Motu Proprio “Within a Few Days”

by Jimmy Akin

in Benedict XVI

A statement from the Vatican press office confirms the meeting B16 had with various bishops on the Tridentine rite Mass:

"The publication of the document — which will be accompanied by an extensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops — is expected within a few days, when the document itself will be sent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation," the statement said.

GET THE STORY.

SO WHAT’S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE TWO RITES OF MASS, ANYWAY?

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 249 comments }

James June 29, 2007 at 1:13 am

I hope the implementationof this motu proprio will ease the pain of those who have missed the Tridentine Mass and will nourish their faith, hope and charity. We will have to wait and see what results from the permitted variations. Personally I do not envisage the Glory Days that some anticipate

mick June 29, 2007 at 1:56 am

i’m so glad. Deo gratias… Moto propio is coming. i’m from malaysia . i attend N.Ordo mass regularly. not a single churches there celebrate TLM, but only 2 chapel belong to SSPX celebrated TLM in malaysia… unlike in america you can find some churches did celebrate TLM. catholic in malaysia seen lost their faith. they doesn’t know the situation of Moto propio ducement. what the pope Ben16 want us to do. the really dont know and they not even care about the true meaning of the church, that belong to God. Benedict16 is doing the right thing. he is the greatest pope in the past 40years. last week i went to catholic store, i asked the girl , do you have chapel veil??? the girl seen so lost and shock. she replied “what is chapel veil?” SHAME ON YOU CATHOLICS. this is the problem of V2. modenlisation make people forget about God and his angel and his church and his son. i don’t how to speak latin, i not belong to the SSPX. but i know how to pray PaterNoster, AVe marie in latin. in fact most of the malaysia catholic doesn’t know how to pray in latin. they even dont know the official language of R.Catholic is LATIN.
what a shame. N.Ordo mass love to sing Our Father in Rock music. i really don’t know why. when the church become a concert hall??? when they sing in Rock fast track Our Father. i silently pray for God. forgive them, for they do not know your church history.
i think malaysia catholic dont have the chance to TLM. bcos the priest wouldn’t go for TLM. but never mind at least the Ben16 is doing the right thing. and the catholic church is back on track. .. alleluya……………. Deo gratias……..

Dr. Eric June 29, 2007 at 6:36 am

It would make more sense to do it today on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul than in a few days on a indiscriminate Feast day.
I don’t think it’s coming and I’m not affected if it does. I do hope that those who are attached to the TLM will get to worship in the way that they want.

BillyHW June 29, 2007 at 7:15 am

Real Soon Now.

matt June 29, 2007 at 7:53 am

Just like the US bishops to mock the Tridentine Latin Mass with that uneducated comparison.
— While Latin is the original language of both liturgical texts, the new missal permits use of the vernacular language; because it called for full, active participation, the use of a local congregation’s language became customary.

That’s ridicuolous, Vatican II called for “actual” (Latin actuoso, not activa) first by means of education:
SC 19. With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example.
This call for participation dates back to St. Pius X who urged that missals to be widely available in the vernacular to assist the faithful in participating.

— With the exception of readings for the feast days of individual saints, the Tridentine Mass has a one-year cycle of Scripture readings. The Vatican II liturgy has a three-year cycle for Sunday readings and a two-year cycle for weekday readings.

Fails to note that in the new lectionary the “hard teachings” have been mostly relegated to the weekdays, or the cutting room floor.

— The old penitential “prayers at the foot of the altar,” recited by priests and other ministers before Mass, were replaced by the penitential rite within the Mass, recited by the entire congregation.

The pentitential rite is recited by the people in the most common masses celebrated today and in the years prior to Vatican II. I might add in it’s complete and unadulterated form:

P:  Confiteor Deo omnipotenti,    P: I confess to almighty God,
beatae Mariae semper virgini,     to blessed Mary ever virgin,
beato Michaeli archangelo,        to blessed Michael the
beato Joanni Baptistae,           archangel,  to blessed John
sanctis Apostolis Petro et        the Baptist,  to the holy
Paulo,  omnibus Sanctis et        apostles Peter and Paul,  to
vobis fratres,  quia peccavi      all the saints,  and to you,
nimis cogitatione,  verbo,        brethren,  that I have sinned
et opere:  (The priest strikes    exceedingly in thought,  word,
his breast three times,           and deed: (The priest strikes
saying:)  mea culpa,  mea         his breast three times saying:)
culpa,  mea maxima culpa.         through my fault,  through my
Ideo precor beatam Mariam         fault,  through my most
semper virginem,  beatum          grievous fault.  Therefore I
Michaelem archangelum,  beatum    beseech the blessed Mary ever
Joannem Baptistam,  sanctos       virgin,  blessed Micheal the
Apostolos Petrum et Paulum,       archangel,  blessed John the
omnes Sanctos,  et vos            Baptist,  the holy apostles
fratres,  orare pro me ad         Peter and Paul,  all the
Dominum Deum nostrum.             saints,  and you,  brethren,
to pray to the Lord our God
for me.
R:  Misereatur tui omnipotens     R: May almighty God have mercy
Deus, et dimissis peccatis        on thee and,  having forgiven
tuis,  perducat te ad vitam       thee thy sins,  bring thee to
aeternam.                         life everlasting.
P:  Amen.                         P:  Amen.


— In the Tridentine Mass, the first half of the liturgy was called the Mass of the Catechumens and almost always included a reading from one of the New Testament epistles and from one of the four Gospels. The new Liturgy of the Word, in accordance with ancient church tradition, almost always begins with a passage from the Old Testament.

Well, in ancient Church tradition, the New Testament had not been codified, so it stands to reason. As to the change in terminology, it’s semantic. The Old Testament is well represented in the Traditional Mass in the prayers of the proper and ordinary of the mass, and does appear in a number of readings either directly, or as addressed by New Testament authors.

— The Liturgy of the Eucharist, formerly called the Mass of the Faithful, begins with the preparation of the gifts. The old offertory prayers were revised in the new liturgy to avoid what some people saw as a duplication of the eucharistic prayers.

Huh?

— Instead of one eucharistic prayer, there are now nine — four for general Sunday and weekday use, two for Masses focusing on reconciliation and three for Masses for children.

That doesn’t sound like what Vatican II meant in SC #34 by The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity?

— In the new Mass, the Communion rite was simplified, allowing communicants to receive the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine.

Failing to mention the “norm” in the new mass of violating the rubrics with extraordinary ministers, and in the use of both species when it is not reasonable to do so by virtue of the size of the congregation. On the contrary, SC 55 says: communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
Which line means “every Sunday and weekday”?

— The new Mass eliminated the recitation at the end of every Mass of what was known as the “last Gospel” — the beginning of the Gospel of St. John.

This is true, and the Leonine prayers as well? But why? Is there some offense to the classicly Catholic prayers?

— A priest celebrated the Tridentine Mass facing east, which — given the layout of most churches — meant he celebrated with his back to the congregation. Since the promulgation of the Roman Missal, the priest normally faces the congregation.

But why did the priest face East? And why were churches constructed so that the priest together with the people, face not only East, but the altar and tabernacle of God?
The discussion fails to mention some other things that are “customary” to the Novus Ordo, irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, communion in the hand, profane music, altar girls, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, etc. etc. All serious violations of the dignity of the mass.
God Bless,
Matt

Rick June 29, 2007 at 8:04 am

Matt, good points.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 8:20 am

Matt,
Thank you very much.
You are a voice of reason.Keep up the holy teaching.
God bless you.

Phil Maff June 29, 2007 at 8:33 am

Matt,
You bring up some good points. We have all heard the heterodox claim that in the “spirit of Vatican II” this and that were changed. But, the question is, which changes are in the documents of Vatican II?
Discussion point. Can anyone tell me if the removal of Latin entirely, the removal of the communion rails, and communion in the hand where part of the documents, or part of the hijack, I mean, “spirit” of Vatican II.
By the way, shouldn’t the spirit of VII be the Holy Spirit?

Phil Maff June 29, 2007 at 8:37 am

I meant to add that I accept whatever Vatican II actually said to do. I’m just not learned enough to know what that is. If anyone can recommend a good book or article about this I would be most obliged.

Ian June 29, 2007 at 8:53 am

Removal of communion rails, destroying high altars in favor of tables, removing tabernacles from the sanctuary, extraordinary ministers, the elimination of chant, organs and polyphony in favor of clap-happy folk drivel, the abolition of Latin, the introduction of Communion in the hand, the abandonment of chapel veils, the banning of incense and bells, the building of churches in the round, the building of churches that could double as penitentiary cafeterias, the destruction of statues, art, organs and stained glass, the elimination of the prayers at the end of Mass, the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar are a few of the things that are not found in the documents of Vatican II.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 9:10 am

Ian,
You do know that there are chants that utilize polyphony, don’t you?
Or are you of the sort that consider polyphony evil?
Chants that feature polyphony is not the same as the awful modern music heard at today’s Novus Ordo Missae.
Some of the most Sacred and heavenly-sounding chants are polyphonic.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

Phil,
There is a book called,”Iota Unum”,by a great Swiss philosopher,named Romano Amerio.
Amerio was a peritus,or expert to a Swiss bishop at the Council so he saw and heard first hand what was transpiring.This book is available from Sarto House and is invaluable in its exposition of the “changes in the Church in the twentieth century”
As Amerio himself points out there are many ambiguous statements made in the documents themselves,as well as outright errors.Especially in Gaudium et Spes.
There is much anthropocentricm as opposed to theocentrism in the documents.
This work by an eyewitness can shake your trust in the workings of the Council ,but must be read by anyone interested in truth.
God bless you.

Joe S. June 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

As an Orthodox Christian, I find it puzzling that the New rite of Mass which was supposed to be based on a return to ancient patristic tradition, is actually more different from the Orthodox Divine Liturgy than the traditional Mass. Why didn’t the Roman Church just seek to restore an earlier version of the Roman Mass? Why the need to introduce these innovations such as having the priest face the wrong way (with his back to Christ)? In my opinion, the Novus Ordo, even celebrated with reverence, is an obstacle to reunion between the Churches. Pope Benedict XVI should simply use his supreme authority immediately to absolutely forbid any priest from celebrating the Novus Ordo facing the people, instead of facing God. How absurd it is to pray with one’s back to God.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 9:36 am

Joe S.,
B16, then Cardinal Ratzinger, is a staunch advocate of versus orientem.
In a past interview, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said:
“Versus orientem, I would say could be a help because it is really a tradition from the Apostolic time, and it’s not only a norm, but it’s an expression also of the cosmical dimension and of the historical dimension of the liturgy.
We are celebrating with the cosmos, with the world. It’s the direction of the future of the world, of our history represented in the sun and in the cosmical realities. I think today this new discovering of our relation with the created world can be understood also from the people, better than perhaps 20 years ago. And also, it’s a common direction – priest and people are in common oriented to the Lord. So, I think it could be a help. Always external gestures are not simply a remedy in itself, but could be a help because it’s a very classical interpretation of what is the direction of the liturgy.”
Cardinal Ratzinger even advocated use of Latin in the Novus Ordo Missae, which he further supported in his Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis.
In the same past interview, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said:
“Generally, I think it was good to translate the liturgy in the spoken languages because we will understand it; we will participate also with our thinking. But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.”

Joe S. June 29, 2007 at 9:39 am

Esau
Do you think that Pope Benedict XVI might eventually issue a proclamation turning the priest around? He is a brilliant theologian. His “Spirit of the Liturgy” is superb.
Joe

A.Williams June 29, 2007 at 9:44 am

Mick,
Keep up the good faith! There are alot of people who totally agree with you, and luckily, one of them is the Pope! God bless you and your country. And God help the Universal Church to unite around our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!

JoAnna June 29, 2007 at 9:51 am

The discussion fails to mention some other things that are “customary” to the Novus Ordo, irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, communion in the hand, profane music, altar girls, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, etc. etc. All serious violations of the dignity of the mass.

What’s wrong with altar girls? Jesus didn’t seem to have a problem with Mary perfuming his feet; why would He have a problem with a girl assisting at Mass? After all, women are allowed to be EMHCs. I guess I don’t see why it’s such a huge problem.

Alex Benziger.G June 29, 2007 at 9:52 am

Sir,
Martin Luther want to destroy the Catholic, so he said as “Tolle Missam, Tolle Eclessiam” that is, destroy the papal Mass destroy the Church. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Mick, after the VaticanII considerable lay catholics are left the Church. All good values are lost, heritage and artistical altars were destroyed. B16 is the greatest Pope likes Pope Saint Gregory VII in 1074.
Long Live B16. DEO GRATIAS.

Elijah June 29, 2007 at 10:03 am

Joe,
Priests do not have their backs to Christ during the Novus Ordo mass. The altar is between the priest and the people.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 10:04 am

Joe S.
One step at a time.
Remember, we still don’t know how successful the MP will be received.
I only thank God that JP II prepared the way for Ratzinger as he did.
If you look at how JP II masterfully laid out Ratzinger’s career path as he did, this restoration wouldn’t be coming about at all; we probably wouldn’t even have Ratzinger as Pope!
Remember, the then Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to retire.
It was by JP II’s hand that Ratzinger’s path to the papacy became possible.

Joe S. June 29, 2007 at 10:12 am

Easau,
I do think that Cardinal Ratzinger is a great blessing to the Church and providence has wisely placed him at the head of the Roman Church in this time.
Elijah; I will rephrase then. Any chance that Pope Benedict XVI will return the altar to its proper position so that people will all be facing the same direction toward Christ and not encircling Christ? :-)

Pseudomodo June 29, 2007 at 10:26 am

Thanks Matt,
I did a little research on the word actuose from SC#11. Where is it often translated as actively, the “actual” (interesting connection here!) translation according to the armchair latinists means ‘actual’.
A little more research comes up with a better latin translation in that the word actuose means passionately, eagerly.
And so it would seem that what the council fathers actually wanted was passion and eagerness and not necessarily hand clapping and foot stomping.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 10:27 am

Joanna,
Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary.
The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus.
I hope this helps.
God bless you.

Mary Kay June 29, 2007 at 10:31 am

Not surprised, but a bit wearied, to see ridicule of the “Novus Ordo” in this thread. Much more a reflection on those posting here than the 1970 Missal itself.

Mary Kay June 29, 2007 at 10:35 am

Perhaps my last post could alternately been phrased that many of the posts in this thread are the opinion of those posting.

Phil Maff June 29, 2007 at 10:38 am

I agree with Mary Kay. We should criticize those elements illicitly added to the Novus Ordo Mass, not the NO itself. That’s why I asked for a list of what VII actually changed, not what we have now.
As I’ve stated before, I’ve only been to 2 or 3 NO Masses that were done most reverently and correctly, and I preferred that mass to the Tridentine. But, alas, those Masses are just so few and far between…

Dan June 29, 2007 at 10:39 am

No Mary Kay,
It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band.
God bless you

Phil Maff June 29, 2007 at 10:43 am

“fabricated” Pauline Missal Dan??
By that logic everything that the Vatican does is fabricated.

Dr. Eric June 29, 2007 at 10:45 am

Dan,
That is only a reflection of your personal tastes and not the objective reality of the Sacrament that takes place at the Mass.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 10:49 am

— The Liturgy of the Eucharist, formerly called the Mass of the Faithful, begins with the preparation of the gifts. The old offertory prayers were revised in the new liturgy to avoid what some people saw as a duplication of the eucharistic prayers.
Huh?

Matt,
Although I’d rather attend the Tridentine Mass, there are deficiencies in the Tridentine that apparantly you aren’t even aware of; thus, the ‘huh?’ in the response from you above.
Adrian Fortescue, author of the articles on the Liturgy for the Catholic Encyclopedia, actually described the canon in the Tridentine rite as being a dramatic change from what it was before.
More precisely, it was stated: “the canon has not only been changed but dramatically so.”
Hence:
This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.
At Rome, the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries… Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say: “We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon” (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).
The part removed from the ellipse stated simply that “[d]uring the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer”
(Fortescue: Catholic Encyclopedia article “Liturgy of the Mass” c. 1913).
Other things mentioned:
1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]
2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt…Benedictus… Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona… For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies…. In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who…” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]
3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition….
It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;…
Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.
As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition….
The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]
4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]
5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;… After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]
6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting.[8]

Dan June 29, 2007 at 10:52 am

Phil,
Cardinal Ratzinger himself called the novus ordo a fabricated break with the organic development of Holy Mass.
Take it up with Pope Benedict.
God bless you and yours.

BillyHW June 29, 2007 at 10:54 am

Joanna, the problem with altar girls is that they have kooties.

Steve Cavanaugh June 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

Dan Hunter,
Please be HONEST.
He didn’t just say that.
Esau,
many of Fortescue’s criticisms have since been shown to be based on mistaken history. The “Apostolic Tradition” of Hippolytus was almost certainly not a reflection of Roman tradition, Hippolytus himself having originally come from Syria. The lack of an Epiclesis shows not a defect but the ancient provenance of the Canon. I would recommend reading through Bouyer’s Eucharist for more up-to-date resources on the history of the Roman rite Mass.

Phil Maff June 29, 2007 at 11:07 am

Thank you Esau.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 11:07 am

Esau,
Cardinal Ratzinger said:”After the Council in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came a fabricated liturgy.
We abandoned the organic living process,with a fabrication,a banal on the spot product”
Cardinal Ratzinger.
God bless you.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

I would recommend reading through Bouyer’s Eucharist for more up-to-date resources on the history of the Roman rite Mass.
Steve Cavanaugh:
Thanks for the reading recommendation!!!
I’ll be sure to check it out (once I find the time — hopefully!).

Dan June 29, 2007 at 11:20 am

Esau,
Read Romano Amerio’s book “Iota Unum” Changes in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century.
Very eye opening.
Available from Sarto House.

JoAnna June 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

Joanna,
Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary.
The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus.
I hope this helps.
God bless you.

Then why are women allowed to be EMHCs?
Just because a boy is an altar boy does not mean he will necessarily have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps being an altar girl might help a girl realize a vocation to religious life.

Ed Peters June 29, 2007 at 12:14 pm

The motu proprio is still coming out.

John June 29, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Jimmy
Does not Esau’s long post break “Da Rulz”? as it is obviously a “cut and paste” which I have no issues with but the length is extreme!
Thanks

John June 29, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Joe S and Matt
You are exactly correct!
The new mass even said with reverence is an obstacle towards any reunion because as our holy father B16 said it was a “fabricated liturgy”. That does not sound organic to me!
Thank you Pope Benedict, this has been a great week, first with the restoration in the process for the election of a new pope and now allowing priests to learn the traditional mass without being made out to be heretics!

Jarnor23 June 29, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Darling, don’t you understand that EMHCs are yet another part of the evil V2 conspiracy to let unholy things like the laity and women influence the church?
I mean, just because receiving the Lord under both species made some people like me more comfortable converting and let me see more clearly that this IS Christ’s true Church and not some diabolical scam, why that’s no reason at all not to have their pristine, womenless, laityless altar be soiled with common blood. Nor is having women more involved in the faith in perfectly legal capacities. Nor is the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing. All these things like salvation are secondary to having EVERYONE do Mass JUST like they like.
Listen, I’m glad you guys will be getting your Tridentine Mass, but give us people who like our reverently celebrated N.O. Mass a break here. Just like EMHCs, you also will be the “extraordinary” way of doing things, so if there’s something wrong with an EMHC even though allowed, there’s something wrong with YOU as well.
Originally, I was rather excited to think of this development, as I wanted to see what the Tridentine was like, but if it’s filled with a bunch of rubrik’s Pharasees like here, I think I’ll stay away, thank you very much.

jmt June 29, 2007 at 12:29 pm

so, if it meant to be available for “30 or more”….. i certainly hope that the Church will allow for other requests by 30 or more.
Most of the people who I know are good people. Many act as if what a priest celebrating Mass according to the norms today are somehow not right, not holy and certainly not “their” priests. Sad, that in a day and age where there are so few priests that the good priests that I know are being torn to bits by those who like to present themselves as more catholic than the Pope.

Different June 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Dan said…
“It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band.”
What you have written here is your subjective opinion and has no objective basis whatsoever. Arguing that one liturgical text is superior to the other is a matter of personal taste. It’s like arguing that the Memorare is superior to the Hail Mary. One prayer is not “better” than the other. To argue otherwise is stupid. Both are genuine, holy, valid prayers.
I suppose next you’ll argue that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a smallish diamond set on white gold?

matt June 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Esau,
notwithstanding that Fortescue (who I highly respect by the way) may be mistaken about the changes to the canon in 400-600, how in the slightest way are those issues resolved by the Novus Ordo? There are 9 canons to chose from by the priest… that is unprecedented, and most of them are made up or cobbled together from ancient sources.
Matt

matt June 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Elijah,
Priests do not have their backs to Christ during the Novus Ordo mass. The altar is between the priest and the people.
Except that if the tabernacle is placed as was customary for centuries, and is still the place most consistent with the instructions of the Vatican – central in front of the altar, then for most of the mass, the only Real Presence is behind the priest. In fact, there so no place that He can reside which would not make some or all of the congregation or celebrants with their backs to Him. The location of the tabernacle and the high altar with the mass said ad orientum is makes the most “pastoral” and liturgical sense. It’s not about the priest acting like he’s on a stage, it’s about Christ.
Joanna,

Joanna, Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary. The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus. I hope this helps. God bless you.
Then why are women allowed to be EMHCs?
Just because a boy is an altar boy does not mean he will necessarily have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps being an altar girl might help a girl realize a vocation to religious life.
Posted by: JoAnna | Jun 29, 2007 11:52:31 AM

Women are not supposed to be EMHC’s, in fact believe it or not, according to the Church there are not supposed to be any EMHC’s except in extraordinary circumstances. When necessary, instituted acolytes (who are all men) are to be chosen first. Furthermore, the readings of the mass are supposed to be done by instituted lectors (also men) unless there are none available. The problem, is that we live in a place and time where many of episcopate, at least implicitly favor womans ordination, and don’t understand themselves why women are excluded from certain ministries (as are men).
While of course not all altar boys become priests, most men (at least in the past) who become priests were altar boys. When you insert girls into that role, frankly, the boys are decidedly not interested, and it follows that they may miss their calling to the priesthood. You can blame it on the boys if you like, but the priest shortage is a serious problem for the girls too. The diocese with the most vocations has no altar girls, do you think this is a coincidence? Lincoln, Nebraska has 1 priest per 800 Catholics, 5 times the national average…. think about that.
God Bless,
Matt

matt June 29, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Phil,

You bring up some good points. We have all heard the heterodox claim that in the “spirit of Vatican II” this and that were changed. But, the question is, which changes are in the documents of Vatican II?
Discussion point. Can anyone tell me if the removal of Latin entirely, the removal of the communion rails, and communion in the hand where part of the documents, or part of the hijack, I mean, “spirit” of Vatican II.
By the way, shouldn’t the spirit of VII be the Holy Spirit?
Posted by: Phil Maff | Jun 29, 2007 8:33:04 AM

SC, 36:
1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

The Spirit of Vatican II should be the Holy Spirit, but sadly whatever the spirit is, it isn’t consistent with the actual documents of Vatican II, so and since the Holy Spirit is truth itself… what is the spirit of lies?
God Bless,
Matt

matt June 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Different,

Dan said…
“It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band.”
What you have written here is your subjective opinion and has no objective basis whatsoever. Arguing that one liturgical text is superior to the other is a matter of personal taste. It’s like arguing that the Memorare is superior to the Hail Mary. One prayer is not “better” than the other. To argue otherwise is stupid. Both are genuine, holy, valid prayers.
I suppose next you’ll argue that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a smallish diamond set on white gold?
Posted by: Different | Jun 29, 2007 12:37:05 PM

While I don’t particularly care for this particular metaphor, it is not purely subjective. All one has to do is compare the Novus Ordo in English with the actual Latin to see that the translation takes away a lot of the theological sheen. Then compare verse by verse the Traditional with the Latin Novus Ordo, objectively. You’ll find that much has been removed, or “softened” which makes it much weaker.
Your reference to the Divine Liturgy is a red herring, it has no correlation. It is not a watered down version of anything.
God Bless,
Matt

matt June 29, 2007 at 1:01 pm

oops.
Jarnor23,
Darling, don’t you understand that EMHCs are yet another part of the evil V2 conspiracy to let unholy things like the laity and women influence the church?
I mean, just because receiving the Lord under both species made some people like me more comfortable converting and let me see more clearly that this IS Christ’s true Church and not some diabolical scam, why that’s no reason at all not to have their pristine, womenless, laityless altar be soiled with common blood. Nor is having women more involved in the faith in perfectly legal capacities. Nor is the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing. All these things like salvation are secondary to having EVERYONE do Mass JUST like they like.
Listen, I’m glad you guys will be getting your Tridentine Mass, but give us people who like our reverently celebrated N.O. Mass a break here. Just like EMHCs, you also will be the “extraordinary” way of doing things, so if there’s something wrong with an EMHC even though allowed, there’s something wrong with YOU as well.
Originally, I was rather excited to think of this development, as I wanted to see what the Tridentine was like, but if it’s filled with a bunch of rubrik’s Pharasees like here, I think I’ll stay away, thank you very much.
Posted by: Jarnor23 | Jun 29, 2007 12:28:38 PM

So you are opposed to rubrics? I doubt you even understand them, or why they are necessary. I suggest you read from the Holy Father on the liturgy, it may open your mind. Do you even want to take direction from him, or prefer to make your own rubric?
The “extraordinary” reference to the EMHC, is likely not the same as the one to the Traditional Latin Mass, but that remains to be seen from the document. Oh, you don’t like documents.
God Bless,
Matt

Different June 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Matt,
Thanks for your response. I didn’t mention the NO in English and the problem of a less than perfect translation is a separate problem.
A comparison of the two liturgical texts does not prove that one is superior. They are both validly promulgated good and holy liturgies. To say one is superior is utterly ridiculous. In your opinion one may be stronger than the other. I may think the Memorare is more beautiful or profound than the Hail Mary, but that wouldn’t mean that the Memorare is, in fact, objectively superior.
The Divine Liturgy is not a red herring. By bringing it up I am demonstrating quite clearly, that a comparison between two liturgical texts is nonsense. You wouldn’t think of claiming that objectively the TLM is superior and deeper and more profound than the divine liturgy, because you realize that it’s a silly proposition to make.
Saying that one text has a better “theological sheen” is silly.

paul zummo June 29, 2007 at 1:06 pm

off now

paul zummo June 29, 2007 at 1:07 pm

try again

Leigh June 29, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Italics going off?
If they are, then I really hope that this story ends up coming out as true. Don’t know exactly how it’s going to play out in day-to-day life, though – I’ve got a old-skewing parish with a very liberal (though still orthodox) pastor.

