8 Dec: TLM with Bp. Matano at St. Joseph’s co-Cathedral

This just in: 

His Excellency Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano, Bishop of Burlington, Vermont, will celebrate the Extraordinary Form for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception with a Vigil Mass on December 7 at 7 PM at St. Joseph Co-Cathedral.

Also, in Bradford, VT,  Fr. Phillip Lamothe has offered the Extraordinary Form for a 4PM Vigil Mass on Saturdays since October.

We have read about H.E. Bp. Matano before here and here and here.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to 8 Dec: TLM with Bp. Matano at St. Joseph’s co-Cathedral

  1. RichR says:

    It is nice when the Bishop shows such visible support for the Tradition of the Church. It is no longer a faux pas to look at the Church before the Council and seek the continuity that the Pontiff exhorts us to embrace.

    Our schola has already been getting requests for Latin Novus Ordo Masses, Latin Vespers, Holy Hours, etc….. We even have received an invitation from the choir director at our Cathedral to sing at a Latin Mass according to the Extraordinary Form.

    People are craving solemnity in their worship, and they want to see their Bishops support this desire….just like Bp. Matano.

  2. MJRyan says:

    During the extraordinary form, should women cover their heads?

  3. TJM says:

    I guess the bishop would rather have a full Church than be doctrinaire and have empty pews. A smart man. Tom

  4. danphunter1 says:

    MJRyan,
    Yes, during Holy Mass all women should wear head coverings and all men should bare their heads.
    God bless you.

  5. brenda says:

    Women covering their heads is certainly not compulsory and in my view is likely to be counter-productive in discourarging newcomers who don’t know what it is about. There are some good arguments for the practice (have a listen to Fr Z’s podcast on the subject), but in my view it tends to be a ‘ghettoising’ practice that makes traddies look like a separate cult rather than part of the mainstream church.

  6. danphunter1 says:

    brenda,
    Christ said Himself that He came to bring a sword, to divide mother against daughter father against son etc..
    Jesus Himself stated that he was going to set apart Christians from other non-Christians.
    In my experience most women who are assisting at their first mass find the wearing of either a veil or a hat to Holy Mass, as very edifying. It has nothing to do with being a “cult” as you put it, rather it has to do with humility before our Creator and modesty before man.
    St Paul himself states that women must have their heads covered at Mass and men must bare their heads.
    The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates this,and it has never been abrogated.
    God bless you.

  7. dan: The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates this,and it has never been abrogated.

    Wrong. The 1917 Code is NOT IN FORCE. It was entirely replaced by the 1983 Code. It is no longer obligatory for women to cover their heads. It is still a fine thing to do and highly to be recommended, but it is NOT binding by law.

  8. William says:

    You may not be aware Brenda, that although head coverings may have almost completely disappeared in the U.S., they are still commonly used in some other countries – no matter what type of Mass one attends.

    In my opinion, and also my experience, it is appropriate for women to wear a head covering in church. Personally, I do not understand why so many people possess an attitude of rebellion against tradition and scripture.

    However, I also do not think any woman should be required to wear a head covering for now – they usually choose freely to do so shortly after beginning regular attendance at a church where it is commonplace.

  9. danphunter1 says:

    Mea Culpa, Father.
    I was not aware of 1983. So does the silence on head coverings in the’83 code also imply that men are now ALLOWED to wear hats at Holy Mass?
    Also what was the point in promulgating a new code?
    Is the Church better off for it?
    Was the 1917 code somehow inferior in moral disciplines?