeping with Church teaching. The goal is to have candidates on every ballot that Catholics can vote for with a clear conscience. Are you over 35? Are you an natural American citizen who has resided here for 14 years? Would you accept the Presidency as a service to the country?

          • If Sawyer is for the truth, why doesn’t he uphold the truth as preached by our popes since Saint John Paul II: that the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary and MUST BE ABOLISHED! If Sawyer is for the truth why does he insist on the misinterpretation of the Church’s phrase “intrinsic disorder.” If you are for the truth stop twisting the truth in order to advance your falsehoods. Folks, support the living Magisterium, the bishops of California. Vote Yes on 62, No on 66!

          • Catherine says:

            Habitual mortal sin darkens the mind and blinds the intellect.

            Fr. Dariusz Oko’s major article: “With the Pope against the Homoheresy”

            ‘The real threat to the Church are cynical homosexual priests who take advantage of their functions on their own behalf, sometimes in an extraordinarily devious way.”

            http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fr-dariusz-okos-major-article-with-pope.html

            continued….

          • Catherine says:

            To quote F. Józef Augustyn once again: “The Church does not generate homosexuality, but falls victim to dishonest men with homosexual tendencies, who take advantage of its structures to follow their lowest instincts. Active homosexual priests are masters of camouflage. They are often exposed by accident. … The real threat to the Church are cynical homosexual priests who take advantage of their functions on their own behalf, sometimes in an extraordinarily devious way. Such situations cause great suffering to the Church, the priestly community, the superiors. The problem is indeed a very difficult one.”

          • Catherine, what Oko’s and Augustyn’s words have anything to do with my point is beyond me. Yours is classic obfuscation. There are folks here who denigrate the Ordinary Form, and therefore have committed heresy. I am calling them out on that. There are folks here like Sawyer who claim to uphold the truth yet twist it to advance their flawed POV. And then there’s you.

          • Anonymous says:

            Sawyer, God bless you. The bullies don’t care about the Truth.

          • Ann Malley says:

            …bullies are are also those who misapply canon law to deride fellow Catholics, declare schism unjustly, and disparage their brothers and sisters by assigning their motives to a whim of preference.

            That is not Truth, just another form of sin that blinds the intellect, fixing one in what is perceived as a safe position at the expense of others.

            Shameful.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Jon states, “…There are folks here like Sawyer who claim to uphold the truth yet twist it to advance their flawed POV.”

            That is an astute observation, jon. One that Sawyer should consider if he is truly desirous of promoting that which is true instead of the misapplication of the canons he prefers in order to castigate devout Catholics.

            This is why consistency is important…. and declaring schism based on a manufactured division is so seriously wrong.

  14. It would be nice if the pastor offered times for confessions, instead of by appointment” or go to tthe neighboring parish. LOL

  15. FromThePew says:

    This is a blessing that we still have so many places of worship for the Holy Mass. Thanks be to God. But shouldn’t we be discussing for how long? Christians are losing the war on Religious Rights in this country. Where is the alarm? An article explaining what is really at stake for Christian America is @ http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/remnant-television/item/2785-donald-trump-v-grandma-clinton-what-s-really-at-stake/
    Continued………

    • FromThePew says:

      Cont….Classic good VS evil. Everything else is ‘nice to have’ but if Religious Freedoms go, it will be hell on earth for Christians. Affects: every Catholic & Christian family, church, institution, school, hospital,charity, TV & Radio station, sports, bathrooms, gatherings, our entire lives, jobs, EVERYTHING. Trust in God. P R A Y. Don’t waste a vote. God gave us a choice for a time like this. Even, God willing, if the much better choice for Religious Freedoms wins, it is gonna take a miracle of Christian SOLIDARITY to turn around the damages already incurred. Some of you have hinted that the war on Christians & Religion is already here. P R A Y God help us! The devil does not like to lose ground. It could get worse…

      • FromThePew says:

        Cont……….It could get worse, much worse, before it gets better. P R A Y for God’s Will & Mercy on America. God is good. But we have fallen into Sodom & Gomorrah & unholy acts (death & abortion) in this country. Fr. Amorth, the exorcist of Rome, said in his last book, The demons go into a RAGE when St. JPII’s name is invoked during an exorcism & they say, “He ruined our plans.” Fr. Amorth thinks it is because of St JPII’s devotion to Mary (Fatima, World Consecration, Rosary, TOTUS TUUS). Remember this especially if we ever have a time of great need. Jesus, Mary, Joseph & St. Michael, St. JPII, as well as all of Heaven, pray for us. P R A Y.

  16. anne o. nymous says:

    I remember the Balboa Island of the 1950’s – long before the area was blown out by mega-bucks. It was magic.
    Msgr. Baird is a great priest. PTL

  17. How was the appellation “Conservative” determined? By survey? Do they talk like a Hallmark Greeting Card? Wear a tie in church? Display Pro-Life bumper stickers? Not wear white after Labor Day? Is “Old and Conservative” the new “Anglo”? Inquiring minds want to know.

  18. anne o. nymous says:

    Hymie: Brilliant !!
    I would offer the following:
    “Older” = anyone older than I am.
    “Conservative” = holding 60% bonds and 40% stocks in your portfolio

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.