Jarnor23 June 29, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Oddly enough, I didn’t say many things you think I did, Matt. You assume a lot. I’m not against rubrics, I’m against Phariseeical infallible personal interpretations of them. When something is allowed, and the Bishop doesn’t go against it, it is a matter of personal preference at that point. You talk as if these things you like aren’t allowed at all, when they are.

BillyHW June 29, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Can people who forget to close their italics html also be saved?

Esau June 29, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Does not Esau’s long post break “Da Rulz”? as it is obviously a “cut and paste” which I have no issues with but the length is extreme!
AND
Thank you Pope Benedict, this has been a great week, first with the restoration in the process for the election of a new pope and now allowing priests to learn the traditional mass without being made out to be heretics!
John,
STOP goading me into an argument with you!
Now, you proclaim B16 as some sort of HERO, when awhile back in other threads, you declared him an Apostate!
Not to mention, talk about ‘cut-and-pastes’, there are several comments you’ve posted that were obviously cut-and-pastes from other websites including an SSPX one which not only I, but other people on this blog have caught you doing as well!

Tim J. June 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

There should be a distinction made between the basic structure of the Mass – any Mass – and specific kinds of readings, prayers and actions that are used, both at the altar and by those assisting (us).
The N.O. is built on the same basic structure as the TLM, and in that sense is “organic”. It is both valid and licit. However, many of the specific changes in terms of details (prayers changed or omitted, the posture and actions of the priest, and of course, the language) were – IMO – not organic.
One big reason is that for a change to be organic (in my mind) it would need to happen gradually, as a result of cultural influences over quite a long period of time.
This was not at all the case with the N.O.. The changes came about not as a result of broad cultural shifts over a long time, but happened very suddenly and basically came from the “top down”, engineered by a fairly small number of people, a liturgical elite, rather than bubbling up naturally from the faithful.
For this reason, no matter what kind of liturgical reforms were needed at the time of Vatican II (and they were needed), the Mass in general is in much greater need of reform now than it was before the council undertook to reform it.
This is certainly not entirely the fault of the hierarchy… we in in West have simply forgotten how to treat anything with awe and solemnity. Births, deaths, weddings… all are treated with the same post-modern gloss. Same with the Mass. Most seem to be of a mind that “Mass is great, and all, but let’s not get carried away.”.
No… let’s do. Let’s get carried away with the Mass. Let’s get extravagant again in our music and church buildings and art. Let the world accuse us of being wasteful and immoderate in our worship. Can we even manage that any more?
And by extravagant worship, I don’t mean waving our hands and shouting. I mean extravagantly beautiful. Profound and deep. Movingly significant ALL ON IT’S OWN, and not in need of any pumping up with aerobics and noise and drums.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Not to mention the fact, John, that MOST of your posts were long AND anti-Catholic AND clearly Protestant in nature!
There’s a big difference between your posts vs. Joe S. and Matt’s — they’re genuinely Traditional Catholics in the sense that they have not abandoned the Catholic Church and still acknowledge the Authority of Peter; not like some fair-weather wannabes like you who had even declared JP II and B XVI heretics and apostates as you had done so in the past!
My, my, how quickly the winds have changed, the tides have shifted, that you suddenly laud B16 with such glowing praise and admiration when it wasn’t awhile ago that you considered him one of the most vile heretics in the world, next to JP II!

paul zummo June 29, 2007 at 1:33 pm

You talk as if these things you like aren’t allowed at all, when they are.
Actually, in the case of EMCs and the like, they aren’t. Matt was right: many of the things you see at Mass are not allowed in the rubrics.

paul zummo June 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Esau:
Friendly advice: stop taking the bait.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 1:37 pm

The Ave Maria is superior to the Memorare for it is part of our Ladys Psalter.
The Memorare is not.
God bless you

Tim J. June 29, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Esau, John’s posts were fairly innocuous, certainly not inflammatory. But there is no need – even if you feel he is goading you – to oblige him. Just ignore it.
As far as his praise of B16… well, thanks be to God for that. Don’t slap his hand.
John, please do us all a favor and just don’t respond at all to Esau’s post.
PLEEZE?

Esau June 29, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Paul Zummo:
Thanks for the sound advice.
Dan:
How can you actually claim that one prayer is superior to another?
Aren’t all prayers to God just as dear to Him?

Dan June 29, 2007 at 1:55 pm

No Esau,
Our Lady has commanded us to pray the Rosary over other prayers.
You have to start understanding that there are degrees of goodness in the metaphysical realm.
This applies to every aspect of creation.
Even God the Father has reserved greater places in Heaven for holier Saints.
This is a matter of Church Teaching.
God bless you.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Dan,
Your understanding is based on a mis-understanding.
With regards to prayer, when somebody who asks the Lord for help in a time of great adversity be it due to life-threatning illness like cancer, suffering due to incredible oppresion and tyranny, or whatever else the situation might be; if that person were to pray, “Lord, please help me in my hour of need!”
Please don’t tell me that you actually think God would say, “Hey, your prayers mean didly squat to me unless you pray the Rosary!”

Different June 29, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Dan,
Nice move with the Memorare/Hail Mary bit.
But really that wasn’t my point. The point was that you can’t prove one liturgical text or prayer is objectively superior and to argue about it is really pointless.
It’s like arguing that Flannery O’Connor is objectively a better writer than Evelyn Waugh. You can’t make the case if you want, but ultimately, it’s a subjective matter.

JoAnna June 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Women are not supposed to be EMHC’s, in fact believe it or not, according to the Church there are not supposed to be any EMHC’s except in extraordinary circumstances. When necessary, instituted acolytes (who are all men) are to be chosen first. Furthermore, the readings of the mass are supposed to be done by instituted lectors (also men) unless there are none available. The problem, is that we live in a place and time where many of episcopate, at least implicitly favor womans ordination, and don’t understand themselves why women are excluded from certain ministries (as are men).

Can you please cite the Church documents that say this so I can read them in context?
I know and fully understand why women cannot be priests, but I find it hard to believe that the Church feels that women are useless at the Mass in any capacity except for that of the cantor. I enjoy being a lector at my parish and I would be VERY disappointed if women were no longer permitted to serve in such a capacity.
My parish has men and women EMHCs. It is a small college campus church, and there aren’t enough small boys attending for alter boys given that the majority of the parish members are single college students. It doesn’t make the Mass any less reverent, so far as I can tell.

mt June 29, 2007 at 2:38 pm

the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing.
Jarnor23, I am not one of “rubrik’s Pharasees” if there really are such people – maybe you are a tad uncharitable? I love both the Novus Ordo (done well – without the worst of the worst hymns, for example) and the Tridentine. I have studied both and both are valid.
But as for Extraordinary Ministers – I was one, and I just resigned, and my heart is SO much lighter. I don’t have the norms in front of me, but I KNOW that John Paul II and B16 did not want four priests sitting idly by while women handed out the Eucharist; nor did they think an “extraordinary need” was when there were — gasp — 20 people at a morning Mass. And I don’t think they would have been pleased by “training” that included telling women that some who have been trained have left the church to become Episcopal priestesses (and that the Holy Spirit was leading them!!!).
EMs are allowed, and women are allowed to be EMs, and whatever Rome says goes, as far as I am concerned. But in some parishes there is more than Rome ever dreamed of.
It would be wonderful if becoming EMs made all women think harder about living a Godly life, but (1) you’d never know it by the Voice of the Faithful EMs I have met, and (2) all the women of the past two millennia — all those saints and abbesses and martyrs and blesseds – managed it without having to take over a priestly (not as in “priesthood of all believers” but CLERGY) role.

Skygor June 29, 2007 at 3:18 pm

JoAnna,
Here are the Sections from the Canon describing who can be ministers of communion.

Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
§2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.

And here is the cross references for concerning the Rights of the Laity

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.
Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.
§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law. (Bold mine.)

Sadly I cannot find a copy of it in Latin to see if “vir” or “homo” was used for the word “man”. However in the various sections you can see the terms “person” and “man or woman” used implying that they are being specific with genders. I wouldn’t take it too badly since they don’t want any laity to perform such services. Even the acolytes are just standing in for Deacons. That is in fact the reason why my parish doesn’t have acolytes even though we have a school. The Deacon assists our Pastor throughout the Mass.

matt June 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Different,

Dan,
Nice move with the Memorare/Hail Mary bit.
But really that wasn’t my point. The point was that you can’t prove one liturgical text or prayer is objectively superior and to argue about it is really pointless.
It’s like arguing that Flannery O’Connor is objectively a better writer than Evelyn Waugh. You can’t make the case if you want, but ultimately, it’s a subjective matter.
Posted by: Different | Jun 29, 2007 2:09:22 PM

Now you’re being ridiculous. There are things which are objective, and things which are subjective. One can make objective distinctions about the liturgy, to say otherwise is silly.
God Bless,
Matt

Different June 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Matt,
Yes, you can make distinctions about the liturgy.
What you really can’t do is build a case that the TLM text is objectively “better” than the NO or the Divine Liturgy. They are all good and holy liturgical texts and pleasing to God. To believe that you can prove one superior is silly.

Esau June 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm

To believe that you can prove one superior is silly.
Different,
I believe Dan’s rather poor analogy has distorted this topic at hand.
I believe that what Matt is responding to concerns the Liturgical elements of the one vs. the other.
Yes, both are valid.
However, liturgically-speaking, the Tridentine is comparatively better in terms of several aspects in this respects since for one, it is more in line with the ancient Roman canon (when comparing with the Novus Ordo Missae and in spite of its own deficiencies) and, thus, bridges both past and present in terms of the ancient tradition of the Latin Rite.

Dan June 29, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Esau,
It was in no way a poor analogy.
The Ave was commanded by our Lady at Fatima. No other corporate prayer was deemed this important by her in 1917.
Of course God will listen to any prayer from the will if addressed to Him.
Any nursery school kid knows this.I am not referring to the general efficacy of all prayer addressed to the Triune Godhead or the Saints.
What I am saying is that just as the Officium Divinum is a more elevated form of prayer than private prayer so the rosary is a higher form of prayer than individual supplication.As the Tridentine mass is a higher form of mass than the Pauline Novus Ordo.
God bless you and yours.

Mary Kay June 29, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Dan still doesn’t get that his post is his opinion and does not reflect the Catholic Church’s view of the 1970 Missal, known as the Novus Ordo.

matt June 29, 2007 at 5:04 pm

While I believe we can make objective distinctions where the TLM is better than the Novus Ordo in the theological correctness of it’s prayers, the reverence, the inherent catechesis etc. I would be cautious that we are talking only of the appearences of the liturgy, and not any defect in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is in a state of perfection in any Catholic mass. I also would not necessarily agree with Dan’s statement “the Tridentine mass is a higher form of mass than the Pauline Novus Ordo”, I just don’t think we have a basis for it.
Matt

Jarnor23 June 29, 2007 at 5:50 pm

I’m sorry some of you apparently live in awful places where EMHCs are nothing but “Voice of the Faithful” spies waiting to pounce upon any abuse they can get away with. I can assure you that every parish I’ve been to in my Diocese makes an attempt to reverently observe the Mass, even though most DO use EMHCs. I’m sorry, but distribution to hundreds of people with so few priests these days DOES kind of go better with EMHCs. Perhaps the role will no longer be needed when every seminary is overflowing and we just can’t place all the priests coming out of them, but until then, by every document I’ve seen and by the Bishop’s decision, it IS allowed, and frankly, a good thing.
And if you’ve never seen a rubrics Pharisee, I’d say you’re not looking very hard. Likely not even on this board, or very thread. Although I am sorry about mixing rubrics up with the cube of similar name in spelling. :)

mt June 29, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Dang, Jarnor23! I LIKED “rubrik’s pharisees!” Think of the near-infinite levels of meaning :-)

Andy120 June 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm

The holy sacrifice of the Mass is infinitely holy and good! Saying one rite is ‘better’ than another is comparing the infinite; it is impossible.
God Bless,
Andy120

Tim J. June 29, 2007 at 7:57 pm

Well, no.
Yes, the Mass is holy, but it is still possible to offer valid critique of a particular form of the Mass.
Many things may be holy, but “holy” does not mean “perfect” or beyond criticism.

J.R. Stoodley June 29, 2007 at 8:54 pm

EMHCs are intended only for extraordinary circumstaces. A packed Cathedral on Christmas with one priest is an extraordinary circumstance. An average parish with a few hundred people at most is not. I can’t imagine justifying using EMHCs in such a situation just to move the line faster, or as I think the reality often is to give as many laity as possible something to do besides sit there like laity. It is a minor sort of clericalization. The Church has been very clear on this issue.
As for the Traditional Latin Mass, it is simply the traditional Roman Liturgy, as it developed organically over many centuries, but still similar or even identical in many respects to that of St. Gregory the Great. The “Novus Ordo” is indeed fabricated, in the sense of being put together at once not the sense of being somehow false. Yes it retains most of the most basic elements from the past but is essentially a new creation.
No Eastern Catholic Church would dream of abandoning their traditional liturgy in favor of a newly fabricated one, even if the new one were in some sense “better”. Since Vatican II they, with the arguable exception of the Ruthenians but they are a strange case, have undergone a true restoration of their liturgies, capturing the true form of their traditions as they had been before modern Latinization.
I have yet to talk about the issue an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox who thinks the liturgical reform we underwent was a good thing. At most they think our liturgy should have been translated into the vernacular but kept intact. One Eastern Orthodox on another online forum said to his fellow Orthodox essenially don’t listen to these Catholics, they may sound orthodox but go to one of their “Protestant look-alike masses” and you will see how bad they really are. You can hardly blame him, since after all the “NO” does indeed look like one of the more liturgical Protestant services compared to the old Roman liturgy or any ancient liturgy, and I hear not just from traditionalists that this was deliberate on the part of Paul VI, thinking that it would remove a barrier between us and them (this convert from Protestantism thinks it rather confirmed Protestants in their error and made them less likely to convert. I became Catholic because I wanted Catholicism, not Protestantism).
Meanwhile I have yet to find disagreement from Easterners of either persuasion with the proposition that the modern Roman liturgy (seen as a glaring example of “Roman innovation”) is one of the major obstacles to Catholic-Orthodox unity.
Not that we should alter the liturgy just to make separated brethren happy. That’s part of what got us into this mess. But I think we could learn from their sense of tradition and respect for their own ancient liturgies.
Whether or not the replacement of the traditional Latin Mass with a new, hipper liturgy (painfully 70sish to many of my generation, at least how it’s usually done) was worth it to get a more active and conscious participation and a more streamlined, internally unifed liturgy I’m perhaps not qualified to say (though it’s obvious from what I’ve said what I suspect) but I definitely think it is a wonderful idea to allow the TLM to be praciced here and there at least, a witness to the past identity of Western Christianity that any can learn from if they are interested.

matt June 29, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Jarnor23,
I’m sorry some of you apparently live in awful places where EMHCs are nothing but “Voice of the Faithful” spies waiting to pounce upon any abuse they can get away with. I can assure you that every parish I’ve been to in my Diocese makes an attempt to reverently observe the Mass, even though most DO use EMHCs. I’m sorry, but distribution to hundreds of people with so few priests these days DOES kind of go better with EMHCs. Perhaps the role will no longer be needed when every seminary is overflowing and we just can’t place all the priests coming out of them, but until then, by every document I’ve seen and by the Bishop’s decision, it IS allowed, and frankly, a good thing.

That might be true if it was just a matter of prudential judgement. It is not. The Bishop has not authority to override the Canon law and other documents about EMHC’s, therefore, it is by definition, NOT a good thing, nor is a situation like that going to be very likely to inspire men to hear the call of the priesthood.
Matt

Jarnor23 June 29, 2007 at 9:43 pm

If the Church were so bloody clear on these matters, the Pope would have brought the smacketh down on these evil rogue Bishops you people concoct in your minds, there would be no doubt, and we would go “Oh, okay, if that is indeed stated so clearly and enforced, then we assent to the Holy See in its judgement.” As it is now, Rome ain’t been telling Bishops that they are absolutely wrong in their prudential judgement (which, as it turns out, is being redefined for allowing conservative politics to override any Catholic teaching they don’t like, much as liberals use primacy of conscience to justify overriding all those they don’t like ). Since Rome hasn’t cracked down on this judgement by the Bishops, it is an unclear signal at best if they disapprove.
When Rome makes it CLEAR to the Bishops and faithful that EMHCs are only allowed at Christmas, when it falls on Tuesdays, on leap years, or something like that, THEN you would be right in saying Bishops have no rights whatsoever to minister to their Diocese. Until then, cut them some slack, and allow those who reap the good the EMHCs do continue to, even if you don’t personally like it.
Because, after all, you MIGHT just be fallible, and MAYBE the EMHC is a ministry intended by God to do some good for those involved. I’ll certainly admit it and never try to help the Church out again if it’s clarified elsewise. God forbid I do anything else to try to get involved in the Church that could be considered wrong by you people. I’ll then learn my lesson, involvement is for priests only, and the laity should sit on their fat butts and do nothing. Just don’t be surprised when people who actually want to be involved in their faith start looking elsewhere, or stop attending due to feeling useless, uninvolved, or unwanted.

Josh June 29, 2007 at 10:58 pm

I think the tone some opponents of the use of EMHCs are using is unhelpful in explaining why it is objectionable. It’s not about shutting laity out – it’s about preserving the proper distinction between clergy and laity. For a long time DEACONS were not permitted to distribute Communion! In all of the historic rites of East and West, the handling of sacred vessels and distribution of Communion was done by clergy only. Lectors are one of the ancient minor orders – under previous canon law before the abolition of these orders under Paul VI, they were considered clerics, and not laity.
There are two issues that come up in conjunction with these discussions all the time: papal authority over the liturgy and what it means to participate at Mass. I unhesitatingly affirm that the Pope has authority to change the rites of the Church insofar as he does not alter the essentials. I also unhesitatingly affirm that just because the Pope does change the rites of the Church, it doesn’t mean it is automatically good. And I’m not just talking about the reforms of Paul VI. The character of the Roman liturgy began changing at the beginning of the twentieth century with Pius X’s reform of the Breviary; there were more radical changes to the Breviary, the Calendar, and to Holy Week under Pope Pius XII, who also completely replaced the Vulgate Psalter in the Breviary. John XXIII’s reforms of the liturgical books also caused significant changes. Some of these reforms were good – Pius X’s arrangement of the Psalter helped recover the ancient principle of reciting the entire Psalter each week, but the way in which it was changed distorted the character of the Little Hours and Lauds. Similar criticisms and observations can be made in the case of the reforms of Pius XII and John XXIII. Though I don’t like all of the changes, that doesn’t really matter in the end, does it? :)
As far as lay participation, I think the post-conciliar period has seen a tremendous confusion of the proper liturgical roles of clergy and laity. I concur with the quote by then-Cardinal Ratzinger that the Tridentine Low Mass is not the ideal of liturgy, but it preserved the proper distinctions between clergy and laity, even though it may have exaggerated them. I personally would prefer that EMHCs and altar girls not be used (well-trained and prepared lay lectors and cantors do not bother me) out of respect for liturgical tradition and propriety, but I don’t think they are the intrinsically sacriligeous things some traditionalists do. They fall in the category of things that Rome tolerates or even approves, even if it may not have been the best idea, all things considered.
We just need to remember that we’re all sinners and that we all need the sacraments. If someone is more spiritually nourished in the Pauline Mass, then glory be to God. And if someone is more spiritually nourished in the Tridentine rite, then thanks be to God for Pope Benedict for bending over backwards to accommodate a numerically small group in the Church. In the modern world, so hostile to Catholicism, we do better to fight the anti-Christian secularism of the West than other well-meaning Catholics.

Jarnor23 June 29, 2007 at 11:43 pm

See, now the way Josh puts it, I can understand where he’s coming from. I still do not think altar girls or EMHCs are harmful, but rather quite helpful, if not what Catholics are used to seeing. If they remain licit, I personally would endorse usage if the Bishop says so, if not, well, then we have to change as the Pope has the final word in the matter.
When put Josh’s way though I can understand his point of view and can understand if a parish or diocese prefers to do things that way. When said disrespectfully, it only brings division between Catholics over something licit, which can help no one.
It’s like that with the TLM as well. Respectfully requesting to have it normalized makes reasonable people say “well, I don’t want to do it that way myself, but by all means, let them if they so wish, it is helping their faith”. Disrespectfully insisting that your way is right and everyone should do it or they make baby Jesus cry only makes people think, “I hope the Popes tell them to sit on it for a thousand years”.

John June 30, 2007 at 4:56 am

Tim J
I will not respond to Esau as we all need to be charitable, I was just pointing out that “Da Rulz” as Jimmy points out, apply to all
God bless Pope B16!

matt June 30, 2007 at 6:36 am

Jarnor23
If the Church were so bloody clear on these matters
So you read the documents in context, you see the words, but you like what the bishop allows despite them,so now you don’t care about the documents or contexts. I understand.
the Pope would have brought the smacketh down on these evil rogue Bishops you people concoct in your minds, there would be no doubt, and we would go “Oh, okay, if that is indeed stated so clearly and enforced, then we assent to the Holy See in its judgement.” As it is now, Rome ain’t been telling Bishops that they are absolutely wrong in their prudential judgement
Why do you think the Holy Father issued Redemptionis Sacramentum? It should be completely unnecessary as the rules for EMHC’s and all the other considerations in that document are clearly spelled out elsewhere. Read the whole document, and you will see that it is the Holy Father putting the smackdown on all sorts of abuses.
Now you know what the Holy Father wants, do you assent? Yes or No. Cardinal Arinze, the prefect of the congregation for divine worship, speaks regularly about cleaning up the abuses, but the bishops in many places do nothing. Once again, check the numbers on vocations in YOUR diocese against Lincoln, Nebraska, against St. Louis, MO. If you want more priests pray, or even ask for obedience by your clergy.

(which, as it turns out, is being redefined for allowing conservative politics to override any Catholic teaching they don’t like, much as liberals use primacy of conscience to justify overriding all those they don’t like ).

What exactly are you are you referring to about conservative politics overriding Catholic teaching, I’m interested in a segway.
Since Rome hasn’t cracked down on this judgement by the Bishops, it is an unclear signal at best if they disapprove.
What does the Holy Father have to do beside issuing a Canon law, and a string of documents decrying the situation on liturgical abuse, annulment tribunals, liberation theology etc. You want him to fire 1/3 of the US Bishops??? Just because he doesn’t do so, doesn’t mean he approves of all they are doing. Do you only obey the 10 commandments if you see someone being struck down by God for violating them?
saying Bishops have no rights whatsoever to minister to their Diocese. Until then, cut them some slack, and allow those who reap the good the EMHCs do continue to, even if you don’t personally like it.
Please try to stop making up things. Nobody said the bishops have no rights to minister to their diocese. Read the documents, it explains exactly what the bishop has authority over, which is a whole lot. It’s not about what we like, it’s about obedience, and disobedience does not reap a good. By the way, in this age of EMHC’s, how many Catholics believe in the Real Presence? The numbers are sad, and it’s in part because the much more relaxed attitude towards the Eucharist, that EMHC’s are a part of.
Because, after all, you MIGHT just be fallible, and MAYBE the EMHC is a ministry intended by God to do some good for those involved. I’ll certainly admit it and never try to help the Church out again if it’s clarified elsewise. God forbid I do anything else to try to get involved in the Church that could be considered wrong by you people. I’ll then learn my lesson, involvement is for priests only, and the laity should sit on their fat butts and do nothing. Just don’t be surprised when people who actually want to be involved in their faith start looking elsewhere, or stop attending due to feeling useless, uninvolved, or unwanted.

This attitude is precisely what the document is suggesting must be avoided, you saw the statement earlier, that liturgical ministries are not a part of active participation. You do your most important job as a Catholic when you assist at mass by joining your prayers with the priest and the rest of the congregation. There are many other important ministries that lay Catholics are called to lead, ending abortion being first and foremost, feeding the poor, instructing the ignorant, etc. etc.
Disrespectfully insisting that your way is right and everyone should do it or they make baby Jesus cry
you’re tilting at windmills, the problem is that is not anything like anyone on this thread has said, nor would I agree with it if anyone said. Truth is very important and it’s uncharitable to bear false witness and misrepresent the other’s position.
God Bless,
Matt

Different June 30, 2007 at 7:18 am

Matt,
Why mention St. Louis as an example of orthodoxy in the liturgy?
Everytime I have been to Mass in St. Louis there has been the typical EMHC circus on the altar, “fractioning” of the Precious Blood, practically no altar boys, grand piano next to the altar, etc. If they’re getting lots of vocations it’s not through their liturgies. Of course, that’s only my experience in 7 different parishes over the years.

Jarnor23 June 30, 2007 at 8:25 am

I’m sorry, but talking to the Pharisees here is clearly an utter waste of time. I’ll be following the guidance of my priest, a VERY holy man, and Bishop. They are the ones responsible for these decisions, not you, thank God. Enjoy your holier than thou mass, it wouldn’t hurt you to remember though that some of us have our faith built through these practices that ARE licit whether you like them or not.

Dr. Eric June 30, 2007 at 8:31 am

Different,
I don’t know where you went to church, but I’ve never been to an unorthodox Liturgy in St. Louis. Unless you count the Latizations at the Ruthenian Mission at the Bl. John XXIII center.

Dr. Eric June 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

I agree with JR’s post. Except that a packed church on Christmas Eve with only one priest still shouldn’t have EMHCs. Everyone should have to wait their turn.
That’ll teach ’em to only come to church 3 times per year.

Mary June 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

The Ave was commanded by our Lady at Fatima. No other corporate prayer was deemed this important by her in 1917.
Private revelations are not binding on the faithful.

Different June 30, 2007 at 8:38 am

Dr. Eric,
In the western suburbs and some parishes in the north part of the county. To be honest, I have never been to an orthodox Mass in the archdiocese except at the new cathedral. Again, this is just one person’s experience. I had always thought of St. Louis liturgies as a bit liberal.

Dan June 30, 2007 at 8:40 am

Mary,
Ironic that you disagree with your Holy Namesake.
The Blessed Mother was telling the Truth.
The Church has aproved of Fatima.
If the Church aproved it,it is 100% true.
God bless you.

bill912 June 30, 2007 at 8:49 am

Mary! How dare you post a fact! Don’t you know better?

Jarnor23 June 30, 2007 at 8:50 am

Oh, and a few last things before saying to hell with this thread (where it belongs):
– Since in the old days it was unlikely to have pollsters asking about true belief in the Divine Presence, and even more unlikely for someone to honestly say no if they were lukewarm or even cold, how are you SO sure that the situation is actually a lot worse than it was when Church was something people did because they were expected to, whether or not they really let it change their lives?
– How are you SO sure N.O. masses and EMHCs are to blame? Could it not be the sinful culture of the 60s-70s-80s-90s that caused the most problems? Many youth are having the fire of Christ lit in their hearts these days, thank God, and it’s MOSTLY in N.O. parishes by holy priests doing their jobs despite what you people think.
– Do you really think that simply having the priest say things in Latin, which few have any clue about anymore, will actually improve anything at all for the vast majority of Catholics anymore? If so, I’ve a bridge to sell you.
– Why do you think the Diocese of Fargo must be losing people and have problems? We’re doing quite well, thank you very much.
– As pointed out, your example of St. Louis DOES use EMHCs. Whoops, guess they’re suddenly Satan instead of a fine example. Funny that, I thought that Bishop was doing pretty well at speaking out against abortion and other issues. Much like the Bishop of Fargo does. Woah, but he allows EMHCs and seems fine with the N.O. Mass… does not compute! Must be Satan in disguise again.
– Funny how you always say “read these documents” instead of simply quoting where it says “EMHCs and N.O. are always evil, stop doing this now”.
– Please point out again where it says that actively being a part of the liturgical celebration is a bad, bad thing that must be discouraged. If it ain’t in something infallible, I believe I’ll do your trick and use my “prudential judgement” to disagree.
– If 1/3 the Bishops weren’t following something the Pope found important, the Holy Father danged right should talk to them and tell them to obey. Frankly, most people in the Church NEED to make sure they can trust their Bishop’s guidance, instead of being mini-Popes themselves. That way lies Protestantism. Oh, and if they still won’t obey? You’re damned right they should be sacked. I can’t possibly imagine that no priest in the Diocese would accept the job to replace them.
I’m pretty sure you folks have nothing ACTUAL to persuade me with, but I may poke back in to see the silly attempts. In the meantime, trusting in my priest and Bishop rather than random Internet Bozos.

Silas June 30, 2007 at 9:03 am

Re: Dan
Oh no. Not another apparitions nut. Look, apparitions are private revelation and are never binding on anyone except those who received them. Ever. No matter how approved they are. That is basic Church teaching on apparitions.

Elijah June 30, 2007 at 9:31 am

Can someone clear something up for me? How does the N.O. cause an obstacle to reunion between East and West? I don’t much about the rules and issues involved in regulation of liturgies, but don’t the Eastern churches have their own separate rites, rites they would certainly keep after such a reunion? Are other Eastern rite churches that have returned to the Catholic Church affected by the new mass, or is it only for the Latin rite?

Dan June 30, 2007 at 9:42 am

Silas,
Why would you be so uncharitable as to call me a nut.
I am just stating what the Church Teaches.
I fail to understand your ad hominem attack.
I could get personal with you and cast an insult but I choose the higher, more Christlike road.
God bless you and yours

Elijah June 30, 2007 at 10:06 am

Oops, my post above should read ‘…don’t *know* much about’ etc.

Aaron June 30, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I attend a NO mass, and I find it (mostly) reverent. My priest is orthodox and is a brilliant confessor and spiritual advisor. On the other hand, I understand the great desire for the Tridentine rite. Its mystery and beauty; its continuity with the past and the communion of saints. I may very well switch to a Latin Mass parish if they begin sprouting up after this document makes its way to the bishops. Having shown my hand, I just wanted to comment on the defensiveness of the N.O. adherents in this thread. To attend Mass is to kneel at the foot of the Cross, witness the Perfect Sacrifice, and and partake of His Body and Precious Blood. It is not a social occasion during which the ladies of the parish get to march around the sanctuary in pantsuits showing the other parishioners how important they are. If possible, we should all be kneeling in our pews revering the Real Presence. Everything else is too likely a distraction. Once, a priest pointed out to me that to kneel during the Consecration is to kneel at the foot of the Cross. I started to think, “what would be an appropriate way to behave at the foot of the Cross?” The only thing I could come up with was to kneel and weep. Yes, I think I am very glad that I will soon see a Mass as The Little Flower saw it. Ladies and gentlemen, please hand the chalice back to the priest, leave the sanctuary, kneel with the rest of us and weep. Leave the altar service to young boys who might grow up to be priests. What will that cost you? Is your role as Eucharistic Minister for Christ and His Church, or is it for you?

Mary June 30, 2007 at 7:05 pm

I am just stating what the Church Teaches.
What the Church teaches is that public revelation is the only revelation that is binding on the faithful, and that it ended with the death of John the Apostle.

Tim J. June 30, 2007 at 7:27 pm

EMCs are not the end of the world, and I think the phenomenon is more a symptom than a cause of laxity.
Thing is, the Mass is not about ME. It is not about making sure I feel involved and important. It is, as Aaron pointed out, the opportunity to kneel at the foot of the cross.

Elijah June 30, 2007 at 8:41 pm

“…I just wanted to comment on the defensiveness of the N.O. adherents in this thread.”
If N.O. attendees are defensive it’s because certain people are constantly accusing them of not being reverent or holy or sincere simply because the accusers don’t like the N.O. Often they don’t just criticize the elements that they don’t like either. They tend to say things like “mass isn’t about the priest being on stage”, as if every priest that celebrates the N.O. thinks he’s some kind of rock star. It’s insulting to the N.O. priests that I know, including the one that received me into the Church. It has nothing to do with not wanting to give up roles as EMs. It has everything to do with priests and parishioners doing what they are supposed to do (since the Latin mass requires special permission). If the Latin mass becomes more widely available and permitted, great, but the ones insulting the N.O. attendees should lay off. One of the reasons I’ve never attended a Latin mass (even though I am interested greatly in it) is that I don’t want to be identified with these people that only complain and belittle others.

Aaron June 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Elijah:
I see your point. There is a very nasty vibe that emits from certain elements of the traditionalist Catholic movement. Just remember that there are many Catholics for whom a reverent N.O. mass isn’t available. I live in LA, and virtually every mass in town comes with a rock band. I drive thirty-five minutes for the privilege of attending a mass with no drum kit in the sanctuary and a priest that offers mass according to liturgical norms. There is a lot of frustration out here. Granted, that doesn’t excuse the condescension that you are describing (I left SSPX when my priest blamed that lack of a Kingship of Christ on “International Jewry” in a sermon), but it is–in my opinion–warranted given the extreme lack of reverence and orthodoxy on display in many, many Catholic parishes. I am glad that you, like me, care about liturgy. Don’t let the bad apples ruin the whole bunch. Also, get out there and see the Latin Mass. It is beautiful and mysterious. It is the Mass of the Ages.

Josh June 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I just thought I’d add that I converted to the Catholic Church through the modern rites. One tendency I notice in traditionalist criticisms of the Novus Ordo is that they see horror stories of Rock Masses and spandex-clad liturgical dancers and priests dressed as Barney and assume that all NO Masses are like that. That is not true; it’s not even a fair generalization. I am a member of a NO parish that has reverent liturgies, excellent priests, many traditional devotions, a Latin Novus Ordo, Holy Hours, frequent confessions… It’s not all bad out there; in fact there is quite a lot of good. I freely admit that my preference for the Tridentine rites is exactly that – my preference. It’s based on aesthetics, a study of liturgies, and a sense of connection with the past. While I think that the Tridentine rites express the Catholic Faith unambiguously, whereas the NO may be more open to heterodox interpretations, I also believe that the common Traditionalist claim that important elements are wholly absent from the NO is ridiculous. AND I believe that claims that the NO is objectively inferior are without merit, and claims that the NO is heretical, illicit, or whatever are proximate to heresy.
There are serious problems in many areas of the Church – this cannot be denied. Fortunately, the Holy Father is taking serious steps to try and fix them. He needs the prayers of ALL Catholics!

Aaron June 30, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Josh:
Isn’t “I think that the Tridentine rites express the Catholic Faith unambiguously, whereas the NO may be more open to heterodox interpretations” an objective criticism?
Also, I can assure you that in Los Angeles irreverent masses with rock bands, liturgical dancers, etc. are the norm. Check out youtube for video of Cardinal Mahoney’s massive “Religious Education Conference.” The Cardinal has actually mandated standing during and after Communion and after the Agnus Dei. I could be wrong, but I am almost certain that no Latin NO mass is available in the Archdiocese. I think that Catholics in more orthodox dioceses don’t realize how bad it really is in liberal la-la land.
Lastly, “There are serious problems in many areas of the Church – this cannot be denied. Fortunately, the Holy Father is taking serious steps to try and fix them. He needs the prayers of ALL Catholics!” is the most concise and most important thing in this thread. Thanks.

Mary Kay July 1, 2007 at 5:14 am

Aaron, the condescension that you feel is warranted is one reason why I stay as far away from the TLM as possible.

Dr. Eric July 1, 2007 at 6:18 am

Different,
I have experienced some unorthodox liturgies on the East Side in Belleville, but not in St. Louis.
Elijah,
The Orthodox see the NO as just another example of Papal Dictatorship flying in the face of Holy Tradition. (Their words not mine.)

Aaron July 1, 2007 at 6:31 am

Mary Kay: I meant to express that the frustration with heterodoxy is warranted, not the condescension.

Tim J. July 1, 2007 at 9:44 am

Just FYI, though I freely offer criticisms of the N.O., I attend a N.O. parish wherein the priests conscientiously say Mass according to the rubrics.
We DO have a rock band (my son would laugh at that label… they have drums and guitars, so I say “rock” band)) ONE Mass per week (LifeTeen), but other than that the liturgy is plain and correct. Inspiring? Moving? Well… maybe not awfully, but any Catholic who understands what is happening in the Mass ought to be in awe even without the smells and bells.
IMO, though, the smells and bells (and chant, and beautiful architecture, etc…) all help. We are human, after all.

Dan July 1, 2007 at 9:52 am

Mary,
Are you saying that Lourdes,Knock,Fatima, Our Lady of Akita,LaSalette are all throwaways.To be considered as aparitions from the the devil,or just hysteria?
The Church should disregaurd these officially approved visits of Our Blessed Mother and relegate them to the dust bin of history?
OK I shall take your aparently sound advice and take no stock in any of them.
I shall no longer recite the Fatima Prayer during the rosary,or recommend pilgrimages to Lourdes etc.
Thank you and God bless you.

materfamilias July 1, 2007 at 9:59 am

I attend the only NO Latin Mass in my diocese. My pastor is reported as having said that our Mass (which includes a fabulous choir), “adds nothing to the parish, and is for the eccentrics.” Now, I personally prefer Latin NO to the TLM, but when when Latin is “eccentric” and a rock band (in our parish) is not, then there’s a problem. Nonethless, I have been lucky to find parishes with reverent NO Masses ever since I joined the church in 1978. I’m sorry folks, but the 2 TLMs that I attended seemed foreign and incomprehensible. I felt like a spectator, not a participant. The feeling I get from the strong advocates of the TLM is that if I don’t appreciate it I am somehow less of a Catholic.

Alex Benziger.G July 1, 2007 at 10:22 am

Mary,
Madam,You have to know that the Roman Catholic Church was built upon Simon Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ(Mt.16:18-19).All the Popes are the legal heirs of St. Peter. Infallibility of the Pope is defined by Vatican Council I in 1870. It is a dogma.It is binding on all the catholics as per Canon 11.Therefore what the Magisterium of the Church teaches it is binding on all catholics whether it is revelation or dogma.

Anonymous July 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

One problem that many of the Novus Ordo defenders are having is that they are taking it personally when we criticize the abuses which often occur in the Novus Ordo. Why would they take it personally unless they prefer the abuse? Only one Rock Band Mass per week? Well then, that’s not so bad??? I don’t see anyone in this thread attributing guilt to anyone for attending Novus Ordo, I certainly do not believe that, unless the person is adhering to the abuse and not attending the mass despite the abuses that might occur. We all know that there are some good parishes who have a reverent NO exclusively and no abuses, but be honest, is it 1 in 4? How much trouble did you go through to find it? In my diocese (Galveston-Houston) there are only 2 parishes I’m aware of that do not routinely abuse the Sacred Liturgy in one fashion or another (there may be more good ones, but most I’ve seen are pretty bad).
The other issue is the objective difference between the liturgies, in the prayers and rubrics of them. There’s no reason to be defensive about this, as we all know that they are validly promulgated by the Holy See, and not subject to the parishioners. These objective differences, and the frequency of abuses, are why most Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass do so. Yet many good Catholics seem to suggest we just “like it better”, that’s just not the case, it is not aesthetics it’s substance (of the liturgy, not the Mass itself, which is of course the same substantively).
Take one element, the orientation. The Holy Father has made it abundantly clear in his own writings that he considers it to be objectively more in tune with Catholic liturgical understanding, for the priest and the people to face together towards (liturgical) East during most parts of the mass. Is it wrong for us to agree with the Holy Father on this matter? I know that any priest in the Novus Ordo could say mass “ad orientum”, but there is probably only a handful in the entire world that do so. This issue has serious side affects which tends towards the showiness so common in parishes today.
Part of the reason that the Holy Father is promulgating this Motu Proprio is in the hopes that the more widespread use of the Traditional Mass will inspire and uplift the typical celebration of the Novus Ordo, we all should at least acknowledge that this would be a good thing.
I think we can have an objective discussion about the merits of these positions, but only if both sides cease the pejoratives, and stop accusing the other side of saying things that have not been said. If I have done that, I apologize.
I would also urge Catholics who are not interested in the Traditional Mass to read this discussion by a student of Pope Benedict on how and why to celebrate the Novus Ordo as it was intended by the council fathers of Vatican II, and apparently the Holy See.
The Mass of Vatican II, by Fr. Fessio
Some parting words by Cardinal Ratzinger
from a post on Rorate-caeli


Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church?
How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall!
All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us.
Cardinal Ratzinger
Via Crucis at the Colosseum
March 25, 2005

God Bless,
Matt

Matt July 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

materfamilias,
great post, I can’t agree with you more. Many of us would not have even looked at the Traditional mass if we had a proper, reverent Novus Ordo in our own parish, like the one you assist at. I hope that acknowledgement that the Traditional Mass as never having been abolished will help to show that those who assist at Traditional Mass, and those who assist at proper, reverent Novus Ordo are kindred spirits, and not eccentrics. We can work together for the betterment of the Church. The mass you describe is in fact the “Norm” of the Vatican II Mass, not some throwback, would that the reality reflect this truth.
God Bless,
Matt

Mary July 1, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Mary July 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Mary July 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Alex Benziger.G
You have a curious problem with your post. You open it with “Mary — Madam” when clearly it should be addressed
“Dan — Sir”
It is Dan who is heretically and falsely maintaining that private revelations are binding on the faithful.
This directly contradicts the Magisterium of the Church, which is binding on all Catholics, and which directly teaches that no private revelation is obligatory for the faithful.

bill bannon July 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm

From the Catholic encyclopedia at new advent on private revelations:
” When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: “It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).”

Dan July 1, 2007 at 7:24 pm

So, again,Mary,should we all toss away the Blessed Mothers holy visits as hysteria or diabolical activity?
If I as a Catholic man who follows the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church,hearkens to Our Ladys voice in the above apparitions then all Catholics should do the same.
She comes for the whole world.And as the messenger of the Almighty.God bless you

PLEASE July 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm

“Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet,” this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord. Again, St. Francis de Sales said: “One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar.” The revealed truth of our Holy Catholic Faith is, in itself, attractive because of its depth, brilliance, and logic. Wherever it appears clothed in the beautiful garments of charity, it becomes ever more acceptable to those who might otherwise fear its inevitable consequences for our lives and the sharpness with which it cuts through our weaknesses and our excuses. The famous religious poet, Gertrude von Le Fort, wrote of the Church and the revealed Truth: “I have fallen in your Faith like in an open sword, and you have cut all my anchors.” How much more easier does a soul accept the grandness and the majesty of Divine Faith when it is presented with the merciful charity and patient meekness that Our Lord himself shows all the time to His children.

Mary July 1, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Dan, you demand that people obey private revelations.
This means that you are not “a Catholic man who follows the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.”
To make wild accusations about private revelations is not helping your case.

PLEASE July 1, 2007 at 8:22 pm

I personally prefer the Tradtional Latin Mass (the so called pre-Vatican II/Tridentine/post Trent/”Latin”/”Classical”). There are two indult Churches in my city (Chicago)–the great Society of St. John Cantius–and more recently the Institute of Christ the King (Soverign Priest) at St. Gelasius by the University of Chicago. There is a SSPX Chapel also in Oak Park, Illinois a neighboring suburb (the Society of St. John Cantius does a much better job and after learning more I refuse to go to a chapel not fully in union with Rome but I did go in the past and have sympathies) and the Fraternite du Notre Dame which has a Latin Mass (a very kind group of French speaking nuns who do some good social service with low income primarily African American–they are not sedevante nor is their rhetoric against the Church, actually a lot of charity–but perhaps some insanity–the founder claims visions from the Blessed Mother as Our Lady of Frechou and is a Thuc line Bishop)
With these two great and well done indults, with beautiful churches (St. Gelasius needs a lot of work), incredible music, and reverent pre-Vatican II Latin Masses–there is no need to go to schismatic, possibly schismatic, or problematic chapels.
ALthough, I think my qoute above should be applied to so many so called Traditionalists who lack charity and even respect sometimes.
Many (more than some) are very disrespectful, lack kindness, graciouness, charity, and sometimes even common decency and courtesy.
The reasons I like the so called TLM is not because it is an ice cream that I cannot have like some hierarchs have suggested–although it may be for some. I do not hunger for a bygone era of Monarchy or facism or even 1950’s American Catholism–Catholicism and Christ and God (Christ is God and Cathocism is the specific church and mechanism to gain union with God) is beyond time, and each time and place has unique challenges. It is not because I grew up with the TLM–I did not.
However:
1. Latin is an incredible language. I actually learned Latin with my quasi heretical modern Jesuit High School–but learned some Latin nonetheless.
However, Latin is not a per se, nor inherent nor intrinisic sacred language.
Since it is a “dead” language it is not common nor vulgar and has a sense of separation (in a good sense) and sacredness (separation from sin as preparation for submitting and sweetening before God).
Latin has a historical significance in the Catholic Church—I could go in to this but it should be self evident to people at this forum.
Most, if not all “traditional”/major religions have sacred/liturgical languages for liturgy and/or prayer and even sacred writings (this is not an attempt to ecclectic/syncretic/or even ecumenical–but to draw on an analogy and demonstrate something important in human nature)
Specifically:
The Jews have HEBREW–which the Kabbalists through their mathematical mycistism and mechansim of Gematria believe is 37 times greater (or is it 36) than any other language.
Some Jews (some Orthodox and specifically Hassidic) believe that God used Hebrew words to create the Universe.
HEBREW is still used (at least by Orthodox and at least some Hebrew is even used by the most liberal and non practicing per se Reformed Jew) in Friday night prayers, Saturday prayers, weddings, Siddur, Passover, Hannakuh–and while a rebuilt modern language–the Torah is still preferred to be studied in Hebrew–to the extent that some believe in the well publicized and perhaps debunked Torah Code and that the literal and specific Hebrew words of the Torah contain a blueprint and specific words of God.
The current Hebrew liturgy, basic prayers, and study is done in Hebrew–a separate, specific, ancient (and now modern), liturgical and sacred language–We as Catholics should not be ignorant and not study Latin as Jews do for Hebrew–at least for liturgy and basic prayers.
The Muslims use Arabic in basic daily prayers and consider the Qur’an to be the literal word of God (at least some) and that Arabic literacy is necessary to study the Qur’an and not just a venaculur translation. So to be an ideal Muslim is to study Arabic and say prayers in Arabic and study the Qur’an in Arabic. There is something unique and special about Arabic and that is the commandment of God to pray in that specific language in Islam. Remember that many Muslims do not speak Arabic as their native tongue but many Indonesian dialects, Urdu (although Arabic script and many Arabic words–it is actually basically Hindi), many other languages from Serbo-Croation (now called Bosnian but the same language)among others.
If new Muslims (non Arabs) can study Arabic to converse with the centers of their culture and to do prayers in Arabic and read the Qur’an in the original tongue–why as Catholics should we not study at least some Latin (let alone Greek and maybe some Hebrew and/or Aramaic)
The Hindus have Sanskrit (even the Tibetan Buddhists use Sanskrit). They consider this the first and best and most sacred language with the OM sound as the first and most primal that resonates with the Universe.
The great Hindu sacred texts (Rig Veda and the like–although I have only read in comic form and English translation(s) for college courses)
are in Sanskrit.
So most major world traditional religions have a separate (non vulgar)sacred and litrugical language. Why shouldn’t Catholics.
Latin sounds good. It is the basis of Italian, French, Spanish, Romanian and has influence in so many other languages as well as even modern disciplines of law and medicine.
It is the language of the Church and the language of so many great texts. Think of the great words and sounds of the Pangea Lingua or Tantum Ergo or a Te Deum.
Just go to a TLM and tell me that (even if for superficial, for the sake of being different, and exotic) Latin does not sound good, and sacred.
Lastly on Latin, it can be a UNIFYING language, heard anywhere in the World the same. It can cause unity and solidarity.
2. SILENCE:
While it is hard (I don’t prefer the Tridentine Low Mass as much, if it is not sung) because it is hard to follow.
But in this new era of the Internet, Cell phones, IPODS, Apple Phones, Supersonic Jets, email, Wikipedia, YouTube, Google, instant communication, kids having DSL, games with incredible graphics–instant communication, movies with incredible special effects, good and bad (technically as well as morally) modern music like candy for the ear (read Allen Bloom’s critique on Rock and Roll in Closing of the American Mind–which I thought was a cumodgreon years ago–and amplify that exponentially with hip-hop and rap)
I have Adult ADD, every kid has ADD
Attention Deficit–cannot read, cannot study, cannot sit still cannot be in a car without music
so to have SILENCE
allows God to speak to us
Silence allows us to listen
to reflect, not just chatter
Even the Buddhists call the internal communication “Monkey Mind”
But let alone the chatter, the preaching, the rote responses (sometimes very good)–in the Protestant styled services
The Kohen were SILENT in the HOLY TEMPLE OF SOLOMON
There were singers of course, the modern day cantors of the Jews but the Kohens had SILENCE
Silence is a spiritual tool and technique, something positive.
The Mass is not just about superficial participation and responses and speaking but also about reflection, and introspection.
3. SACRIFICICE:
While there are many incredible and holy priests and many reverent, accurate and good renderings of the so called “Novus Ordo” or Misa Normativa (which could be in Latin)–there are many bad ones even if valid–although I don’t think intentionally in most cases–and these well intentioned Catholics have to be invited to learn and correct with Truth but also Charity.
I see the same YouTube videos posted on Catholic websites of Halloween, very nice looking girls dancing as if it was a night club (or even worse with the clothes), some wierd but perhaps culturally appropriate dancing in Brazil. (Dancing is not always bad but would be in this US Anglo-American current paradigm although different body movements in Africa, and even dancing and shaking among Hassidic Jews in separate sex and “reverent” “liturgical” Jewish renderings take place–but there are prohibitions on this in the Latin Rite (and probably most Eastern Rites)–the facts that King David danced and St. Teresa of Avila (among others) danced as authentic expressions of praise, glorifying, and thanksgiving to God.)
In the Traditional Latin Mass there is an unequivocal sense of sacrifice in words (and even if you do not understand there is a Missal with translation–the real good little Red Book is recommended)
On YouTube you can find the Fulton Sheen video narrating a beautiful Tridentine High Mass at Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica in my home town of Chicago. It is very educational and a well done Mass in little over 1 hour (The Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox have much longer liturgies and with the modern impatience, ADD, etc–maybe we should have longer masses instead of accomodating people–maybe people should accomodate God)
The TLM gives you a sense of real sacred history culminating in the death, passion, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. That he died on the Cross for our sins (for many or all as is accurate and the Church teaches, it is not my personal opinion) That at the Last Supper Jesus gave his body and blood. To do it in a different format, at a different time, but with the Gospel words–accurately, reverently–with a focus on the SACRIFICE–not or not just community and thanksgiving and the word and preaching but SACRIFICE.
We are taking part in Salvation history. We are offering a sacrifice. With a sense of PRIESTHOOD–in the line of Melchizedek. Like the Ancient Hebrews–similiar to the other earliest Christians like Copts, Assyrians, Armenians, Arabs in the Holy Land (even those who might be considered Monosphytes)
4. Other senses. Our Anglo-American and reflexively even if subcounsciously Protestant worldview (even as Catholics) has a lot of neo gnosticism, and puritanism, and a lack of sense of sacred history, a disrespect for the incarnation, and no sense of sacrifice because they believe it is over and focus only on the Ressurrection and the sacrifice is once and forever–and a focus on Sacred Scripture and preaching.
Go to an Eastern Rite Catholic (or even Eastern Orthodox) and get a sense not just of reading, or the word, or listening or responding BUT
SMELLING–the incense
or SEEING–with your eyes and mind
HEARING–the bells, and the introspective music of Gregorian Chant, or Palestrina, or even more modern Mozart, or Lutheran Bach or even Methodist Wesley and his Hark the Herald Angels sing, or Schubert, or Beethoven
or modern composers like Catholic Ukrainian Eastern Rite Roman Hurko (you have to listen)
or Arvo Part, John Taverner (old and new), and Henryck Gorecki or Zgbinew Preissner.
Simple Gregorian Chant being the best in my opinion and loved by Mozart.
So just don’t respond, or hear or read
but
SMELL
FEEL
SEE
Follow with the eye, heart, and mind–remain silent and participate with God, renew the sacrifice, and be honest with yourself.
the INCENSE, the BELLS, the VESTMENTS
This is not Bridge Over Troubled Waters by Simon and Garkfunkel (but I do like that in the car or at home–just not in Church) or Let it Be by the Beatles (although similiarly I love the Beatles.
5. REVERENCE: The low bows, the bowing, the prostration (in certain cases), the movement, all indicative of RESPECT, REVERENCE
6. The AESTHETIC BEAUTY–mentioned above.
and Beauty should lead to God.
Not Gymnasium Churches. Not ugly modern art (there is good modern art and I do like the Cathedral in Barcelona and reserve judgement for the one in Los Angeles–but much modern church architecture is not beautiful, and does not follow an approach to theology and spirituality that is Transcendent)
7. The TLM is not as open to abuse and disrespect.
There are so many other good reasons like the beautiful prayer of
the incense guided by St. Michael going to Heaven to the altar of God
the poetic words
The use of hyssop and the introductory rites
the Gospel of John at the end
The beating of our Chest for forgiveness of sins
The bowing to the Blessed Virgen Mary
the kissing of the hands of the priest (not part of the Mass per se)
or bowing to the priest who still has God inside him as bread yet undigested
So look at the sense of
TRANSCENDENCE
SACRFICICE
the use of LATIN as sacred and unifying
The priest ad orientum as leading not turning his back but us following like a bus driver or pilot
the REVERENCE
the MUSIC

matt July 1, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Please,
ditto! A great post. You nailed what I feel in my heart and know in my head, but can’t express in any way close to how you did.
Matt

Mary Kay July 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm

No matter how much you dress it up, no matter how much you justify or rationalize it, this topic always ends up being a “bash the Novus Ordo” one. Maybe it’s human nature, but it does sadden me.

bill bannon July 2, 2007 at 4:31 am

Please
You wrote:
“TLM is not open to disrespect”
Every method is open to disrespect. I grew up with the Latin Mass (studied Latin 6 years with the Jesuits). A substantial number of women prayed the rosary right through the Latin Mass and never paid one bit of attention to the Mass. They could have stayed home and done that.
Silence as better?
I was plagued with day dreaming as a child during the Mass…another aspect of Silence you did not think of for the Catholics from 7 years old into teens.
Your presenting a picture of Catholics getting in touch with their inner self during the silences leaves out the pre-adults who are safer mentally and morally with something to do. Give the very young Latin Masses and they’ll be reviewing their scores on the latest video games in their heads or thinking about Susy Q in the aisle in front of them and to the right.

Michael July 2, 2007 at 4:50 am

Give the very young Latin Masses and they’ll be reviewing their scores on the latest video games in their heads or thinking about Susy Q in the aisle in front of them and to the right.
That does not happen now? I remember growing up in the Novus Ordo and paying attention to everything but what the priest was doing, which was not very interesting at all. At least in the TLM you have to move more, kneeling at various times during the mass outside the consecration, standing more often too. And in the case of young boys at least, they can start studying the server parts which take a lot of effort to master. They might even acheive a greater understanding of the mass and its rubrics than a person gets from the ‘sitting around casually in the living room’ atmosphere of most NO masses.

matt July 2, 2007 at 5:50 am

Mary Kay,
No matter how much you dress it up, no matter how much you justify or rationalize it, this topic always ends up being a “bash the Novus Ordo” one. Maybe it’s human nature, but it does sadden me.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jul 1, 2007 9:40:54 PM

What did you think of Fr. Fessio’s article?
Bill,

Please wrote:
“TLM is not open to disrespect”
Every method is open to disrespect. I grew up with the Latin Mass (studied Latin 6 years with the Jesuits). A substantial number of women prayed the rosary right through the Latin Mass and never paid one bit of attention to the Mass. They could have stayed home and done that.
Silence as better?
I was plagued with day dreaming as a child during the Mass…another aspect of Silence you did not think of for the Catholics from 7 years old into teens.
Your presenting a picture of Catholics getting in touch with their inner self during the silences leaves out the pre-adults who are safer mentally and morally with something to do. Give the very young Latin Masses and they’ll be reviewing their scores on the latest video games in their heads or thinking about Susy Q in the aisle in front of them and to the right.
Posted by: bill bannon | Jul 2, 2007 4:31:37 AM

Bill,
So if you and I are praying, and we consciously unite our prayers, but we’re not praying aloud, we might as well not be together? Sorry, Christ instructed otherwise “wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there”.
For a number of years there was a situation where many people did not read, write in any language, or speak Latin, and so were unable to follow the missal even in the vernacular. Over time a practice of saying the rosary and uniting those prayers with the Mass and the priest became common. In about 1906(?) Pope St. Pius X issued instructions that while this practice was to be permitted, the best way for the faithful to assist at mass is by following the missal, and he requested that missals available in the vernacular be widely distributed. Now, I don’t know what the common practice was before Vatican II, but I know some ladies who pray the rosary during mass now, they are most certainly paying attention to the Mass, and especially to the consecration. They stand, kneel, and respond at the appointed times, so they are clearly not disinterested.
Regarding children, Bill, my observation is exactly the opposite, but that aside, the reality is that damaging the mass by eliminating the silences doesn’t really help the situation any, while the child’s mind may be more entertained with the continuous activity, it is only marginally so, and further, to what end? Let’s all agree, that most children get less natural benefit from the mass than most adults, but at least with the TLM they are learning to handle those silences which do belong there.
Have you been to a TLM lately? You might be surprised what you see and how different it might be from the experience of your youth.
I have a question, what is the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Is it primarily for the edification of the congregation? for our spiritual benefit? Or is it primarily for the purpose of offering true worship to God?
God Bless,
Matt

Dan July 2, 2007 at 5:57 am

Mary,
It is not my case,rather it is Gods case.
Again,answer the question.
Do you believe that the above Church aproved apparitions are of a diabolical nature or hysteria.
Therein you will find Gods case.
God bless you and yours.

SteveG July 2, 2007 at 6:25 am

Dan,
I think you may be missing what Mary is saying. Maybe a different voice phrasing it differently can help out here.
Private Revelations, even those approved by the church are not binding on the faithful. That does not mean they must be tossed out. It does not mean they are diabolical in nature. It does not mean they are hysteria.
It does mean that the church only approves that if you want to have a devotion to them, you may. It ALSO means that if you do not want a devotion to them, you may simply ignore them.
Church approval in this situation only tells us that these revelations contain nothing contrary to the faith. They do not supplement the deposit of faith.
Here are a couple of wonderful articles (the second by Jimmy himself) on the difference between public and private revelation.
Private Revelation – This Rock March 2005
Revelation: Public and Private – This Rock November 2000:Jimmy (James) Akin
And from the Catechism itself:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
And finally, I will recommend to you a wonderful book on the topic (which discusses in detail Fatima, et. al.) by Fr. Benedict Groeschel. It is called A Still, Small Voice.
I hope this is helpful. God Bless.

Mary Kay July 2, 2007 at 6:36 am

Matt, from first glance at Fr. Fessio’s article (I won’t have time to thoroughly read it until at least Wed), it has none of the sniping that it present in this thread. Including your posts which consistently imply that those who attend the Novus Ordo are somehow less Catholic than you, as seen in the last paragraph of your last post.
I have a question for you. Which Missal has the Church repeatedly said is the ordinary Missal?
As for your response to Bill, you totally missed what he was saying.
Now, I don’t know what the common practice was before Vatican II
Then perhaps you should put a little more effort into listening to those of us who do have some knowledge of what the practice was and a little less effort into ramming your interpretation down everyone’s throat.

bill bannon July 2, 2007 at 6:48 am

Men…lest I get hit with more sales tricks that sell the black auto as “off navy”, I’m blowing this one horse thread. I hope you get your Mass in your area. Tons of us will be glad its optional.
Mary Kay
….run for the exits. These discussions are about something way deeper than Latin. They’re about “how did the world become a zoo…including a good portion of the Church…and would Latin change it back to not being a zoo”. The answer is no. Diapered Catholic astranauts are here for the duration….instead of leavening the world, some of us are headed to Leavenworth.
Religious orders and Bishops had slaves well into the 19th century (and Popes had them prior to that..muslims in the papal galley ships…good thing Bin Laden doesn’t read history) while … while saying the Mass in Latin. A Pope in 1455 made that possible despite later protestations of other Popes….and he said the Mass in Latin. So Latin has no inner salvific worth at all….nada. Read Catullus poetry and you’ll know. As to it causing unity and solidarity, I’ll believe that sales pitch when Please actually identifies himself with a real name so as to be in solidarity with humans who use real names. Til then….I smell sales in the air…or lawyering which is not that different from sales in many cases. In honor of the Brits, I quote Tracy Thorn of EBTG “Future of the Future”…. “you say bring back the old days/ we can have them back again/ well I’ve thought about the old days/ they’d go bad like they did then.”

SteveG July 2, 2007 at 6:57 am

Have you been to a TLM lately? You might be surprised what you see and how different it might be from the experience of your youth.
This comment reveals and admits so much. I wish those who are so critical of the current rite would pause to reflect on it.
What it fundamentally does is concedes Bills description that when the Tridentine rite was the norm, it was also open to abuse, disrespect and irreverence. It is only so pristine now because it is not widely used, but is ‘protected’ by a very devoted subset in the Church (and in many ways, I applaud them for that preservation of our heritage). It is only different from Bill’s youth because it is not the norm. So, the constant comparing of the two rites seems to me…unwarranted.
In some ways it’s like comparing a classic automobile in car museum, kept under the perfect lighting, the perfect temperature, and kept behind the velvet ropes, to a car that has to get out on the high way and do the job of getting people from place to place.
Not that the classic car couldn’t do the job, but start manufacturing it again, and bring that classic car out onto the road and it’s bound to start looking a little worse for the way.
As I said, the entire idea of comparing the two rites, which exist in vastly different conditions, seems to me to be totally unwarranted.
Let us compare the current rite not to the Tridentine rite, but rather to what it’s supposed to be, what it can be, what it in fact is in so many parishes.

skyhawk July 2, 2007 at 7:12 am

That’s a straw man Dan!
The fact that authorized apparitions are not binding on the faithful doesn’t mean that they’re diabolical either. Do you always have to jump to extremes?

matt July 2, 2007 at 8:02 am

Mary Kay,
Matt, from first glance at Fr. Fessio’s article (I won’t have time to thoroughly read it until at least Wed), it has none of the sniping that it present in this thread. Including your posts which consistently imply that those who attend the Novus Ordo are somehow less Catholic than you, as seen in the last paragraph of your last post.
You call this sniping?
I have a question, what is the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Is it primarily for the edification of the congregation? for our spiritual benefit? Or is it primarily for the purpose of offering true worship to God?
That’s ridiculous, and the sentiment of it is clearly found in Fr. Fessio’s article. I’m not implying anything about you being Catholic, I’m trying to understand your objection to the criticisms, even though you refuse to address them.

I have a question for you. Which Missal has the Church repeatedly said is the ordinary Missal?

For the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass it is the Novus Ordo Missae. For the celebration of the Traditional Mass, according to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, it is the 1962 Missale Romanum as updated by John XXIII. It is clear that the normative mass is the Novus Ordo, but the Holy See has made it clear that all Catholics have a right to choose the Traditional Mass under the conditions of the Ecclesia Dei, and the Bishops are urged to be generous in providing for it. While we’re talking about “ordinary” practices repeatedly expressed by the Holy See… what is the ordinary language of the Novus Ordo? What is the ordinary means of receiving communion, hand or tongue? What is the ordinary rule for distribution of communion, priest only, or priest + laity? What is the ordinary rule for altar servers, boys or girls or both? What is the ordinary rule for lectors, instituted men, or lay men an women? And on and on. This is the whole point that Fr. Fessio is making. Follow the norms and you will have a mass which is reverent, and respects the tradition of the Church to a great extent.
By the way, these are things that the Holy See has said, they are not teachings of the Church but disciplinary instructions. My earlier question, which you failed to answer, is in regards to Church teaching.

As for your response to Bill, you totally missed what he was saying.
Now, I don’t know what the common practice was before Vatican II
Then perhaps you should put a little more effort into listening to those of us who do have some knowledge of what the practice was and a little less effort into ramming your interpretation down everyone’s throat.

Sorry, Mary Kay, no cigar on that one. I know exactly what his point was, I’ve heard similar points, but you failed to understand my point. Whatever went on in the Traditional Mass on a regular basis before Vatican II is not the point, it’s what goes on now, which, I’m not sure you or Bill have any understanding of… When’s the last time Mary Kay went to a TLM?
I won’t address Bill’s post, perhaps the discerning readers of this blog will learn a few things about his real position from the anti-Catholic rant he just posted.
SteveG,
You’re mistaken, I am not conceding that Bill’s impression is accurate (his rant should illustrate his obvious bias), but that it is not the point. The TLM is not a museum piece, but yes, it is attended primarily by devoted Catholics, but aren’t we all called to be devoted?
God Bless,
Matt
ps. some good links:
On the experience of “Novus Ordo” priests learning the Traditional Mass
More notes on the proper celebration of the Novus Ordo
An actual line by line, side by side comparision of the TLM and Novus Ordo
How to assist at the Traditional Mass

Mary Kay July 2, 2007 at 8:50 am

skimming the posts since this morning, I would give a Bravo for Steve’s well said post.
Matt, I’ll give your post a more thorough reading later, but it seems obvious that further discussion with you at this point is not productive.

SteveG July 2, 2007 at 8:59 am

it is attended primarily by devoted Catholics, but aren’t we all called to be devoted?
Of course, but the history of the church shows us that as much as we’d like it, people are at varying levels of devotion, and that changes even throughout their lives. Now, the contention seems to be on the whole that the Tridentine rite is somehow less susceptible to the vagaries of this reality than the NO, and this is often time claimed as objectively true.
But the reality is that this is a pristine rite at present because you’ve more or less self-selected a group of more devout folks. If the Tridentine rite were the norm, then it would be forced to contend with all the slipshod faithful who are just stumbling through life at various levels of devoutness and Orthodoxy. If that were the case, as in the past, that friction would cause the Tridentine rite to be celebrated far differently (on average) than what you see in your typical Tridentine mass.
Do you doubt that?

bill bannon July 2, 2007 at 9:08 am

Matt
So a rant is when someone disagrees with you and anti Catholic is when any sins of the Church are mentioned as relevant. For example the Vatican now talks as though it is the expert on the death penalty when in fact half of the top ten nations for murder rates are Catholic nominally and have no death penalty.
See the relevance? Pius XII was right to support the death penalty in 1952 as Aquinas did in the Middle Ages and as God did in the Bible…but the last two Popes are experts while…while…Catholic countries are at the forefront for murder rates.
But no one should see any of that is relevant?
You are of the school of “hide the sins” while we talk as experts. Discerning readers will know of another group who thought like that and ended up hurting hundreds of children and bankrupting 5 major dioceses…”hide the sins”. Anything else is anti Catholic rant.

matt July 2, 2007 at 9:43 am

Mary Kay,
skimming the posts since this morning, I would give a Bravo for Steve’s well said post.
Matt, I’ll give your post a more thorough reading later, but it seems obvious that further discussion with you at this point is not productive.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jul 2, 2007 8:50:40 AM

I’m just waiting for you to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.
God Bless,
Matt

matt July 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

Bill,
Matt
So a rant is when someone disagrees with you and anti Catholic is when any sins of the Church are mentioned as relevant. For example the Vatican now talks as though it is the expert on the death penalty when in fact half of the top ten nations for murder rates are Catholic nominally and have no death penalty.
See the relevance? Pius XII was right to support the death penalty in 1952 as Aquinas did in the Middle Ages and as God did in the Bible…but the last two Popes are experts while…while…Catholic countries are at the forefront for murder rates.
But no one should see any of that is relevant?
You are of the school of “hide the sins” while we talk as experts. Discerning readers will know of another group who thought like that and ended up hurting hundreds of children and bankrupting 5 major dioceses…”hide the sins”. Anything else is anti Catholic rant.
Posted by: bill bannon | Jul 2, 2007 9:08:38 AM

So are you accusing me of being a “pedophile” priest, or a bishop who moved a “pedophile” priest to another parish knowing his guilt and problem? Good heavens, you really are over the deep-end. The reason what you said is a rant, is that we weren’t talking about any of the subjects you brought up in your diatribe, they weren’t germaine to the conversation, you just wanted to take a swipe at the Church, that’s a rant.
Steve,
If that were the case, as in the past, that friction would cause the Tridentine rite to be celebrated far differently (on average) than what you see in your typical Tridentine mass.
Do you doubt that?
Posted by: SteveG | Jul 2, 2007 8:59:31 AM

No, the rubrics are clear, no matter what the formation of those who assist the mass will be celebrated the same by the priest (unless he is disobedient). Mind you there may be a few more cell phones ringing, haltar tops and the like, it will be more crowded at Christmas and Easter, but we would survive. I’m not arguing that the Holy See should ban the Novus Ordo like it effectively but not “officially” did to the Traditional Mass, that would be a mess like happened in the 70’s. No, I am suggesting that Catholics are entitled to a reverent and theologically correct Mass, and that to achieve that some reform of the Novus Ordo is necessary, a reform of the reform as the Holy Father has suggested and is fostering.
God Bless,
Matt

bill bannon July 2, 2007 at 10:32 am

Matt
That was absurd in total because you share a way of thinking with the shunting bishops but you cannot be held liable for following that thinking into the worst places until you do follow that thinking into the worst places. The last two Popes followed that way of thinking into less bad places. I linked you closer to them in that sentence regarding experts. You had to translate my English into your English to get to an absurd conclusion…for discerning readers.
I gave a perfect argument for Latin having zero magical sanctifying powers…from the Fathers to the 19th century while saying the Mass in Latin, Catholic culture accepted just titled slavery which Gaudium et Spes and Splendor Veritatis said were intrinsically evil…check the Trent catechism that forbids stealing another man’s slave (on line) and written several decades after Paul III denounced slavery….check the Catholic Historical Society periodical on both religious orders and Bishops having slaves in the 19th century.
ERGO….latin liturgy did not rescue the Church from bad actions and a bad idea that it accepted even when it denounced the slave trade…the bad idea: just titled slavery…4 reasons… one being born to a slave mother as per Roman law which perdured in romance countries…and perdured in moral theology including St. Alphonsus Ligouri the best of the 18th century moral theologians and in Juan de Lugo the best in the 17th.
ERGO….Latin liturgy has no connection to higher morals. Its prescence in the liturgy for a millenium did not stop participation in just titled slavery…the Quakers and the English led the way in stopping that and the Church followed while having sporadic writers who also opposed it but were outclassed by the likes of DeLugo and St. Alphonsus. England was pivotal in physically stopping the lingering trade by sea might.

John July 2, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Bill
How has the discussion of the reverence of the Tridentine Rite, which I am sure many of the Bishops will shelve or have an underlying threat on any of their clergy who go against them and learn and perform such, have to do with slavery?
If you want to get down to it, Jesus used the word “servant” in one of his parables, which servant in biblical times, meant slave. Are you saying Jesus was incorrect?
You obviously do not clearly understand the role of the church, which is to provide a path to salvatition, with the Tridentine rite obviously does best, and slavery is another one of the ills of man created that goes back to the OT. Jesus accepted slavery, as did the NT where it was said in Matthew:
Matthew 18:25: “But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.”
Yes the church should speak out against the ills of the world, but that is NOT her role nor why she was established.

bill bannon July 2, 2007 at 2:18 pm

John
Christ was using a metaphor not endorsing slavery in your passage, Christ also used the unjust judge as a metaphor relating to God’s answering persevering prayer…the judge who finally gives the woman the justice that she wants due to her complaining even though he is unjust. Does that mean Christ endorsed unjust judges? If you are endorsing all the people and actions that Christ used as metaphors, we’re in trouble.
Paul taught Christians how to live within slavery…he nowhere endorses Roman slavery itself. The Jews had to free slaves on the 7th year and had such a beneficent form of slavery that if the man fell in love and married when a slave, he could opt to not be free and stay as a slave and with the woman and an awl was put through his ear (a hidden prophecy of Christ who will keep his incarnated body with its wounds forever out of love for the Church in Heaven and will not go back to being the Word only)….nothing to do with the lifetime slavery of the West and the separating of mothers from children as done by the Sulpician order in one instance during their sale of land to the Jesuits in the 19th century.
Then in one fell swoop in the name of the Church, you undid Splendor Veritatis…Vatican II and the position on slavery of most of mankind with the exception of Islam and Bin Laden who refers in his letters to blacks as not blacks but slaves.
Your concept of Church as speaking out but not having that as a purpose is self contradictory. Your note on the Tridentine Mass leading best to salvation is what the heck my whole post was addressing…this claim that Latin liturgy leads to higher virtue. Now you have taught me that Latin liturgy afficionados may be in some cases…slavery fans. This makes my day even more problematic than it was.

Christine July 2, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Even though I gre up with thNovus Ordo Mass, I am looking forward to the TLM!
Christine
The World…IMHO

Richard July 2, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Hello Dr Eric,
I don’t know where you went to church, but I’ve never been to an unorthodox Liturgy in St. Louis. Unless you count the Latizations at the Ruthenian Mission at the Bl. John XXIII center.
Well, last Christmas I happened to attend a midnight Mass up in O’Fallon – I won’t name the church (though perhaps I should). There were three rounds of liturgical dancing by a group of about 12 women, including up around the altar; the Creed and Confiteor were skipped; an ad libbed consecration which I had difficulty (due to poor acoustics) determining was actually licit; not one, but two signs of peace; a homily trying to explain the Incarnation which mentioned nothing at all about sin or redemption; and the benediction was given by a…puppet. At Midnight Mass.
That’s the worst I have seen, but I would echo Different’s assessment that much in the suburban north and west of the archdiocese is no better than what you find elsewhere. But Burke hasn’t been around long enough to make a big impact on the personnel or the liturgy uniformly.

Jarnor23 July 3, 2007 at 12:16 am

Ugh. Okay, just gotta say if that’s what you guys are used to seeing, I can tell why you’re so desperate to try anything to get reverence back into those parishes. Believe me, around here that would not fly very long. I’ve never been to a Mass even resembling that insanity. The problem is when folks start equating the N.O. or licit practices they don’t personally like with being as bad as that. First, you insult very holy priests and reverent people worshiping there with such comparisons, and second, no one will take you seriously if you really try to equate the two examples.
And here’s one more thing to think about. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all Masses were returned to Tridentine. Think about how lovely it would feel to you to see that kind of stupidity being done during your TLM, only in Latin! Because if they don’t give a darn about rubrics now, they sure as hell won’t just because you put it in Latin.

Mary Kay July 3, 2007 at 4:30 am

Jarnor, well said.

John July 3, 2007 at 5:29 am

Jarnor
I dont really think that Latin is the answer or the issue. I think if the reformers had left the mass exactly the way it was and only translated it in the vernacular, we would not even be having this discussion
I dont want to get into a NO mass vs TLM mass argument here, but a priest once told me that that the church would have been 1000x times better today and he would accept a TVM (Traditional Vernacular Mass) over a NO mass any day of the week. The prayers were gutted, changed, 9 eucharistic prayers, etc etc. Just to many options, B16 said it is fabricated, not organic.

matt July 3, 2007 at 6:05 am

Jarnor23,
licit practices they don’t personally like
is it possible for you to respond without generalizing? That’s not really helpful to the conversation at all. You’ve not responded to any of my specific points, but instead just respond with rhetoric. I’ve identified several illicit practices, that you defended, when I provided proof you seemed to just ignore it, maybe it’s just because you prefer them, I just don’t know.
You never answered my questions. I’d really like to know your thought on those matters.
God Bless,
Matt

Jarnor23 July 3, 2007 at 9:35 am

John: I’d like to think that you may be right, and that a TVM would have worked out well. I have a sneaking suspicion though that some people would have objected solely on the basis of missing the Latin though. I keep on seeing post after post about how beautiful Latin is compared to vernacular languages.
I think you are right though that it probably would have kept things somewhat simpler though and allowed for a more organic change. 9 Eucharistic Prayers does seem like an awful lot, although to be fair only four are regularly used, and of those four, the second seems to be used almost exclusively most places I’ve gone.
One thing I do prefer about the N.O. is that it covers a LOT more of the Bible in its three year cycle than the one year of the traditional. Of course, you have to hit the weekday masses to really catch some of the best stuff, but ideally we should want to be there on weekdays as well. I’m not sure though how you’d go from a one year cycle to a 3 year one organically though. It seems to me at some point there would have to be a big change authorized for that kind of thing.
I do think though it’s a shame they didn’t try something like your idea out first though. Would have been a lot easier for people to adjust to, and then if further changes were needed, doing them gradually may have decreased the alienation some felt. While I agree with Vatican II that a breath of fresh air was needed in the Church, novelty for novelty’s sake is not. I like to think that the changes we enact are to draw souls deeper into relationship with Christ, as that’s the whole point. If they’re not doing that at some level, change is pointless.

Different July 3, 2007 at 10:01 am

Jarnor,
I agree with you on the NO not being the issue. The issue is abuse which requires an agent, a poorly formed priest. If tomorrow the NO was banned and the TLM instituted, you would witness many TLM’s filled with abuse. There is nothing magical about the TLM that miraculously prevents abuse, nor is there anything within the NO that causes abuse.
The fact is that seminaries were very bad places of formation in the 1940’s through the 1980’s. Remember most of the truly wacky Masses of the 70’s and 80’s were under pastors who were educated WELL BEFORE Vatican II. Sadly, most of the priests who were guilty of sexual abuse were educated before Vatican II, as well. Thankfully, things started getting cleaned up in the early 90’s and, in most places, are much better now.

matt July 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

jarnor23,
I think you are right though that it probably would have kept things somewhat simpler though and allowed for a more organic change.
I agree. I believe that’s exactly what the Vatican Council actually called for with regard to the vernacular. Allowing it in the propers (ie. changing parts) on certain occasions, and retaining Latin for the ordinary (unchanging parts) and entirely in most circumastances. Simplicity is also mentioned in the documents.
9 Eucharistic Prayers does seem like an awful lot, although to be fair only four are regularly used, and of those four, the second seems to be used almost exclusively most places I’ve gone.

It’s 8 more than have ever been permitted within a single rite. The problem with the one that’s most regularly used is that it’s not the right one, the Roman Canon, which had been developed organicly in the early centuries, and held unchanged for 1500 years. The other Eucharistic prayer where invented entirely or cobbled together from fragments. Even the Roman Canon was changed in the Novus Ordo, reducing references to the saints and the Blessed Virgin, removing genuflections and the sign of the cross in a number of places.

One thing I do prefer about the N.O. is that it covers a LOT more of the Bible in its three year cycle than the one year of the traditional. Of course, you have to hit the weekday masses to really catch some of the best stuff, but ideally we should want to be there on weekdays as well. I’m not sure though how you’d go from a one year cycle to a 3 year one organically though. It seems to me at some point there would have to be a big change authorized for that kind of thing.

This is something that VCII did call for and it’s not necessarily a bad thing (although it’s certainly debatable). One problem with the actual implementations is what you mention… some of the best stuff has been relegated to weekdays, or completely edited out of the lectionary. Have a look, the readings aren’t continuous, there are a number of verses edited out. Look especially for references to sexual morality which is of tremendous concern in this day and age, far more than when the TLM lectionary was established.

I do think though it’s a shame they didn’t try something like your idea out first though. Would have been a lot easier for people to adjust to, and then if further changes were needed, doing them gradually may have decreased the alienation some felt. While I agree with Vatican II that a breath of fresh air was needed in the Church, novelty for novelty’s sake is not. I like to think that the changes we enact are to draw souls deeper into relationship with Christ, as that’s the whole point. If they’re not doing that at some level, change is pointless.

On this we agree, and I think that’s exactly what VCII says, sadly, that’s not what was done.
Matt

Jarnor23 July 3, 2007 at 10:06 am

Matt: I gave you the answer I felt appropriate, and do not believe it to be a generalization, but rather an accurate assessment of what I saw happening in this thread. Hence me largely bailing on it.
But, since you asked, I did look through Redemptionis Sacramentum. Found things quite useful, such as:
The last chapter of the present Instruction will treat of the varying degrees to which the individual norms are bound up with the supreme norm of all ecclesiastical law, namely concern for the salvation of souls.
(Woah, saving souls the REASON for rubrics??? Crazy talk. 😉 )
Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.
(Looks like Bishops DO have this authority after all.)
So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
(The document then goes on about cautions showing when communion under both kinds may be problematic. Very understandable.)
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants 189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. 190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
(Please notice, this disciplinary document specifically ALLOWS EMHCs to be used as to allow communion under both kinds, which was also previously in the document said to make the fullness of the sign more evident to the faithful.)

In short, I see where the Church (wisely) cautions against abuses and problems. However, I also see nowhere that things are disallowed that you have been saying. I’m sure you’ll take one of the cautions here though to mean something other than what I would feel a straight reading of it would be and feed it back as “proof”. Show it to my Bishop or priest, as I follow THEIR guidance, not the interpretations of random people on the Internet.

Jarnor23 July 3, 2007 at 10:15 am

Matt:
Just out of curiosity so I can look at it a bit more, which Eucharistic Prayer is the closest one to the old form, #1?
Even four regular forms does seem… well, at least a serious duplication of effort that probably wasn’t needed. I’m pretty sure if I were to go anywhere they were doing a prayer other than the second one I’d have to read along with it. Of course, I was also told that one of those four was actually a vernacular version of the OLDEST surviving rite we know, meaning the closest to the original, even more so than Tridentine. I’m not sure if that’s true or not though, but I have heard the claim made.
Oh, and as far as the Bible readings go, I’ve never been a fan of skipping verses. I know I have nothing to back this one up other than gut feeling, but I feel any time something is skipped, “important” or not, something’s being lost to the person hearing the Word. I really dislike it when it’s not obvious that something was skipped. Feels like they’re trying to slip something by you.

matt July 3, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Jarnor23,

Matt: I gave you the answer I felt appropriate, and do not believe it to be a generalization, but rather an accurate assessment of what I saw happening in this thread. Hence me largely bailing on it.

But what you gave was an “impression” rather than specific points, you are reading between the lines, when, at least for my part there is no between the lines. My own feelings about EMHC or women in the sanctuary at all do not enter into it.

The last chapter of the present Instruction will treat of the varying degrees to which the individual norms are bound up with the supreme norm of all ecclesiastical law, namely concern for the salvation of souls.
(Woah, saving souls the REASON for rubrics??? Crazy talk. 😉 )

amen to that!

Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.
(Looks like Bishops DO have this authority after all.)

The bishops have significant authority on worship, and that authority is well spelled out, but that authority demands they remain within the established norms. I never said that women or girls were not allowed in the sanctuary (others might have), but I did note that the universal norm is that all those in the sanctuary are men, and for good reason, the Bishop may allow this to be dispensed in regard to altar girls, and to lectors where no instituted lectors are available (I don’t know why there are never any instituded lectors when that is the norm, perhaps one of the bishops will establish a program for that). As to EMHC’s the rule is clear, and the wide use of them is not within the authority of the bishop.

So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
(The document then goes on about cautions showing when communion under both kinds may be problematic. Very understandable.)
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants 189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. 190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
(Please notice, this disciplinary document specifically ALLOWS EMHCs to be used as to allow communion under both kinds, which was also previously in the document said to make the fullness of the sign more evident to the faithful.)

In your observation are these requirements being followed? Have you seen parishes dispense from distributing both species because of the number of communicants? Have you heard the congregation educated on the truth that both species is unneccessary to achieve the fullness of grace in the sacrement?

In short, I see where the Church (wisely) cautions against abuses and problems. However, I also see nowhere that things are disallowed that you have been saying. I’m sure you’ll take one of the cautions here though to mean something other than what I would feel a straight reading of it would be and feed it back as “proof”. Show it to my Bishop or priest, as I follow THEIR guidance, not the interpretations of random people on the Internet.

Which thing precisel have I been saying is disallowed, which is not disallowed? You were doing great, but now you fall back into generalisation.
I would suggest that you in your sincere concern for the salvation of souls, you might bring the pertinent passages of the document to the attention of your priests so that they might respond or resolve appropriately.
Just out of curiosity so I can look at it a bit more, which Eucharistic Prayer is the closest one to the old form, #1?
This link shows a side by side comparison of the whole missal, it includes both the Novus Ordo versin of the Roman Canon (#1) and that other Eucharistic prayer (#2) side by with the Roman Canon from the TLM.
Comparison of the Novus Ordo and the TLM missals
Even four regular forms does seem… well, at least a serious duplication of effort that probably wasn’t needed. I’m pretty sure if I were to go anywhere they were doing a prayer other than the second one I’d have to read along with it. Of course, I was also told that one of those four was actually a vernacular version of the OLDEST surviving rite we know, meaning the closest to the original, even more so than Tridentine. I’m not sure if that’s true or not though, but I have heard the claim made.

The 2nd Eucharistic prayer is based on early texts in which Anti-pope Hippolytus proposes a Eucharistic prayer which may or may not have some later modifications, and may or may not have been used in mass in the Latin rite, but was almost surely in use in Ethiopia (read, not the Latin Rite). What we do know is that a Roman preface was added in creating the 2nd Eucharistic prayer so it’s not exactly what Hippolytus proposed, even if it has not been modified (which we’re not sure about).
Now just because we don’t have the Roman canon extant as old as the Hippolytus Canon, does not mean that it doesn’t pre-date it, there is no clear historical sign of it’s introduction, it appears to have developed organicly from the apostles who first came to Rome (Sts. Peter and Paul).

Oh, and as far as the Bible readings go, I’ve never been a fan of skipping verses. I know I have nothing to back this one up other than gut feeling, but I feel any time something is skipped, “important” or not, something’s being lost to the person hearing the Word. I really dislike it when it’s not obvious that something was skipped. Feels like they’re trying to slip something by you.

Amen to that… I was really surprised when I found out about it myself.
Matt

PLEASE July 3, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Mary Kay,
I am NOT trashing the Novus Ordo or Misa Normativa at all.
I only, as best I could, outlined some of the reasons I preferred the Traditional Latin Mass. (Please read above)
I prefaced it with a need for charity. I also said that some so called Traditionalists do lack charity and say and do things they should not.
The TLM is not magic. It it is not a panacea that will bring about a utopia either in the world nor even “just” the Church.
But it is a slice of Heaven and a beautiful way to worship God and “renew” His Sacrifice and allow us to take Holy Communion.
There is an importance to Latin–even all of the Mayahana Buddhist sects outside of India used Sanskrit in their chanting. As I stated above from our ancient Hebrew (and current Jews) spiritual forebearers use Hebrew–to the heretical Arian Muslims using Arabic in prayer and sacred scripture–not other cultures like Hinduism also using Sanskrit.
We cannot just go to the lowest common denominator of our kids playing DS or our minds drifting.
I have never been diagnosed, but some claim, I may have had or have ADD or ADHD—Liturgy helps it.
As does Eastern Rite (Catholic although it essentially the same as Eastern Orthodox for most of the corresponding rites in union with Rome)–which has a similiar introspective, meditative, priest ad orientum, sense of separate sacred space, separation of sexes, priest as in persona Cristi, the real presence, incense, bells, chanting etc.
It helps focus.
There was a good book I think called LITURGY and PERSONALITY by Dietrech von Hildenbrand–off of the TLM which was deep and at times difficult but really had some great human psychological insight because ultimately it leads to God as the source and a realization of God throught the person of Jesus and his Sacrifice for our sins as re-enacted (mystically) in the Mass.
The current Mass, of course, is valid and good. I am not downgrading it at all. I am merely trying to outline some of the benefits of the TLM.
The TLM had abuses of those not participating in the Mass. Bad Priests. etc.
But something happened after Vatican II, due to Vatican II being misinterpreted and changes in the culture at large for good and bad that seemed uniquely open to abuse at least in liturgy and certainly other aspects of Church life.
I love Vatican II, I agree with religious liberty, I like the term Dignity of man,–I think Lumen Gentium and subsequent Christifideles Laici had great impact for lay people and a more specifically lay spirituality (as focused in by Opus Dei but not solely)
But I also think some in the Church Hierarchy have lacked pastoral care for those with affection for the Traditional Latin Mass. I think there is a lack of graciousness and even respect by some (I say some and not all) Cardinals and bishops with regards to those with Traditional concerns.
Many of the people I know in Chicago who opt for St. John Cantius or the Institute of Christ the King or even (perhaps sadly) the Chapel of SSPX or the kindly sisters but strange lineage of the Fraternite du Notre Dame are truly looking for a reverent Mass.
Others in other cities or even rural areas without these options truly yearn for something less modern, less Protestant, more historically Catholic, more reverent, more introspective.—The Motu Propio may give them this chance, regardless of how many there are or how many will come.
Most of those who desire the TLM, do not out of a selfish desire but a true desire to praise and glorify God and participate in his Sacrifice and Salvific act.
Most are in full union with Peter and love this Pope and love the last Pope. Some are confused, as am I at at times, and others even non Catholics–at this “new” and modern world of internet, email, YouTube, Google searches, Wikipedia, IPod, Apple Phones, porn everywhere, MTV, Rap, Hip Hop, constant change, supersonic jets, an international economy, changing families,–some good, some bad–and the TLM (and the Eastern Rite Liturgies–St. John Chryststom for example) offer an oasis and a portal to Heaven.
The most beautiful thing this side of Heaven.
Let us pray to unite the Church at all Her wonderful Masses–and be charitable to one another.

Mary Kay July 3, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Please poster, I’ll have to go back and look at the previous posts (it’s been a brain-draining few days), because I don’t remember exactly what your previous post was.
However, I would say that I’ve never disparaged the TLM, nor the people who prefer it. I live in a very dissident diocese and understand the attraction of the TLM to some.
But that makes it all the harder to repeatedly listen to those who denigrate the 1970 Missal. Not the abuses, but the Missal itself.
Thanks for your post. I hope everyone posting here heeds your call to be charitable.

PLEASE July 3, 2007 at 3:40 pm

“Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet,” this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord. Again, St. Francis de Sales said: “One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar.” The revealed truth of our Holy Catholic Faith is, in itself, attractive because of its depth, brilliance, and logic. Wherever it appears clothed in the beautiful garments of charity, it becomes ever more acceptable to those who might otherwise fear its inevitable consequences for our lives and the sharpness with which it cuts through our weaknesses and our excuses. The famous religious poet, Gertrude von Le Fort, wrote of the Church and the revealed Truth: “I have fallen in your Faith like in an open sword, and you have cut all my anchors.” How much more easier does a soul accept the grandness and the majesty of Divine Faith when it is presented with the merciful charity and patient meekness that Our Lord himself shows all the time to His children.

matt July 3, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Mary Kay,
you keep saying there’s a lot of denigrating going on, but you never seem to cite some. Can you give an example of denigrating that is common in this thread? Is any criticism denigrating?
God Bless,
Matt

mick July 4, 2007 at 3:56 am

thank you Mr A.William and Alex Benziger.G..
i don’t know where you from but i sincerely thank you for your support.
the comment is too long somebody have to start a new threat..
i want to tell a story about a catholic boy converted to muslimme…
long live Papa Benedict16. no matter what happen Pope Ben16 is doing the best he could.

Mary Kay July 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Aaron, frustration with heterodoxy I can understand. FWIW, I live in a diocese that is “liberal la-la land.” I like the phrase :)
Matt, despite my saying that today would be the earliest I could spend any time beyond a driveby, you then fault me for not giving detailed responses.
It’s an example of having to walk on eggshells in discussion with you. I had no problem with Fr. Fessio’s article. I do find your barbed comments to be problematic. They give the impression that you’re more interested in pointing out others’ errors, or your perception of errors. It’s a layer that I have to get past just to respond to you.
That brings me to your question if any criticism is denigrating. As I’ve mentioned, what bothers me is the criticism of the Missal itself. My first reaction was that criticism of the Missal itself is denigratory. The people doing so seem to think that they know better than the Church. That you know better than the Holy Spirit does about what the Church needs at any given moment. BTW, Fr. Fessio does not criticize the Missal itself.
One of the things that bugs me is the nearly universal equating the 1970 Missal with the extremes of abuse. I know of one incident of Barney and one of clowns Mass. Two actual incidences, yet I’ve heard them mentioned hundreds of times. It similar to people branded all priests as sexual abusers because of the small percentage of occurrences.
Personally, I think it should be considered a corollary of Godwin’s law. At the first mention of a clown Mass, the discussion is over and the person mentioning it loses.
As for the ordinary Mass, I’m glad you recognize that the Church states that the Novus Ordo is the normative Mass. If I were to respond in kind to you, I would say, “yes there is an ordinary rule for receiving Communion, distribution of Communion, lectors etc, but the Holy See has made it clear that extraordinary can be used.” And yet you call the use of extraordinary as a “serious violation.”
That you prefer the TLM is your choice. I wish you would extend the same courtesy to those who choose the normative Mass.

matt July 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Mary Kay,
Matt, despite my saying that today would be the earliest I could spend any time beyond a driveby, you then fault me for not giving detailed responses.
I fault you for making generalized and unsubstantiated accusations of denigration. I suggest, if you haven’t time to respond precisely you ought to refrain from making accusation, until you have more time.
It’s an example of having to walk on eggshells in discussion with you.
I don’t see how, once again, an unsupported accusation…
I do find your barbed comments to be problematic. They give the impression that you’re more interested in pointing out others’ errors, or your perception of errors. It’s a layer that I have to get past just to respond to you.
Another unsupported accusation.
That brings me to your question if any criticism is denigrating. As I’ve mentioned, what bothers me is the criticism of the Missal itself. My first reaction was that criticism of the Missal itself is denigratory.
So any criticism of the missal itself is denigratory? Ok, I completely dissagree, but I understand your position. By the way, does that cover the English translation or just the Latin original? Does that apply to the Holy Father if he criticizes the missal? Does that classification apply to the English lectionary which slices and dices many readings relegating important moral teachings to weekdays or the cutting room floor?
As for the ordinary Mass, I’m glad you recognize that the Church states that the Novus Ordo is the normative Mass. If I were to respond in kind to you, I would say, “yes there is an ordinary rule for receiving Communion, distribution of Communion, lectors etc, but the Holy See has made it clear that extraordinary can be used.” And yet you call the use of extraordinary as a “serious violation.”
Actually the Holy See has prescribed very specific circumstances where EMHC’s can be used, it’s not simply an “option”, as is the use of communion in the hand, altar girls or communion under both species. Violating the conditions of such permission is obviously a violation of the dignity of the mass.
You make a specific accusation, and for that I am grateful. It would be helpful though if you would cite in context:
The discussion fails to mention some other things that are “customary” to the Novus Ordo, irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, communion in the hand, profane music, altar girls, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, etc. etc. All serious violations of the dignity of the mass.
This criticism refers not to the missal, but to practices associated with the Novus Ordo, and it is not a statement that such practices are necessarily opposed to Church law, but that they violate the dignity of the Sacrifice of The Mass. I am happy to support my conclusion:
1. irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, profane music, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, and ordinary use of EMHC – these items are all violations of applicable Church law, and so by definition violate the dignity of the mass. If you would like any documentation of this assertion I would be happy to provide it.
2. communion in the hand – While this practice is permitted by the Holy See in most places, it is not the “ordinary” means of reception, yet it is commonly taught as such, and the normative means is commonly not taught at all, this in my opinion a violation of the dignity of the Mass, but I will go further. The practice of communion on the tongue as the norm has been the case for at least 1500 years – Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith. In the 60’s and 70’s originally in Holland the practice cropped up in direct contravention to Church law. As the illicit practice spread, the Holy See took a number of steps to eliminate this. Unfortunately the Holy Father, Paul VI, in a capitulation to this disobedience, granted the local ordinary the authority to permit the practice as a concession, but in the same document strongly discouraged the practice as it is and stating of communion on the tongue that This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist…ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]. The Holy Father had surveyed the bishops on a potential change to the discipline and found that From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Nevertheless, the Holy Father allowed a concession under certain circumstances:
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.
Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.
.
One of the conditions whas theThe new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage…..
At the time of this letter, the practice was not widespread in the US, so the conditions were not present, but as a result of this laxity, the practice illicitly became widespread and thus the conditions later became present and the indult was granted.
St. Basil the great, writing in the 4th century implies that it is a grave fault to recieve communion in the hand under normal circumstances. It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon. The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II refused on several occasions to permit the practice in his native Poland despite repeated requests of the bishops there, in fact he refused himself to distribute communion in this way, famously bypassing a visiting dignitory’s hands and inserting the Blessed Sacrament directly in her mouth.
Here is the principle document authorizing the bishop to permit communion in the hand.
Here is a more thorough discussion on communion in the hand, from which you can find citations on the statements I make above.
3. As to altar girls? I won’t go into as much detail, as I have other things to do, but have a look here:
Here is a document of John Paul II describing the Church Law as of 1980: 18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.
Here is the document granted the bishops authority to allow altar girls. Note the date of 1992, and think back a few years to how common altar girls had become already by that time in violation of Church law. In this document – Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue…
More discussion on the use of altar girls here.
So you see that my opinion has an objective basis, and can’t be considered denigrating, given the support of Church Documents, saints and legislators.
God Bless,
Matt

Mary Kay July 4, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Matt, when I started today’s post, I almost wrote that since you had peppered me with questions after I said I wouldn’t have time until today, that whatever I wrote today, you would find fault with it.
The Holy Spirit inspired Vatican II, there had been movement for liturgical reform for decades prior to Vatican II. As much as you prefer the TLM, you can’t get around that others saw a need for liturgical reform and that the 1970 Missal that came out of that has remained the normative Missal. That is why the criticisms, disparagements and denigrations are so wearisome.
Since I’m more interested in the cessation of constant disparagement of the 1970 Missal specifically and Vatican II in general than in engaging in debate, let me go through the thread. I’m sure you will find fault with each and every one of them.
Just in your last post, I mentioned instances of extraordinary use and you unnecessarily lumped them with extreme forms of abuse. Sounds more and more like a corollary of Godwin’s Law.
From the beginning of the thread…
6/29 1:56 am Saying that not knowing what a chapel veil is a reason to blame Vatican II that people forget about God. While the Church in Malaysia, as in much of the world, could use some correction, the broad stroke of blaming Vatican II isn’t it.
6/29 7:53am criticizes the new lectionary while failing to note that the those readings wouldn’t be read in the earlier lectionary. And that the new lectionary offers a greater exposure to Scripture.
Your “huh?” infers that they were wrong to revise the offretory prayers.
Criticism of number of Eucharistic Prayers.
Criticism Euch both species. SC 55 does say when the bishops see fit. The issue isn’t so much with content but your pattern of criticising everything associated with the Novus Ordo.
Criticism of omitting John’s Prologue at the end of Mass. Personally, I’m greatly disappointed that it’s not read the two times in the Christmas season. But again, your pattern of being a complaint with each and every change.
Finding fault with a perfectly acceptable article because it does not lump abuses in with “customary” for the Novus Ordo. The first mention in this thread of the rare extreme abuses.
6/29 9:52am “after Vatican II…all good values are lost.” Links Vatican II with Martin Luther’s “destroy the papal Mass destroy the Church.”
That’s what prompted my first post. Go for it. Have a field day finding fault with those examples.

Mary Kay July 4, 2007 at 4:49 pm

To rephrase the last part of my post – The above are examples of the disparagement of the Novus Ordo.

matt July 4, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Mary Kay,
den·i·grate /’d?n??gre?t/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[den-i-greyt] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -grat·ed, -grat·ing. 1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone’s character.

crit·i·cize /’kr?t??sa?z/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[krit-uh-sahyz] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cized, -ciz·ing.
2. to judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.
–verb (used without object)

I have criticized but I have not been derogatory, nor have you demonstrated that I have been.

The Holy Spirit inspired Vatican II, there had been movement for liturgical reform for decades prior to Vatican II. As much as you prefer the TLM, you can’t get around that others saw a need for liturgical reform and that the 1970 Missal that came out of that has remained the normative Missal. That is why the criticisms, disparagements and denigrations are so wearisome.

Can you tell me which reform called for by the Holy Spirit inspired Vatican II did I criticize whatsoever? My criticism is that the 1970 missal, and particularly practices associated with it violate many of the reform principles of Vatican II, I have demonstrate that this is the case.

6/29 1:56 am Saying that not knowing what a chapel veil is a reason to blame Vatican II that people forget about God. While the Church in Malaysia, as in much of the world, could use some correction, the broad stroke of blaming Vatican II isn’t it.

Huh? I didn’t say this, I don’t really understand it.

6/29 7:53am criticizes the new lectionary while failing to note that the those readings wouldn’t be read in the earlier lectionary. And that the new lectionary offers a greater exposure to Scripture.

What does that have to do with the valid criticism that it neglects important moral teachings? And please provide support for your statement that “those readings wouldn’t be read in the earlier lectionary”. Obviously, there are many readings in the New Lectionary that are not in the 1962 missal, the point is that the new lectionary specifically waters down important moral teachings which are strongly present in the 1962. I will concede that there are positive aspects to the expansion to a three year lectionary.

Your “huh?” infers that they were wrong to revise the offretory prayers.

Wrong inferral. Once again you tend quote out of context in order to provide your own which bears no relation to the actual quote.

Criticism of number of Eucharistic Prayers.

Yes, 9 is 8 too many, and unprecedented in over 1500 years, nor is it called for by VCII.

Criticism Euch both species. SC 55 does say when the bishops see fit. The issue isn’t so much with content but your pattern of criticising everything associated with the Novus Ordo.

I did not criticize the principle of both species as a fuller sign of the sacrament while noting it confers no additional graces. But it’s use is to be in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See read a little more, and look at Redemptionis Sacramentum for some detail on which cases the Apostolic See has determined, and it’s precisely when this is ignored that I criticize… take it up with the Holy Father who issued the document.

Criticism of omitting John’s Prologue at the end of Mass. Personally, I’m greatly disappointed that it’s not read the two times in the Christmas season.

I didn’t criticize it, I asked why that was done, and why the Leonine prayers were eliminated.

But again, your pattern of being a complaint with each and every change.

innaccurate hyperbole.

Finding fault with a perfectly acceptable article because it does not lump abuses in with “customary” for the Novus Ordo. The first mention in this thread of the rare extreme abuses.

Not sure what this has to do with criticizing the missal. I found fault with the article did a very poor job of explaining the differences between the two masses in principle or in practice. The article is one-sided, I clearly demonstrated that.
6/29 9:52am “after Vatican II…all good values are lost.” Links Vatican II with Martin Luther’s “destroy the papal Mass destroy the Church.”
Not my post.
God Bless,
Matt
ps.
dis·par·age /d?’spær?d?/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-spar-ij] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -aged, -ag·ing. 1. to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle

Nope, didn’t do that either.

matt July 4, 2007 at 5:12 pm

pop quiz:
who said this:
What largely happened after the Council means something entirely different. One replaced the organicly developed liturgy with the manufactured liturgy.
For bonus points, is it to be considered a denigration of the Novus Ordo? Is it disparaging?
God Bless,
Matt

Inocencio July 4, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Latest update.

Title for motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum

Vatican, Jul. 4, 2007 (CWNews.com) – A papal document widening use of the 1962 Roman Missal will be released on July 7, the Roman news agency I Media says, confirming reports that circulated late in June.
The motu proprio will be entitled Summorum Pontificum, I Media adds. The title of the Pope’s document had not previously been mentioned in the media, despite numerous reports of its existence and intense speculation over its contents.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

matt July 4, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Inocencio,
Summorum Pontificum
Means the Supreme Pontiffs.
The Roman missal was long published with this title:
MISSALE ROMANUM
Ex Decreto
Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM CURA
RECOGNITUM

It seems poetic that the Papa Benedicto uses these words to open his Motu Proprio document clarifying that the missal of 1962 was never aborogated.
Praise the Lord!
God Bless,
Matt

Mary Kay July 4, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Inocencio, thanks for the update :)
Matt, when I wrote that first post, it certainly wasn’t directed at any one person. It was the the cumulative effect of whenever this topic is raised, inevitably there’s a slew of comments that are critical of the Novus Ordo.
To criticize means to find fault. You seem to think that you have a right to criticize, that there’s some criticism that’s not disparaging or derogatory. That could be a whole discussion in itself.
My basic premise is that neither you nor anyone else in these comboxes are in a position to find fault with what the Church says.
As I said, it was the cumulative effect of the fault finding (not just you) that bothered me. As I thought about it tonight, it reminded me of the Israelites in the desert and the various times that they grumbled, murmured, complained about their situation.
It’s getting late, so let me look at your comments.
I have criticized but I have not been derogatory, nor have you demonstrated that I have been.
See above.
My criticism is that the 1970 missal, and particularly practices associated with it violate many of the reform principles of Vatican II
First the practices aspect. You ignore that the TLM has also led to bad practices.
Taking the practices part out leaves My criticism is that the 1970 missal … violate many of the reform principles of Vatican II. There you have it in your own words. Those who compiled the new lectionary muffed what the Holy Spirit wanted. If only they had waited to ask you, you could have told them how to do it right.
Huh? I didn’t say this, I don’t really understand it.
Sheesh. Talk about taking it personally. My first post wasn’t addressed to you, but as noted above, the cumulative criticisms.
I’ll have to finish this tomorrow.

matt July 4, 2007 at 8:26 pm

To criticize means to find fault. You seem to think that you have a right to criticize, that there’s some criticism that’s not disparaging or derogatory. That could be a whole discussion in itself.
My basic premise is that neither you nor anyone else in these comboxes are in a position to find fault with what the Church says.

Sorry, that’s just not true. Especially in the age of Vatican II, we as the laity are entitled to express our legitimate aspirations, to discuss them and raise them with competent authority.

As I said, it was the cumulative effect of the fault finding (not just you) that bothered me. As I thought about it tonight, it reminded me of the Israelites in the desert and the various times that they grumbled, murmured, complained about their situation.

So you’re generalizing. Ok.

Matt Said:
My criticism is that the 1970 missal, and particularly practices associated with it violate many of the reform principles of Vatican II
Mary Kay said:
First the practices aspect. You ignore that the TLM has also led to bad practices.

What does that have to do with anything???

Taking the practices part out leaves My criticism is that the 1970 missal … violate many of the reform principles of Vatican II. There you have it in your own words. Those who compiled the new lectionary muffed what the Holy Spirit wanted. If only they had waited to ask you, you could have told them how to do it right.

So now, not only was Vatican II inspired by the Holy Spirit, Bugnini was also? And the USCCB in composing the New Lectionary? Good heavens, wherever did you get such a notion??? Is the Abp. Mahoney’s shopping list inspired by the Holy Spirit also? Not ever action of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It’s funny, that your only defense of my well supported criticism is that it’s wrong for me to criticize. No objective refutation, or demonstration that my reasoning is flawed. Especially no response to the fact that some of my criticisms are shared with the Holy Father.
God Bless,
Matt

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 3:26 am

As I said several days ago, this attempt at discussion with you is non-productive. Now that you’ve been the one to say so, perhaps we can drop it.
Italics off

PLEASE July 5, 2007 at 8:45 am

Let us dialogue, and even disagree with CHARITY–and GRACIOUSNESS.
The current Mass, of course is legitimate, right and good.
Some, including me, prefer the TLM, which should be an option. I also like, and not just a personal like but helps me grow closer to God, the Eastern Rite (but I am not a member of the Eastern Rite).
Mary Kay,
When you say the Barney Mass? Are you talking about the purple dinosaur cartoon and children’s TV show that was popular a while back?
How could they integrate the purple dinosaur into a Mass? I am assuming for children?
Should I even ask? Do I even want to know?
I am not trying to open up a line of discussion but I am generally curious.
ALSO,
While I certainly prefer the TLM–and think we should all learn more Latin. And the Liturgy should be more reverent and have a focus on Transcendence and Sacrifice—
the Eastern Rite Tradition of both species is one I like
and also the “kiss of peace” of the Novus Ordo that was actually a very early Christian practice
handshake in this cultural context
but actual practical physical interaction, forgiveness and giving peace is a good thing
Some of my traditionalist friends don’t like it and think it disrupts the flow of the Mass and the sense of focus on God.

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 9:14 am

Please username,
What I called the Barney Mass is apparently the same thing as the Halloween Mass. I’ve blocked it out because it gives me the shudders, but Jimmy had a thread on it. You can find it by typing “halloween Mass” in the search box. But that simply confirms my earlier point. One instance that is repeatedly brought up.
I agree with you on most points. I also think Catholics should know the Mass parts in Latin. And I like a well celebrated Eastern rite liturgy. It’s not the form of Mass that makes the difference.

matt July 5, 2007 at 9:18 am

PLEASE,
believe it or not there’s video around, as I recall the priest was “vested” in the barney costume. I think he took off the mask after the procession (him dancing around the church). It wasn’t just children (as if that really matters…)
I agree the kiss of peace is a good thing, but the practice of hugging everyone and the priest wandering about the pews is of course incredibly distracting especially when JESUS CHRIST is there present on the altar. Think about standing at the foot of the Cross with Jesus about to give up the ghost, and Mary Magdelene comes over to comfort the weeping Mother of God, do you think the greeting they exchanged resembled the typical “kiss of peace”? Perhaps if it was moved to before the offertory it would be more acceptable to be less solemn, I understand there is some argument against this theologically, but current practice is just not right.
The priests are responsible, and should suspend the practice (as it is optional) if their congregations aren’t properly catechised on the appropriate decorum of the mass.
God Bless,
Matt

matt July 5, 2007 at 9:22 am

Mary Kay,
One instance that is repeatedly brought up.
There is not one instance, it’s just the most well documented, and one with video on the internet. There are numerous documented incidents of liturgical abuse, meaning the actual number is much higher. Check out what goes on in LA whenever Abp. Mahoney presides over a Mass, and he encourages those practices throughout his diocese.
God Bless,
Matt

Different July 5, 2007 at 9:31 am

Regarding the kiss of peace…
If this is true:
“In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.”
Then it seems perfectly appropriate that the people extend to one another a sign of Christ’s peace.
If the Mass were just a historical re-creation of the sacrifice at Calvary, then we would fall on the ground and weep instead of extend the sign of peace. But, Mass is more than that, it is a celebration and an occasion of great joy that through death our Savior has given us life.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 9:36 am

Different,
Although I do not necessarily endorse Matt’s metaphor with observing sorrow at Calvary to be the same manner in which one is to observe the Holy Rite of Mass, I would though say that the “Kiss of Peace” that’s done nowadays has deteriorated to nothing but a social call, becoming nothing more than a distraction that, at worst, has taken away reverence from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and made it to something as commonplace as an outing at a ballgame!

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 9:41 am

Matt, if you read what I wrote, I did not say it was the only instance. I said it was one instance that is repeatedly mentioned, and if I have to spell it out, far out of proportion to the occurrence.

Different July 5, 2007 at 9:48 am

Esau,
In some areas that may be the case. It is not where I live. In parishes around here the kiss of peace is a quick handshake to those immediately around you. The priest extends the sign to the altar servers, the deacon, the lector and the cantor and he never leaves the sanctuary. The whole part of the Mass is actually quick, quiet and solemn. I don’t live in a particularly conservative diocese.
However, we need to always make the distinction between criticism of abuses and criticism of the actual liturgy as it ought to be done. For instance, I cannot make a valid argument the the TLM is weak because people daydream and the priest fumbles through the Mass in 15 minutes (occasionally missing the consecration) because he’s still a little drunk. The way that a TLM may be said on occasion has nothing to do with the liturgical text itself and the value of it. In the same way, examples of Barney Masses or liturgical dance or clowns don’t tell us anything about the NO Mass itself.
The sign of peace done according to the rubrics is good and makes sense as I noted above.

matt July 5, 2007 at 10:15 am

Ok,
so I may have gone a little into the area of hyperbole on the issue of the “kiss of peace”, but the point is there. We need to focus on Christ and not forget that while it is of course a celebration, it is first and foremost a Sacrifice, and it is to be observed solemnly and soberly.
I don’t agree that you can totally separate the text of the missal from the practice thereof. The clarity, and precision of the text will tend to lead to the attitude of the celebrant and the parish.
The fact that the priest is given so many options by the text of the Novus Ordo and that the rubric itself is much less precise lends itself to a more casual presentation without violating the letter of the rubric. This is just very difficult to do in the TLM.
On the other hand, the 15 minute mass is an abuse that is not likely in the Novus Ordo, and it must of course be guarded against. I don’t know about a priest missing the consecration in the TLM, while you wouldn’t hear it, it seems likely he would miss elevation which would be observable, also the altar boys would notice.
Now, isn’t important to deal with reality, and not historical problems which have already been resolved (at least for now)? There is no 15 minute TLMS, the priests don’t celebrate drunk, and they don’t miss the consecration. Liturgical abuse is NOT a problem in the TLM, nor has it been for nigh on 30 years. Liturgical abuse is a problem in the Novus Ordo as practiced, and the spread of the TLM will likely have a positive influence on that problem.
God Bless,
Matt

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 10:25 am

Liturgical abuse is NOT a problem in the TLM
Matt, the TLM and those in favor of it are not immune to liturgical abuse.
You have clearly and unequivocally stated your attachment to the TLM. Let’s just leave it at that.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 10:26 am

However, we need to always make the distinction between criticism of abuses and criticism of the actual liturgy as it ought to be done.
I am sure that abuse is certainly possible with the TLM as it is with the Novus Ordo. Just like anything, there is often the potential for abuse. However, the abuse that is possible and has actually taken place doesn’t necessarily testify to the validity of the sacred rite itself.
In fact, I know several Traditional Roman Catholics who have testified to the fact that such abuse had actually taken place with the TLM in the past (e.g., rapid recitation of prayers, not saying prayers in their entirety, skipping certain prayers), although they are not as egregious and blatantly offensive as what we are witnessing today with the awful abuses that have taken place in the Novus Ordo Missae.
There are several contributing reasons as to why that is the case.
One of them being that it is much easier to conceal abuse within the TLM than it is in the Novus Ordo. The TLM is a more private celebration of the Mass than it is an open one as it is with the Novus Ordo. To even detect abuse in the TLM, one would have to be conversant in ecclesiastical Latin and have intimate knowledge of the prayers that are said at Mass.
Also, the Novus Ordo has had the distinct disadvantage of having been introduced and celebrated at a period in time where the modern world looks down on authority and tradition, where what’s often lauded is rebellion against authority and that “thinking out-of-the-box” spiel which cries out for going against the rules because “that’s cool”.
The things that have been done is more likely due to the modern world we live in today and this radical need that people of today have to “get with the times”.
This has even occurred with Theology as well, which even then Cardinal Ratzinger has spoken about at length, which mirrors what is happening with the Liturgy:
What the Popes and the Catholic fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity; instead one finds dissension. In the words of Paul VI, we seem “to have passed over from self-criticism to selfdestruction.” Instead of enthusiasm, we are confronted with discouragement. It has been said that in an effort to open itself to truth in all of its forms, the Church has squandered the resources that would have been better employed to cultivate the faith and its implications. But Vatican II itself cannot be held responsible for those developments that contradict both the letter and the spirit of its official documents.

“To many on the receiving end, the changes were merely that and not improvements, as the time-honored gave way to the trendy, the elegant to bad taste, reasonable discipline to untutored practice. The changes affected most of all the clergy and members of religious orders. In the space of a few years seminaries emptied, convents and presbyteries closed their doors, and great religious orders underwent losses in membership.
Recognizing this, Ratzinger employed the word “crisis” to describe the situation. The basic crisis, as he interpreted it, is a crisis of trust in dogma as proposed by the Magisterium, a crisis precipitated in part by theologians who have challenged the received.
As he put it: “Broad circles in theology seem to have forgotten that the subject who pursues theology is not the individual scholar but the Catholic community as a whole, the entire Church. From this forgetfulness of theological work as ecclesiastical service derives a theological pluralism that in reality is often a subjectivism and individualism that has little to do with the bases of common tradition. Every theologian now wants to be ‘creative.’ But his proper task is to deepen the common Deposit of the Faith as well as to help in understanding and proclaiming it. In recent years theology has energetically dedicated itself to make faith and the signs of the times accord with each other in order to find new ways for the transmission of Christianity.”

“With the advent of a Vatican II-inspired “openness to the world,” the emphasis shifted from the hard work of mastering the tradition to reconciliation with the world. Dogma came to be viewed as an intolerable straitjacket. This has its effects on catechesis. Ratzinger recognized that since theology no longer transmits a common model for the faith, catechesis is also exposed to dismemberment and constantly changing experiments. The result has been disintegration of the sensus fidei, with consequences in the moral order.”

Esau July 5, 2007 at 10:41 am

Matt,
Now, isn’t important to deal with reality, and not historical problems which have already been resolved (at least for now)? There is no 15 minute TLMS, the priests don’t celebrate drunk, and they don’t miss the consecration. Liturgical abuse is NOT a problem in the TLM, nor has it been for nigh on 30 years. Liturgical abuse is a problem in the Novus Ordo as practiced, and the spread of the TLM will likely have a positive influence on that problem.
From what I can recall, the Missa Lecta is celebrated less than 15 minutes.
Also, as I’ve mentioned, there have been abuses also observed with the TLM.
If you are really sincere and truly believe it’s “important to deal with reality”, then please provide a more fair, unbiased representation of the facts here.
I am hoping that you were speaking more out of ignorance than purposefully hiding these facts regarding the abuses that had actually taken place in the past with the TLM.
Like you, I endorse the TLM; however, such endorsement should not mean that we spread calumny about the Novus Ordo Missae, its validity, the sacredness of its Rite.
The issue is, more often than not, with the people celebrating the Masses, not the Rite itself.

Different July 5, 2007 at 10:58 am

Matt,
I disagree with your assertion that the NO breeds abuse. Imagine if the NO left us tomorrow and the TLM was said in every parish. You would have clown TLM’s, TLM’s with dancing, etc. To believe otherwise is foolish.
So, you claim we have to evaluate the NO as it is usually celebrated. First, none of us can really make a case that it is usually abused or usually said well. So, even if we conclude that it is usually said poorly, does that mean that it is the NO Mass itself which is at fault. Take a look at the Church’s teaching on contraception. Is it the Church’s teaching that is flawed and results in 80% of Catholics using contraception? Do we need to change what the Church teaches in order to get through to people? Or do we just need to change the way the teaching is “taught”? I think the Church’s teaching is fine, but we could use better communication to help the message get through to people.
I would say the need is not to change the NO itself, but rather change the way in which the Mass is celebrated…the reform of the reform, so to speak.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 11:07 am

Imagine if the NO left us tomorrow and the TLM was said in every parish. You would have clown TLM’s, TLM’s with dancing, etc. To believe otherwise is foolish.
Different:
I agree there would be abuse (as my previous posts mentions), but not to this extent though.
The elements inherent in the Liturgy of the TLM would make it unlikely that potential abuse would go as far as to this extent.
The TLM has a very rigid structure, unlike the Novus Ordo which is more open and flexible. Mind you, though the latter has these features, that doesn’t actually mean there’s anything wrong with that as well.
However, it is for this very reason (i.e., the rigid structure of the TLM) that although abuses in the TLM is possible (and has occurred), these abuses would be limited to the few elements where abuse is possible.
The priest dressing up in a clown suit would not be one of them.

matt July 5, 2007 at 11:15 am

Mary Kay,
Liturgical abuse is NOT a problem in the TLM
Matt, the TLM and those in favor of it are not immune to liturgical abuse.
You have clearly and unequivocally stated your attachment to the TLM. Let’s just leave it at that.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jul 5, 2007 10:25:30 AM

Liturgical abuse is not an “accident” it doesn’t just happen, it is an intentionality against the authority of the Church and the Sacrifice of the Mass. The people who are attached to the TLM today are devoded to the authority of the Church and the Sacrifice of the Mass, otherwise they would be over assisting at Mass with Fr. Flapdoodle. The priests who celebrate the TLM are devoted to liturgical integrity.
Why do you have such a problem with objectivity? Can we not look at facts and discuss them civilly????
Esau,
From what I can recall, the Missa Lecta is celebrated less than 15 minutes.
Not any I have ever been to, nor have I ever heard of one occurring since the Novus Ordo has become pre-dominant. Last week it pushed 75 minutes with moderate homily, and around 150 people in the pews.

Also, as I’ve mentioned, there have been abuses also observed with the TLM.

Have been means in the past. Next Sunday there will not likely be any TLM abuses, but I can assure you there will be abuses in the Novus Ordo, and not just in proportion to the number celebrated.

If you are really sincere and truly believe it’s “important to deal with reality”, then please provide a more fair, unbiased representation of the facts here.

I don’t have any examples of current TLM abuses, do you?

I am hoping that you were speaking more out of ignorance than purposefully hiding these facts regarding the abuses that had actually taken place in the past with the TLM. Like you, I endorse the TLM; however, such endorsement should not mean that we spread calumny about the Novus Ordo Missae, its validity, the sacredness of its Rite.

If you haven’t experienced abuse in a TLM in the last 30 years, then who is calumnizing and speaking out of ignorance? I hope you’re only speaking out of ignorance and will correct that ignorance by attending your local FSSP or Indult mass for the next 12 months every Sunday and daily mass, and keep a count of abuses? Ok?
This thread has had very little challenge to the validity or sacredness of the NO, certainly none from me. Why do you lump all these things together, there’s a big difference between constructive criticism, and heresy.
Why is it so hard for people to recognize the reality of the liturgical crisis? Please, please, read the Holy Father’s book “Spirit of The Liturgy”, read “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, read some of Fr. Fessio’s work. You act like traditional Catholics are ignorant of what really goes on outside our little sanctuary, that’s just not the case, most of us assist at Novus Ordo liturgies on a routine basis. For daily mass which most bishops deny us in the TLM, for times when we find it hard to wake up at 6am to drive across town for the TLM (the only one permitted in the diocese, at 8am by order of the Bishop), and would rather just go down the street for the NO at 9:30/11:00/12:30 or 5pm, or perhaps the vigil Mass on Saturday. We go to weddings, visit relatives out of town, etc. We know what goes on and it’s not from Novus Ordo Watch.
God Bless,
Matt

Esau July 5, 2007 at 11:34 am

Matt,
For your information, as I mentioned previously, I used to attend the Indult a decade ago but couldn’t any longer once the priest who celebrated it retired.
Also, just because abuses didn’t actually occur at the Indult I attended doesn’t mean it also didn’t happen during the history of the TLM.
That doesn’t make sense at all.
That’s almost like saying if in one parish, you don’t suffer an abusive priest, that actually proves there are no abusive priests out there; which is as baloney as Mahoney!
I already cited examples to you of abuses observed in the TLM in my other posts. You need only read them.
In addition, I thought I already made it clear that I, myself, endorse the TLM.
In my most recent post, I’ve also stated that the TLM does have a very rigid structure to it which makes the most atrocious abuse (e.g., clown mass) highly unlikely; yet, this doesn’t mean that it is actually immune to other abuses since there has been abuse in the TLM which has, indeed, occurred in the past.

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 11:39 am

Why do you have such a problem with objectivity? Can we not look at facts and discuss them civilly????
Resorting to ad hominem attacks now?
I was not referring to the past. I was thinking of two incidents in the past month where people who favor the more traditional Mass, lay and clergy, have not followed the rubrics.
Besides you’ve ignored Jarnor’s excellent comment about the self-selected group currently attending TLM.
Why is it so hard for people to recognize the reality of the liturgical crisis?
That’s your perception. Your stance that you’re the only person with a clue is revolting.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 11:43 am

matt,
By the way, do you even know what a Missa Lecta is?
A Missa Lecta lasting for almost 75 minutes is almost unheard of!
The Missa Lecta is very terse. It’s even said without a homily. It’s what we called a “Dead Mass”.
Might you have been speaking about a Missa Cantata instead?

matt July 5, 2007 at 12:01 pm


Matt,
For your information, as I mentioned previously, I used to attend the Indult a decade ago but couldn’t any longer once the priest who celebrated it retired.
Also, just because abuses didn’t actually occur at the Indult I attended doesn’t mean it also didn’t happen during the history of the TLM.
That doesn’t make sense at all.

Except that’s not what I said. I said that abuses don’t occur in the PRESENT TIME in the TLM. Now, I guess I have to be clear, most people will understand I am not saying so in an absolute sense, but in a general sense, there is not currently

Matt said:
Why do you have such a problem with objectivity? Can we not look at facts and discuss them civilly????
Mary Kay said:
Resorting to ad hominem attacks now?

Exactly, please stop suggesting that my whole position is based on personal bias without support. I’ve demonstrated it is well founded and it existed before I even found the TLM.

I was not referring to the past. I was thinking of two incidents in the past month where people who favor the more traditional Mass, lay and clergy, have not followed the rubrics.

Please refer me to these incidents so that I might be enlightened.

Besides you’ve ignored Jarnor’s excellent comment about the self-selected group currently attending TLM.

I did not ignore it, I acknowledged it and responded that we all ought to be so devoted to reverence? I believe it was SteveG who initiated, but I can’t be sure what you’re referring to because of your apparent aversion to citations, and instead prefer to put your own slant on what other people say. It doesn’t prove or disprove anything, it’s an interesting fact mind you.

Matt said:
Why is it so hard for people to recognize the reality of the liturgical crisis?
Mary Kay said:
That’s your perception. Your stance that you’re the only person with a clue is revolting.

What’s revolting, is that you are blind to the reality, which the Holy Fathers have so stridently been trying to rectify, including the publishing of this Motu Proprio. I’ve posted much to support my belief that the Holy Father believes there’s a crisis, have you anything to retort? Other than, my personal bias?
God Bless,
Matt

Different July 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Esau,
You said: “The elements inherent in the Liturgy of the TLM would make it unlikely that potential abuse would go as far as to this extent. The TLM has a very rigid structure, unlike the Novus Ordo which is more open and flexible.”
I strongly disagree.
Any priest who dress up as a clown or Barney would do whatever he wanted with the TLM. He would adapt, adlib in english, change gestures, wear inappropriate vestments.
I mean, come on, if a priest is whacked enough to dress like a clown, he will do what ever he wants to a TLM if he was told to say it. The TLM won’t magically prevent him from doing whatever he wants. Take the wackiest priest out there, give him the text of the TLM, and force him to say it and you don’t think he would do all sorts of crazy things???

Jarnor23 July 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm

It is precisely because the really serious abuses are willful that I don’t think TLM would help those cases in the slightest.
I will give you the Mr. Monk 99% positive guarantee that if TLM were the only Mass allowed as of tomorrow, you’d have a clown TLM, Barney TLM, or WORSE, and in very short order. The people who do this kind of thing in the N.O. think the N.O. is too formal and stodgy, so they do that to the N.O., just IMAGINE the fun they’d have with the TLM. No room in the TLM for it? They’ll MAKE room for it! Oh just wait for the tribal dancing around the altar right after the consecration. Maybe they’ll put that in Latin too. I mean, why not, they’d probably be having this kind of Mass specifically to protest against the TLM. They’d want to prove their independence from authority, after all.
The problem here is the people involved, not the form. Although, I will agree that each form, perhaps due to the era, was more prone to certain abuses over others.
And Matt, good hearing from you about these things, but please don’t even try putting using EMHCs in the same ballpark as having a clown Mass. People won’t take your complaint very seriously if you try to equate the two things. I might not particularly like people taking communion in the hand rather than on the tongue myself, but I’m not going to say this is the same as the priest doing Mass dressed up as Dr. Frankenfurter.

Jarnor23 July 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Woah, I guess this was a case of “Think Different” for me. You don’t work for Apple, do you? :)

PLEASE July 5, 2007 at 12:59 pm

At least in a Barney TLM–the priest would be ad orientum and we would not have to see the face.
No seriously, and I know I am on dangerous ground of repeating and further deginerating conversation on this topic–I hope my humor wasn’t too disrespectful.
I have not seen this Barney video–I have seen clown masses (although not the priest), and the Halloween Mass on YouTube, and the dancing Brazilian priest (I thought the dancing Brazilian priest while not my taste was sincere and it was adoration not a mass)
I enjoy the website:
http://www.fisheaters.com
for content
but I actually don’t like their discussion board.
But there has been some good exposes usually linked to a YouTube or Google video
BUT, any priest dressed up like Barney has to be INSANE–and probably should be severely disciplined if not laicized–it is, almost regardless of intent, blaspehmous and sacrilegious.
ANYRATE,
I agree with Esau–it is NOT the rite per se–
The Novus Ordo is valid and can be done reverently.
BUT, I would also ask that the Novus Ordo fans recognize that some hierarchs are mean spirited to genuine traditional Catholics who have a sincere affinity and attachment to the so called Tridentine Rite. The not granting of the indult, the disrespectful and unpastoral way of dealing.
I also agree that the Tridentine Low Mass is hard to follow.
BUT, the High Tridentine or even the Low Sung Mass (which is called something else) is magnificent.
If you have an opportunity to see the Tridentine High Requiem (I think the SSPX has some videos) and in Chicago the St. John Cantius Church with the order of the same name (in FULL union with Rome and the local Cardinal) has an incredible one in November.
Just incredible.
The Gregorian Chant, the Palestrinas
the Mozarts
The priest ad orientum leading.
The communion rails, the openings,
the prayers to St. Michael the archangel regarding incense
communion kneeling reception by mouth
the solemnity
the silence
the reverence
the beauty
To learn Latin, to utilize other senses
to follow with your eyes and heart
The TLM is a wonderful mystical experience
BUT, again it is not to compare or insult or argue
Let us UNITE in the Body of Christ
and rejoice in his Precious Blood
and treat each other as Brothers and Sisters in Christ
The Kiss of Peace can be too “social”
But it can be an appropriate time
with a clean heart
to forgive and offer peace to our families and friends
in front of Jesus who now has physically humbled himself as Bread truly present as the witness
and I do like this in the Novus Ordo
I offer you all my Peace through Jesus
Please act charitably in discussing the Mass
and remember our brotherhood

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Matt,
of your apparent aversion to citations
And yet you did not provide citations for your statement that “the new lectionary specifically waters down important moral teachings which are strongly present in the 1962”
You can provide those if you want, but I don’t intend to continue this discussion.
You’re correct that it was Steve’s post who said when the Tridentine rite was the norm, it was also open to abuse, disrespect and irreverence. It is only so pristine now because it is not widely used, but is ‘protected’ by a very devoted subset in the Church
You did indeed ignore Steve’s point. Your response that those attending TLM now are devoted Catholics missed Steve’s point that the that the normative Misaal, whether TLM or Novus Ordo, is attended and celebrated by people in the full range of devotion, not just a self-selected group.
Amazing. You allege that I am “blind to reality,” have a problem with objectivity, not look at facts, sound as if you’re the only who recognizes the liturgical crisis, of not being civil when its your posts that
descibe others’ posts as rants,
biased,
you assumed people were against the rubrics,
then insulted that person by saying you doubt he even understands the rubrics.
I guess the best defense is a strong offense, eh?
Please refer me to these incidents so that I might be enlightened.
It’s a current situation and I’m not going to broadcast it on a public forum just so that you can get your argument jollies.
Back to your allegation that I’m “blind to reality” etc. Funny that those with more experience in Catholicism don’t share your perception.

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Matt,
of your apparent aversion to citations
And yet you did not provide citations for your statement that “the new lectionary specifically waters down important moral teachings which are strongly present in the 1962”
You can provide those if you want, but I don’t intend to continue this discussion.
You’re correct that it was Steve’s post who said when the Tridentine rite was the norm, it was also open to abuse, disrespect and irreverence. It is only so pristine now because it is not widely used, but is ‘protected’ by a very devoted subset in the Church
You did indeed ignore Steve’s point. Your response that those attending TLM now are devoted Catholics missed Steve’s point that the that the normative Misaal, whether TLM or Novus Ordo, is attended and celebrated by people in the full range of devotion, not just a self-selected group.
Amazing. You allege that I am “blind to reality,” have a problem with objectivity, not look at facts, sound as if you’re the only who recognizes the liturgical crisis, of not being civil when its your posts that
descibe others’ posts as rants,
biased,
you assumed people were against the rubrics,
then insulted that person by saying you doubt he even understands the rubrics.
I guess the best defense is a strong offense, eh?
Please refer me to these incidents so that I might be enlightened.
It’s a current situation and I’m not going to broadcast it on a public forum just so that you can get your argument jollies.
Back to your allegation that I’m “blind to reality” etc. Funny that those with more experience in Catholicism don’t share your perception.

matt July 5, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Jarnor23,
And Matt, good hearing from you about these things, but please don’t even try putting using EMHCs in the same ballpark as having a clown Mass. People won’t take your complaint very seriously if you try to equate the two things. I might not particularly like people taking communion in the hand rather than on the tongue myself, but I’m not going to say this is the same as the priest doing Mass dressed up as Dr. Frankenfurter.
Posted by: Jarnor23 | Jul 5, 2007 12:40:56 PM

That is very true. Did I say it? No, did anyone else say it? No. We need to turn the gist of this conversation to mere personal preference, like it’s a difference in musical styles. These are objective realities.
I’m starting to recognize the big problem here. It’s fear. Some who are devoted to the Novus Ordo liturgy are afraid that the Novus Ordo will be banned and replaced by the TLM, or at least that it’s what TLM devotees are demanding. I assure you, this is not the case. Unlike the way that the Novus Ordo was forced on the faithful in the 70’s nobody with respect for the liturgy would advocate doing that.
What most of us advocate, is to first and foremost resolve all of the abundance of abuses which take place, ranging from the most grave, to the less grave (any abuse is not to be trivialized). Part of this will, as the Holy Father has said will entail restoring some of the changes that lend themselves to abuse. Additionally, some changes to the liturgy which are in the sum of things pastorally (in the true sense of the word) and theologically undesirable, will be changed gradually to conform to the better standard. A key example of this is the orientation, currently it is an option, but the Holy Father has shown a strong desire to have the priests posture restored to the traditional practice. This move alone changes the visible nature and is likely to render a major improvement. Priests will no longer be put in a position that makes them appear to be performers on a stage, all are turned together towards God.
Who could object to such an approach to the “reform of the reform”?
God Bless,
Matt

Different July 5, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Matt,
Certainly all agree that liturgical abuse should be eradicated.
You may be right that we will see small changes to the NO. I think this won’t include an ad orientum posture, but we shall see.
I think there will be more TLM’s available, though not tremendously more.
I also think that, as orthodoxy increases in the NO (as it already is when one looks at the caliber of young priests), there will be little demand for the TLM. I happen to attend an orthodox NO parish and there is very little demand here for a TLM, because the liturgy here is what it ought to be. Also, look at the diocese of Lincoln, they have one TLM on Sunday. Is that because they have a bad bishop? Of course not. Is it because people are well fed by good and devout NO liturgies throughout the diocese? I think so.
We’ll see what happens.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Matt:
I’m starting to recognize the big problem here. It’s fear. Some who are devoted to the Novus Ordo liturgy are afraid that the Novus Ordo will be banned and replaced by the TLM, or at least that it’s what TLM devotees are demanding. I assure you, this is not the case. Unlike the way that the Novus Ordo was forced on the faithful in the 70’s nobody with respect for the liturgy would advocate doing that.
I think you’re missing the point.
Personally, I believe the problem of liturgical abuse can be traced to our modern times and, principally, to those people who actually commits the abuse.
Different:
Esau,
You said: “The elements inherent in the Liturgy of the TLM would make it unlikely that potential abuse would go as far as to this extent. The TLM has a very rigid structure, unlike the Novus Ordo which is more open and flexible.”
I strongly disagree.
Any priest who dress up as a clown or Barney would do whatever he wanted with the TLM. He would adapt, adlib in english, change gestures, wear inappropriate vestments.

I don’t think so and, therefore, Different, I think differently than you do here.
Just think over it — the reason why the abuse occurs more atrociously with the Novus Ordo is because it’s not as rigid in structure as the TLM.
If it was, you wouldn’t have several possible variations of it.
Now, as I’ve mentioned, I believe that abuse can and did happen with the TLM.
That is, both are vulnerable to abuse, obviously.
But I doubt that an abuse as blatantly abhorrent as the clown mass would occur with the TLM.
Remember, the priest who does do that would be more toward “looking cool” to his parishoners. He does this because he thinks that it would make him appear “so awesome” in the eyes of those in his parish; that he’s “with it” and “hip”.
However, the priest would be achieving the opposite effect if he were to do this in a TLM because it is so out-of-place within its rigid framework; it would be as out-of-place as the president addressing congress in a clown costume. Thus, if anything, it would make him appear so “uncool” to those in his parish.

Jarnor23 July 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Matt: I’m sure one could find someone out there who would object. :)
But at any rate, I do hope the Tridentine rite is brought back to the widely allowed state it was supposed to have all along. It’s really silly to try to drag someone kicking and screaming into a foreign way of worship to them and expect them to not react badly some way or another.
I just hope most TLM people remember this when talking about people who may prefer the N.O. – Or claim to be more spiritually filled by it. I find too many who do seem willing to reject people for such a stance, or claim it to be lies. Fortunately, I don’t think that’s the case here, for the most part.

matt July 5, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Jarnor23,
I could find one or two.
I hope that nobody thinks that I am rejecting anyone, only rejecting illicit practices, and exhorting better practices than those that are licit but not well aligned to the teachings of the Church based on the best judgement I can find from people more learned than I.
Esau,
I think you’re missing the point.
I disagree. Every time someone says how wonderful the TLM is, someone howls about how terrible it would be if everyone was forced to celebrate Mass that way.

Personally, I believe the problem of liturgical abuse can be traced to our modern times and, principally, to those people who actually commits the abuse.

Certainly that is so, as there many good priests who celebrate the mass most reverently, however as you point out, certain elements of the missal lend themselves to such laxity.
Matt

Inocencio July 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Fr. Z at WDTPRS has a post that is food for thought while we wait for the MP SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
A pastor on Tridentine Mass “not a situation I want to repeat”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Isaiah July 5, 2007 at 2:22 pm

What about the Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies (that are in union with Rome)?
Or the Orthodox (aren’t they in the same status as SSPX?
They are in a sacred tongue usually Greek or Old Slavonic–when in the venacular–they are usually done with reverence of one of usually 2 rites
either
the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom
or
St. Basil
There is a sense of Mystery. The so called smells and bells. Incense out of Frankenssense. Chanting and usually no instruments let alone secular music.
It is reverent and has a sense of the real presence, a sacred male priesthood, and sacrificce.
It is interesting that the reverse of the Uniates (which is very criticized) called “Western Rite” use the Sarum Rite (which St. Thomas More would of probably used). Or at least some “Eastern” Orthodox from the West use the Sarum Rite and not the Divine Liturgy(ies) of the great Eastern Saints.
The Sarum Rite probably closely resembles the so called Traditional Latin Mass after Trent (Tridentine so called)
I am not sure if the Sarum Rite is in use today.
I think the older Western Liturgies (in the Roman Rite but a separate liturgical expression usually tied to a geographic area or order)
Mozabaric
the ties to Milan
and Toledo
(I think some Dominicans have some)
Also some Slavs, specifically Croats (Roman Catholics again not Ruthenian/Rusyn so called “Uniates”) had Glogica/Glagitha a Slavic venacular langauge used in the Roman Rite style liturgy and not Latin and had bearded priests although uniformity came later and there is a particular affection for Fransiscans.

matt July 5, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Isaiah,
Those are all wonderful liturgies. Ok?
Orthodox (aren’t they in the same status as SSPX?
SSPX is a Latin Rite organization with canonical irregularity (some say schism, other’s disagree, we can surely agree that they are at least in canonical irregularity). The Orthodox are separate particular Churches they are not Latin or Roman, nor have they ever been. They are in schism because of broken communion with the Holy Father, not quite the same situation.
The Croatians celebrate the Novus Ordo exclusively in vernacular, there is no Latin language mass there at all (trust me I looked). Reason for this is that they had been celebrating the Latin Rite Mass in the vernacular since the 15th century as a concession in an attempt to stem the tide of the Orthodox Church coming from the East. My experience there was quite reverent liturgies but not quite on par with Fr. Fessio’s Mass of Vatican II.
God Bless,
Matt

Scott July 5, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I have attended and got a lot out of the Tridentine Rite Mass. I believe that the indult should be expanded to the much anticipated and discussed Motu Propio. Those who want to attend the Tridentine Rite Mass should be able to do so.
However, I still like the so called Novus Ordo Mass and do think for me at this time and my family and most people I know that English (or the venacular of the country where the Mass is said or what people understand) is superior. One knock on the so called Old Mass (by people who lived through it) was that they did not understand it or know what was going on(Now, I know and agree that people should learn Latin and that the spirit of the Old Mass is not just to understand by spoken voice and written word by like the Divine Liturgies to feel and smell and see the Mass and movements) But in a culture dominated by talk and with English as the “official” or at least dominate language, I think it is important to get to as many people as possible and to understand.
The Novus Ordo Mass is and can be very beautiful. I cannot and will not defend the indefensible of Clowns, Barneys, Dr. Frankenstein, Burlesque Dancing girls or any other form of desecration to the Blessed Sacrament or distraction from Worship to God whether it is through the legitimate beauty (although not time and place sensitive)of the female body or the absurd and ridiculous of some type of horror movie side show or children’s vaudeville hour.
However, not all dancing, yelling of Allelieus, so called charismatic or pentecostal customs and practices (understanding the many dangers), African American or Africans from Africa cultural practices (including dancing), US/American/Anglo/Germanic/Protestant focus on Sacred Scripture and preaching–are not all bad or do not have to be bad.
I got a lot out of Protestant guitar music, preaching, Bible studies, social, sense of community–that lead me to Catholicsm and helped me become a better Catholic and closer to the REAL PRESENCE in the BLESSED SACRAMENT, the BLESSED MOTHER, and the HOLY FATHER OUR POPE–I am not heterodox, let alone a heretic. I can sympathize with many aspects of Traditionalism including a liturgical style which seems in keeping with Ancient Hebrews, the metaphorical/allegorical descriptions of John the Beloved’s Book of Revelation and Heavenly Worship, and certain traditions in at least Lutheranism and Anglicanism (and to a lesser extent Methodism and Presbyteriansism)
Many Traditionalists lack any type of charity of any type and cross the borderline of discussion and legitimate dissent and into grave disrespect of the last Pope John Paul II who helped me come to the Catholic Faith and has helped my marrriage, my coming to reject birth control with my wife, and even my married sex life. These Traditonalists push away converts.
Many Traditionalists do want to set up a Church within a Church and have an exclusivist and elitism that was not present in the pre-Vatican II Church.
Some are Feeneyites, closet or actual and reject the teachings of St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others that included Socrates and Plato as saints and in Heaven or St. Thomas Aquinas who had a similiar role for Aristotle. Or the Eastern Catholic Church in Her various forms and Rites or our separated Orthodox Brethren who taught/teach that Jesus descended to the dead (possibly different from Hell) and brought out through his death and subsequent Ressurrection those who lived and died previous to his death and lived the Natural Law as best they could.
Some Traditionalists would consign more people to Hell than even John Calvin including every Pope since Pius XII (it was Pius XII who actually excommunicated Feeney).
There is an equation with culture/a certain view of history/politics (usually Monarchism or other anachronisms that are difficult for most people at least living in America to understand and even if right are certainly prudential and not tenets of the faith) or specific views (many times they are right but without nuance and again not dogma) of Franco’s Spain, Pinochets Chile, or other parts of the Globe–that may or may not be true but are not essential for Salvation or to be Catholic.
There is a lack of Love, Charity, Graciousness, Hope (the world and the Church are going to Hell in a Handbasket and there is nothing to do). Love is viewed as only tough of love of teaching the Truth but the graciousness of the Father of the Prodigal Son or forgiving 70X7.
There are many wonderful Novus Ordo Masses, which is taught and promugalted by the Church that God set up on earth, and that Hell will not be able to prevail against, with Peter as the Rock. Masses that are valid, licit, legitimate–sometimes there are bad ones–sometimes too fast
sometimes styles you do not like whether it is guitar, drums, Mariachis, African dance
even secular music which may not be appropriate
or even bad music
(although I am not sure why some people criticize EAGLES WINGS–directly from the Psalms)
In terms of Music:
Traditionalists (some) will criticize any Protestant hymn claiming schism, scandal, error, desecration but I have been at Tridentine Masses for Christmas (incredibly beautiful by the way) where Methodist brother of John Wesley (the founder of modern Methodism and an Anglican cleric influenced by Pietist Moravians) Charles Wesley’s “Hark the Heralds Angels Sing” was sung–the Church did not collapse, no lighting bolts, satan was not summoned, and no scandal or confusion ensued. Again, at a Tridentine High Christmas Mass a hymn by Methodist Charles Wesley.
I have been on websites (something good and bad all this internet and blogging) where they say you cannot have Johann Sebastian Bach because he was not Catholic (one of his son’s converted to Catholicism) even though on a personal level he was probably more moral than Beethoven or Mozart and was a devout Lutheran and believer in Jesus and the Nicene Creed in the most part with the exceptions of the last no doubt important third in terms of the Church.
This Lutheran’s hymns and Masses are some of the best in Catholic liturgical history.
Mozart was a mason, and he had a very scatelogical sense of humor–but I still think a devout albeit confused at times Catholic whose Requiem, and unfinished Great Mass in C Minor are some of the best pieces of music ever.
Even Luther, as flawed as he was, and the great terrible consequences he caused, had legitimate points on corruption, and I believe was sincere: and the hymn a Mighty Fortress is Our God is a very good hymn.
My Protestant days of child songs, folk songs including
Amazing Grace
Jesus Loves Me
Father Abraham had Many sons
Bosom of Abraham
A living Testimony (because I am still alive)
and many others
songs that sounded like the Beatles and even the decadent Doors about the Ressurrection helped me grow and become closer to God through Jesus through music by the power of the Holy Spirit–that eventually lead me to the Catholic Church
Now, I don’t think Bridge over Troubled Waters is appropriate by Simon and Garfunkel–and I don’t know if the Beatles meant the Blessed Virgin Mary in Let It Be (I don’t think so)–but not everyone who does that has mal intent.
There are cultural traditions, and contexts.
Now, since becoming Catholic I have learned about Augustine’s De Musica (he and the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox and Oriental faiths believe there should be NO INSTRUMENTS)
and more introspective and specifically sacred music
and do think this can be more meditative than
Kumbaya (which is not a bad song) or the celebratory of clapping hands (again cultural issues)or loud alleliaus like
The Ukrainian Rite Catholic Composer ROMAN HURKO
romanhurko.com
(you have to check it out)
or
Arvo Part
or
John Taverner (both of them the present day and 16th Century)
or
Henryck Gorecki
or
Zgibnew Preissner
(if Mozart has the best Kyrie Elieson in the Great Mass in C Minor than Preissner has the best Lacrimosa in his Requiem)
or even the secular or Buddhistic influenced
Phillip Glass
or
John Rutter
(as this music despite the morality of the composers or their theology would be more acceptable to most Traditionalists)
The US/American/Anglo/Germanic folk music that sprung out of Methodism (Wesley took bar songs and made them hymns with holy words to the same melodies although they certainly lack the explicitly sexual rythms of much of modern music and I think it would be difficult if not impossible to do with hip hop or rap although even rap could theoretically have a Christian influence since it is merely a rapid speaking of words)
was ORGANIC, was well intended, produced people who practiced better the 10 Commandments, prayed, praised and worshipped God, and believed in Jesus (albeit very incomplete because of not having apostolic succession)
The point being is that Music can be organic and culturally appropriate and be in an American Tradition and Protestant originated and not be blaspehmous or even innapropriate at Mass per se.
Luther’s A Mighty Fortress
or Wesley’s Hark the Herald Angels Sing
or a sincere Kumaya
or Jesus Loves Me
or even Amazing Grace (the theological problems not withstanding)
Swing Low Sweet Chariot
All could potentially be liturgical and certainly even if not for a Mass per se could be DEVOTIONAL.
Not everything has to be a GREGORIAN CHANT (as great as that is) or PALESTRINA (as beautiful as that is)
Not everyone likes it, and not everyone grows closer to God.
There has to be a focus on INTENT, and sincerity
and many many Eucharistic Ministers (I am not against taking communion in the hand but do it now kneeling and in the mouth when I can but kneeling is not always possible because I believe it is more reverent and the theology of being like child and relying on God, but very early Christians did take it in the hand with texts talking about how to cup the hands, and clearly early Christians dating to the Last Supper had both species) are very sincere and they need to be educated and talked to with charity
Same thing with choirs, and organ players
Not just to tell them that they are going to Hell and are blaspheming the Mass.
Teach with charity. Teach with clarity but with charity and don’t throw out the baby with the bath water with everything American or Protestant.
If you listen to the very earliest of Christian Chant (Arabic Christian/Coptic/Syriac) it has origins in pre-Christian religions–that does not make it bad. It sounds like Muslim call to prayer, but it is genuinely Christian–this would be the most original and authentic. Yet nobody is calling for Arabic chant, or Hebrew or Aramaic or Syriac or Coptic. Nobody is saying that their early style is the only or the best.
The Traditionalists are not rejecting that early style because it may be introspective but had roots in mystery religions or Zoarastianism or Egyptian lost religions.
Same thing with language, I know some and am learning more Latin. But the first Mass would of been said in the venacular Aramaic or if it was a liturgy it would of been done in ancient Hebrew. Yet nobody is calling for the Mass in Hebrew or Aramaic (besides maybe Monosphyte Oriental Christians or Eastern Rite Catholic Assyrians, Syriac Rite and maybe some Armenians and Chaldeans). Even the first more formal Masses and Liturgies would of been in Greek and not Latin–should we go back to a Greek liturgical language or language of the Church or was the organic and historical language of Rome and the Western Roman Empire which helped spread Christianity a Divine Providence and good organic development
Similiary, English, the lingua Franca (or Roma) of Business even in China and the former Soviet Union, the language of the Internet–can help spread Catholicsm with the temporal center of Rome and the spiritual center of the Rock of Peter established by Christ who is God.
The Mass does not have to be in Latin, and the Mass being in the venacular and specifically English can cause Evanglization (as the venacular Mass allowed by the Pope of St. Cyril and St. Methodius to the Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs and other Slavs was done in the native tongue and not Greek (although Greek was desired by the Patriarch of Constantinople and perhaps more importantly the Emporer who were in union with Rome at that time)
Be respectful to Protestant converts, and sincere other Christians. Be respectful to the Pope.
Understand the history of venacular languages and how they caused great conversions especially among the Slavs. Be respectful of other musical traditions.
I respect and go to the Tridentine Mass (although not on a regular basis) I get a lot out of it.
But I also get a lot out of a folksy Novus Ordo Mass and a reverent Novus Ordo Mass in English with some Latin and Greek specific parts and the priest ad orientum with more specific liturgical solemn music.
I respect you. Please respect me.
Please respect diversity in the Church.
Diversity in praise and worship does not signify a lack of unity and reverence.
There are many Rites in the Catholic Church and even some different liturgies in the Western Roman Rite.
Please have a better understanding of history and liturgy. Ultimately it is our intent, our interior life, our cultivation of virtue, or reception and cooperation of grace and belief in God through Jesus that gets us to Heaven and not the beauty of the Mass (although that is important and can help and has theological significance)–the bad singer who is sincere, the illiterate sheperd boy who hums the tune, the sincere heart in bad modern clothes even if with sinful or at least poor taste tattoos or piercings–are more pleasing to God than the haughty and arrogant.
Let us go to God humbly before his altar.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Fr. Z at WDTPRS has a post that is food for thought while we wait for the MP SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
A pastor on Tridentine Mass “not a situation I want to repeat”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jul 5, 2007 2:06:53 PM

Inocencio,
How dare you try to broker peace between the two warring factions of the Church!
There should be a battle fought to decide the ultimate outcome of the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.; a “No Holds Barred” battle between the Tridentines and the Novus where the Liturgy of the last individual left standing will be the one that will be celebrated in this Land from that point forward.
“Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you’ll live — at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take our Motu!!!
Ps 144:1:
1 Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war. (DRV)
Hoo-rah!!!

Isaiah July 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm

The Croatians did have the Latin Mass. But they also had historical venacular masses as a concession which was later unified.
The point of the Eastern Masses is that there are other beautiful and reverent Masses other than the TLM that can be done. The sense of mystery and reverence which is lacking in the modern world.
There are Orthodox Churches that have “Western” or “Roman” style liturgies and they are called Western Rite or Western Orthodox it is a reverse of Uniatism.
Some use the Sarum Rite. Some use the Anglican Common Prayer. They are in Orthodox in allegiance and ecclesiatical authority and in purported substance of their theology. Some of this deals with a Lutheran minister who became Orthodox in England hundreds of years ago and became a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th Century some of it is much more recent with the Protestant converts to Orthodoxy like
Franky Schaeffer
Many Anglicans
Timothy now Kallistos Ware
Meyerdoff
and many both Antiochean Orthodox
and Orthodox Church of American
(which has Catholic roots to the Ukrainian than called Ruthenian/”Rusyn” communities in the Western Ukraine and the Carpatho Mountains of the Austrian Hungarian Empire including Hungary proper that were treated very well by the Austrian monarchs but insisted on union with Rome and allegiance to the crown but they could maintain their bearded priests, married priests, and Eastern customs (communion with both species, full bodily immersion in baptism, icons and not statutes, divine liturgy)
as a side note but for different reasons the Rod Dreher story is interesting
I have met former Methodist and Baptist ministers who are now Orthodox priests
some for the smells and bells (similiar to the appeal of the TLM)
but also for the sense of Church hierarchy and apostolic succession)
Not to take away, but also as a side note or digression, but methinks applicaple here
the Catholic converts from Protestantism most notably Calvinism like:
Scott Hahn
Marcus Grodi
I think Karl Keating (but I am not sure)
and I think even Jimmy Akin the host here
among others
So, there is WESTERN/or ROMAN Orthodoxy although rare, unique and criticized even in Orthodoxy.
AND
The point of the Eastern Liturgy is to point out the appeal to reverence and mystery is not the sole arena of the TLM.
Lastly, you are not exactly historically right on the history of Croatian Church and liturgical development (which even the Cathedral at Zagreb has non Roman script in the Galgoitha writings which were at one time used in liturgy–but the Catholic Church wanted to centralize power, authority, language, liturgy and customs–which is not illogical nor as bad as some make it seem–but beards and original venacular script and Slavic language were more organic and inherent to the culture and certainly not wrong, or immoral)

PLEASE July 5, 2007 at 3:59 pm

I believe that the Society of St. John Cantius, or perhaps more exactly the Canon Regulars of St. John Cantius (Kenty I think in Polish) at the Church of St. John Cantius in Chicago, Illinois do
BOTH
Tridentine pre Vatican II
and
Novus Ordo (or Misa Normativa) post Vatican II
They seem to handle it well and there is one Bulletin for all Masses (different Missals obviously)
and both Masses are done
(I think the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter only does Tridentine as does the Institute of Christ the King but I am not sure–I know that is a point of contention with the schismatic or at least cannonically irregular Society of Saint Pius the X, the Fraternite du Notre Dame, and some of the other smaller private or quasi private Chapels that may or may not be in union with Rome and with or without permission of the local ordinary let alone the “crazier” Palomar, or other Thuch line bishops and priests, some legitimate Catholic priests allied with esoteric and occultic societies or sede vacante and other groups like the Society of St. Pius V and even others that believe in reincarnation, associated with Swedenborgians, Rosciurcans and others–the danger of schism and these groups)
Both Masses done, all rites respected, ONE Church,
Respect, Charity, Love, all in Truth in a spirit of reverence and beauty and traditional sense of liturgy.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 4:18 pm

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (as well as the Knights of Columbus, EWTN, Mark Shea, Opus Dei) is an excommunicated faction of the True Church!
For knowledge of all other excommunicants, may all members of the True Church consult the following website for the Index Prohibitum which lists these:
Society of St. Leo I
The Evil Spirit of Vatican II in the Organ
Please Note: JimmyAkin.org is still considered ‘safe’ for all True Members to visit (at least, for now).

Sophia Perennias July 5, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Some of the desire for the Traditional Latin Mass is a desire for rite, ritual, and tradition that is absent in modern society. Many people are looking for authentic tradition even in culture which is usually tied to religion.
Much of modern American culture is so iconoclastic and mocks rite, ritual and tradition.
Some Fransicans believed in a Perennial Philosophy or knowledge that predated Christianity or even Judaism and a knowledge that was present at the Garden of Eden. Vatican librarian Agustino Steuco around the 14th Century supported a perennial philosophy concept and a concept that there is a mystical knowledge of God that is present in all peoples and cultures.
Russian Orthodox Monk Seraphim Rose first came to spirituality through Rene Guenon, a Buddhist but who taught that one had to encounter the authentic and traditional exoteric before the esoeteric, the rite and ritual is important before going deeper. To master the rite and ritual.
Some other promolugators of this concept are
Fritjof Schouen
Hossein Nasr Seyyed
AC Cooromasaway (A Hindu and famous art curator of Museums in Boston and the father of Catholic Traditionalist and priest and friend of Mother Teresa and Fr. Malachi Martin Rama Coorasaway.
Seyyed, a Muslim, comments on the timeless beauty of the Tridentine Rite Mass and that the newer rites do not have the same majesty or timeless appeal and authentic historic continuity with tradition.
In some circles, the modern resurgence of Masonic forms, is a desire for rite and ritual, absent in much of Protestantism and modern MTV culture with no respect for anything.
This is an interesting topic to explore and link to liturgy in the Traditional Roman Catholic Church and rite.

matt July 5, 2007 at 4:36 pm

FYI,
I agree with Fr. Z.’s position, and I think it’s terrible for Catholics to treat each other the way that is described in the Thread. Let’s be honest though, many traditional Catholics have legitimate reasons to feel marginalized, and this act of the Holy Father is about correcting the injustice, as well as working to restore the greater Church.
God Bless,
Matt

matt July 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Sophia Perennias,
While it’s true that all people have a thirst for God, what you describe sounds heretical to me, perhaps you could expand a little. All Revelation is from the Word of God in the Old and New Testament, and in the Tradition of His Church.
God Bless,
Matt

Esau July 5, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Let’s be honest though, many traditional Catholics have legitimate reasons to feel marginalized, and this act of the Holy Father is about correcting the injustice
Matt,
This is where you and I heavily differ.
What do you mean “correcting the injustice”?
Do you mean to say a valid act of the Pope is actually an “injustice”?
How dare you characterize the implementation of the Novus Ordo an act of injustice!
You have reduced discussion of the sacred rites to nothing more than a political debate with all the venom of worldly politics!

PLEASE July 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Many Traditional Catholics have been marginlized and treated badly by priests and hierarchs.
But that is not an excuse to treat others badly.
We need to forgive and treat each other with charity.
There should not be a triumphal attitude towards other Catholics, it is the Triumphant Church of our Saints in the Body of Christ UNITED that we should feel.
Both liturgies are valid, good, licit, legal, and can be done well.
I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. Please recognize my reasons for that and learn to appreciate, me other traditionalists and the Traditional Mass itself.

Esau July 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm

PLEASE,
Obviously, you have not read that I, too, used to attend the Indult Mass and that I actually advocate the TLM.
However, how does preference for the TLM give anybody the right to dissent from the Church and call acts by the Church and, above all, the Vicar of Christ as an act of injustice!
No genuine Traditional Catholic would dissent from the Seat of Peter!

Mary Kay July 5, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Yikes, this thread now has 216 posts.

matt July 5, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Esau,
Matt said:
Let’s be honest though, many traditional Catholics have legitimate reasons to feel marginalized, and this act of the Holy Father is about correcting the injustice
Esau Spewed:
This is where you and I heavily differ.
What do you mean “correcting the injustice”?
Do you mean to say a valid act of the Pope is actually an “injustice”?
How dare you characterize the implementation of the Novus Ordo an act of injustice!…

Correct, and demonstrably so. While my reference to injustice was not addressed to any particular individual and situation, it certainly applies to many bishops who continue to suppress the TLM despite the urging of the Holy Father John Paul II. This Holy Father is going to reverse it, as the prior one tried with a more collegial approach, but failed to achieve the obedience of the bishops in “generously” offering the TLM as per Ecclesia Dei, 1986.
As to the imposition of the Novus Ordo, we can go down that road if you like, but it’s a clear injustice, even Paul VI had to issue a number of warnings to correct the abuses which took place, followed by the acts of John Paul II to resolve the many remaining problems. When the imposition of a new missal causes such disturbance to the liturgy of the Church it is an injustice.

However, how does preference for the TLM give anybody the right to dissent from the Church and call acts by the Church and, above all, the Vicar of Christ as an act of injustice!
No genuine Traditional Catholic would dissent from the Seat of Peter!

How very respectful of you to call me a dissenter. Put your torches away, the imposition of a new missal is not an infallible act, and what I have said is in NO way dissenting from the Church. I did not accuse Holy Mother Church of injustice, but having injustice placed upon Her members by the errors of the episcopate. Yes, errors, I said errors. Popes in the past have made errors, I’m sure you’ll agree, is it a sin to acknowledge that???
Do you need some doctrinal assistance with understanding on when the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra” and when he does not? The material is readily available, I hope you’re just speaking out of ignorance, and not malice.
Please,

Matt said:
I agree with Fr. Z.’s position, and I think it’s terrible for Catholics to treat each other the way that is described in the Thread. Let’s be honest though, many traditional Catholics have legitimate reasons to feel marginalized< .b>, and this act of the Holy Father is about correcting the injustice, as well as working to restore the greater Church.

I don’t appreciate my statements being pulled out of context like that. I may be overreacting but I feel the heat from Esau’s torch and it’s got me a little perturbed.
God Bless,
Matt

Esau July 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm

matt,
I doubt that I pulled your statements out-of-context.
You further expressed:
As to the imposition of the Novus Ordo, we can go down that road if you like, but it’s a clear injustice, even Paul VI had to issue a number of warnings to correct the abuses which took place, followed by the acts of John Paul II to resolve the many remaining problems. When the imposition of a new missal causes such disturbance to the liturgy of the Church it is an injustice.
So, I take it that the imposition of the Roman Canon in 1571 (what now has come to be known as the Tridentine) was clearly an injustice as well since it overrode all other canons that existed in the Church at that time which many were by far much older!
Even Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent admitted to that and Chapter V of the Trent decree speaks of the many different ceremonies and rites.
In fact, Pope St. Pius V had to suppressed them in order to force the Tridentine onto the people at the time.
Now, tell me —
If the Novus Ordo is, indeed, an injustice by the argument you had made, then, by the same token, the Tridentine too is likewise guilty of the same injustice!

matt July 5, 2007 at 5:41 pm

matt,
I doubt that I pulled your statements out-of-context.
Huh? “Please” is the one who did that, are you “Please”? No, I don’t think you are.

You further expressed:
As to the imposition of the Novus Ordo, we can go down that road if you like, but it’s a clear injustice, even Paul VI had to issue a number of warnings to correct the abuses which took place, followed by the acts of John Paul II to resolve the many remaining problems. When the imposition of a new missal causes such disturbance to the liturgy of the Church it is an injustice.

You had your torch lit before I said that, so it’s no defense on your part. In any event, that statement is in no way disrespectful to Holy Mother Church, to Paul VI, or any Pope.

So, I take it that the imposition of the Roman Canon in 1571 (what now has come to be known as the Tridentine) was clearly an injustice as well since it overrode all other canons that existed in the Church at that time which many were by far much older!
Even Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent admitted to that and Chapter V of the Trent decree speaks of the many different ceremonies and rites.
In fact, Pope St. Pius V had to suppressed them in order to force the Tridentine onto the people at the time.
Now, tell me —
If the Novus Ordo is, indeed, an injustice by the argument you had made, then, by the same token, the Tridentine too is likewise guilty of the same injustice!
Posted by: Esau | Jul 5, 2007 5:24:59 PM

I would like to have a dialogue with you on the imposition of the Missal of Pius V, once you retract your slanderous implication of heresy, and admit that it is morally permitted to find injustice in the acts of a Pope.
Oh, and I didn’t accuse the Novus Ordo of injustice, the way it was imposed, can you see the subtle difference?
God Bless,
Matt
ps. it’s funny, how some people leap to defend any possible slight of Catholics who assist exclusively at the Novus Ordo, but stone silence at the wicked slander Esau is throwing out against me…. Is such a defence only called for when it’s your ox being gored?

Mary July 5, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Jarnor23 July 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm

To be fair, I think what Matt means by “mistake” here isn’t saying the Pope lacks the authority or is not the Pope. I think what he’s just saying is that he personally feels the step was a mistake.
I guess I could understand that. If the Pope tomorrow announced that from here out we were going to the new “All-Mime Mass”, I would personally feel it to be a mistake. I sure as heck wouldn’t stop going though. “Lord, you have the words of eternal life, to whom else shall we go?”

Jarnor23 July 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Oh, by the way, props out to ya Scott! I practically cheered through your whole post. Fellow ex-Protestants represent! :)
Side note: After posting, I realize the irony of the quote that came into my head about following Christ, even to a mime Mass. :)

matt July 5, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Jarnor23,
thanks, you are exactly right. I don’t know where anyone would get the impression I thought otherwise. I’ve been clear about the validity of the NO, and it’s status as the normative mass, and that I wasn’t calling for it’s aborogation. If the mime-mass ever came to be I would drag myself kicking and screaming, but I would have nowhere else to go, as you aptly put it.
God Bless,
Matt

Warren Anderson July 6, 2007 at 4:49 am

The much anticipated Motu Proprio will be a “teachable moment” in the Church. What can we learn? Here are a few thoughts for consideration/adoption/rebuttal:
1. We can learn to respect authority. Certain groups lay claim to the 1962 Missal and use every twisted conspiracy theory to justify their schismatic actions. Their rejection of the Second Vatican Council confirms that the protestant mentality is still attempting to assert itself on Holy Mother Church. If there is any doubt as to the consequences of a lack of due respect for authority, especially the harmonious authority of the Magisterium (Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15) and Apostolic Tradition (Scripture and Oral Tradition – 2 Thess. 2:15), consult the situation in Anglicanism these days.
2. Quality. The newer form (1970 Missal) is wondrously beautiful when clergy and laity are properly educated in the rubrics. The Mass of Paul VI has been obscured by a poor translation into English with its constituent elements often hijacked by radical feminists in the guise of “liturgists”. It’s no wonder, then, people have a hard time accepting the newest form of the Mass. The new translation of the Mass in English will go a long way towards revealing the potential of the newest version (1970 Missal).
3. Furthermore, English speaking bishops must develop and promote an official Catholic hymnal that contains the very best content – chant and hymnody. The status quo allows too much fluff in the door. As a university music performance instructor, and a choral director of some 21 years, it is my considered opinion that the Church needs to employ the very best Catholic musicologists and composers to compile a fully functional and artistically superb book to facilitate the singing of the Liturgy. Bishops should employ Catholic scholars, i.e. faithful experts to edit our hymnals. Many of the older hymns were successful because they were memorable, i.e., tuneful and theologically sound. An excellent Psalter should be commissioned, sparing no expense to ensure music of the highest quality is created, preserved and presented in a beautiful, accessible and affordable collection.
4. Christ in the Liturgy produces a Church of Martyrs. Let us not forget who we are – we are the Church of Rome, of the catacombs. The Second Vatican Council stands like a cross driven into the centre of history and culture. Society is judged and purified by the Council’s witness to the Gospel. And, God has not finished writing history. Let us not doubt the witness of the martyrs who, in obedience to Christ, were nourished by Christ in the Mass (of Paul VI). The East Bloc crumbled and communism is still crumbling because of the grace unleashed through the witness of martyrs like Father Jerzy Popieluszko (d. 1984). Lest there be any doubt as to the efficacy of the newer rite (1970) and it’s ability to form martyrs for Christ, recall the many countries in which Catholics are currently giving up their lives in witness to Jesus (India, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Darfur, China).
5. Some might argue that Pope Paul VI’s revision of the Mass came at the wrong time. The world is full of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. We would do well to recall that God’s ways are not our ways. Besides, if Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV) is any standard to judge by, we should credit him with an excellent sense of timing. Let’s hope that both HV and Paul VI’s revision of the Mass might be seen for what they truly are: prophetic.
6. The Motu Proprio, regardless of its specific content, can draw our attention to the rich heritage of the True Church of Christ. People had better start improving the quality of their response (obedience) to God’s call rather than merely blaming a form of the Liturgy for their lack of faith and disobedience. Otherwise, the consequences of further disobedience to the guidance of Saint Peter’s Successors will likely culminate in further division and unnecessary belittlement of the Church’s sacramental heritage.

Anonymous July 6, 2007 at 8:20 am

Thursday, July 05, 2007
The Motu Proprio: Benedict’s Decisive Compromise
Whispers in the Loggia claims to have the text of the SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio July 6, 2007 at 8:34 am

CWNews say the official release of the MP Summorum Pontificum is noon Rome time.
Motu proprio set for Saturday release
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary Kay July 6, 2007 at 8:35 am

Warren, thank you for such a well said post.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 9:15 am

Warren:
That was a great post — I hope people read it and consider the points you’ve made.
Inocencio:
I was terribly disappointed that you actually advertised (and are thereby promoting) Whispers in the Loggia’s act of disobedience against the Holy See.
The Motu Proprio is not to be revealed until the appointed time.
What they have done there is an unauthorized and, not to mention, shameful act.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 9:28 am

Jarnor23:
I admire the way you attempted to be fair in your comments to matt.
However, there is a HUGE difference between the word “mistake” and the word “injustice”.
The latter characterizes an act in a malicious manner.
If implementing the Novus Ordo in the Church back then is such an “injustice” (as matt had specifically described it as being), then the Tridentine, too, is such an “injustice” as well in that it was forced down people’s throat similarly at a time where even the Pope then had to actually suppressed all other ancient rites and ceremonies that existed during that period and, in fact, had existed for many centuries — many of which even predates the Roman Canon (i.e., Tridentine) itself.
As I’ve mentioned, I have great reverence and respect for the Tridentine rite.
However, we must also have the same (in fact, even greater) respect and reverence for the acts as well as the person of the Vicar of Christ as far as the Faith and Holy Mother Church is concerned.
That is what makes a person a genuine Roman Catholic.
(…and, yes, I intentionally used the word “Roman”.)

John July 6, 2007 at 9:37 am

Warren posted:
“Let us not doubt the witness of the martyrs who, in obedience to Christ, were nourished by Christ in the Mass (of Paul VI”
Warren-with all due respect, please do not try to connect the fall of communism (last I checked China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc etc are still just that) with the Mass of Paul VI or JPII as that is thread hijacking, and I am going to respect Jimmys rules. We could easiy debate the fall of communism, your supposed connection with “martyrs” (as compared to the millions who died for tradition?) and the mass of Paul VI and whatever else you desire, but that would take this thread in an entire new direction, but you are totally mistaken and should not try that “card” for your attempt to justify a mass which though valid has produced rotten fruit

John July 6, 2007 at 9:40 am

Matt-Keep up the good work in your defense of the faith
We are starting to see little chinks in the armor of those veiled in the supposes love of the church but at the same time willing to compromise her teachings and beliefs in the name of unity.
When a document as this, as well as a new document soon out to clarify lumen gentium and the connection with Protestanism and the “subsists” line, we are seeing our hard work pay off
God bless
http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=17223

Alex Benziger.G July 6, 2007 at 9:42 am

Sir,
Motu Proprio, that is, ” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ” with a special letter to all the Bishops of the Universal Church will be issued July 7, 2007 at 9.00 am to the Press and to the public.
Hereafter the Roman Catholic Church Will be grown tremendously.
DEO GRATIAS
AVE MARIA
SAINT JOSEPH,Pray for us.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 9:59 am

We are starting to see little chinks in the armor of those veiled in the supposes love of the church but at the same time willing to compromise her teachings and beliefs in the name of unity.
This coming from the man who uttered:
Again, for something to be infallible and for obedience to follow, one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?
Posted by: John | May 29, 2007 12:55:37 PM

Now, can anybody honestly say that this is not Protestant?

Esau July 6, 2007 at 10:02 am

Motu Proprio, that is, ” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ” with a special letter to all the Bishops of the Universal Church will be issued July 7, 2007 at 9.00 am to the Press and to the public.
Sir,
The Motu Proprio is NOT to be revealed to the public UNTIL THAT TIME.
Anybody who has received an advanced copy are NOT to disclose its contents — PERIOD!

SDG July 6, 2007 at 10:08 am

We are starting to see little chinks in the armor of those veiled in the supposes love of the church but at the same time willing to compromise her teachings and beliefs in the name of unity.

Screws fall out all the time, sir. The world’s an imperfect place.

Alex Benziger.G July 6, 2007 at 10:22 am

Sir,
Our Lord Jesus Christ established only one Church on St. Peter, the Pope is the Legal heir of the Church and Our Lord said that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven”(Mt.16:19).
Further, the Holy mass is the re-enactment of the Calvary,it means the murder took place, therefore, no place for the folk dramas in the altar.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 10:30 am

Further, the Holy mass is the re-enactment of the Calvary,it means the murder took place, therefore, no place for the folk dramas in the altar.
Sir,
Where have I in my comments advocated ‘folk dramas in the altar’?
You mean to say my endorsing the TLM and not advocating closet Protestantism is actually an endorsement of ‘folk dramas in the altar’?

Inocencio July 6, 2007 at 10:32 am

Esau,
I accept your disappointment.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau July 6, 2007 at 10:40 am

Inocencio,
You know very well I have often admired your comments in the past. There are many things you’ve taught me by them.
But this was the one time I felt you had seriously erred.
Whispers in the Loggia committed a great wrong against the Holy See by posting a fragment of the MP in advance of its anticipated release.
Although I cannot blame anybody for visiting the website in order to take a peak at it, I just fear that the greater attention/popularity given to it by wider advertisement might all the more encourage future acts similarly shameful.

Inocencio July 6, 2007 at 10:50 am

Esau,
You also were very hesitant about my game over statement. We can disagree and be disappointed by each others comments and behavior. There have been times I disagreed with your comments or was disappointed by your behavior but didn’t feel the need to say so. That in no way changes my respect for you as a brother in Christ.
The blog I linked to has this to say about releasing the text.
On a final note, in keeping with the firm policy of these pages and this narrator, let me state unequivocally that no embargoes were broken from this end in the obtaining of this text — precisely because none was ever imposed.
…at least, not on me.
As with all the best of stories, “the goods” were yet again passed along completely out of the blue, thanks to the motu proprio of a source, with no strings attached. Once the contents were confirmed, it was all rock n’ roll from there.
If only others were so lucky, maybe they wouldn’t be so angry now. Oh well.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Alex Benziger.G July 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

Sir,
The news of the ” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ” is received from the Vatican by me through e.mail.
I am the adviser of the” Federation of the Catholic Faithful” in the region of Tamil Nadu,South India( Madras ), we are going to celebrate the return of the Heavenly Mass in a grand manner in August.

Some Day July 6, 2007 at 10:59 am

It does not neccesarily have to be towards the East.
The main thing is that it is versus Deo, as in towards the altar and not versus populi, because while not heritical in itself, it “tastes like heresy” and certainly led to many heresies.
The one of the most common was that if the communicant did not say “amen” before recieving the Host, than the consecration was not complete, and therefore not confection of the Eucharist.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 11:15 am

Inocencio:
Same here — even though I disagreed with you having advertised Whispers in the Loggia’s fragments of the MP, you still have my respect as a brother in Christ.
As far as Whispers in the Loggia itself is concerned, I would think that the embargo was rather obvious even if implicit.

Esau July 6, 2007 at 11:19 am

The news of the ” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ” is received from the Vatican by me through e.mail.

Sir,
You are missing the point.
Revealing the NEWS of the MP is fine, obviously.
However, disclosing its actual contents prior to its intended release isn’t — especially by those who receive an advanced copy of it.
They are expected to keep it under wraps until the appointed time.

John July 6, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Esau
For the better of the glorious restoration of the church, I shall refrain from your antanism
Mark-be very careful not to get spun into the web that those are casting, as they shall try to dissect every word of your post, lead you on a tangent and then try to discredit you
God bless you on your Apostolic journey and the restoration of the entire church back to her former glory

Esau July 6, 2007 at 1:38 pm

For the better of the glorious restoration of the church
The glory of former days for the Catholic Church will never be restored.
The weeds of Protestantism has infected it so deeply that Protestant notions (and its ever infectious subjective ideals) are actually heralded as traditional Catholic teaching by so-called traditional Catholics, only further spreading error and disunity in the Church.
Only by the prayers and intercessions of the Church Triumphant and, above all, by the help and mercy of the Lord, Jesus Christ, can the Church be renewed and saved.
The Motu Proprio cannot solve this ever evolving, disconcerting dilemma.
Hope can only be found in His Mercy.

Wolfgang July 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm

A focus on MUSIC in the Mass would be interesting and perhaps integral to the discussion of the Motu Propio and what seems to have digressed into a comparison of Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo (at least to an extent)

matt July 6, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Esau,
However, there is a HUGE difference between the word “mistake” and the word “injustice”.
The latter characterizes an act in a malicious manner.

Not at all, a well intentioned mistake can ABSOLUTELY cause an injustice, and often times does. And yes, it’s even possible for the Pope to act in such a way, and even intentionally commit an act he knows to be unjust in order to accomplish a percieved greater good. I in now way suggested the Holy Father or anyone else acted in any way contrary to what they believe to be best for the Church. I only suggest that an injustice occurred, and that the root cause of the injustice was an act of the Holy Father, Paul VI, for if he had not acted so, the individuals who perpetrated the injustice could not have done so. Whether he carries any personal culpability in doing so is entirely between him and the Lord.
Once you apologize for your uncharitable and decidedly un-Catholic accusations against me of dissent against the Holy Father I would be happy to dialogue on matters such as the imposition of the Tridentine Mass.
However, we must also have the same (in fact, even greater) respect and reverence for the acts as well as the person of the Vicar of Christ as far as the Faith and Holy Mother Church is concerned.
That is what makes a person a genuine Roman Catholic.
(…and, yes, I intentionally used the word “Roman”.)

You commit serious slander in suggesting I am not a genuine Roman Catholic, I would never do that to you, but why do you not extend the same respect as a brother in Christ that you are obligated to offer to all of your fellow Catholics?
God Bless,
Matt
ps. If you truly believe I have committed an act in violation of the Catholic Faith, please cite the Catechism or Canon, or cease your slanderous accusations, if you can’t abandon them in your heart, at least desist from presenting them on these pages.
Please put away the torch before you burn yourself!

BobCatholic July 7, 2007 at 6:26 am

Enough of the bickering.
Let us sing “Deo Gratias” that the MP has finally been released.

Previous post:

Next post: