On the bright side, our Tridentine Rite Mass, offered by a priest who teaches at our school, but not offered at the school, is now legally attended daily. As the old priest is 89 years old, we were grateful to learn recently that a new priest, 4 years ordained, will be allowed to celebrate it, and can make the 60-90 minute one way journey once a month.
Sursum Corda.
I would favor a universal indult for the Tridentine Latin Mass, but I'm not holding my breath either. I just don't think it's very likely in the present circumstances. Hey, I'd even favor a requirement that the fixed parts of the Pauline Missal be in Latin -- something needs to be done about the liturgical mess we're in -- but I doubt anything like that is going to happen either.
Keating is right. Bishops will drag their feet, and so will priests, most of whom, I'll wager, are less-than-ecstatic about having to make up now for the shoddiness of their education in seminary twenty or thirty years ago.
In Buffalo, our bishop's immediate concern is dealing with the lack of available priests. Within a few years, the shortage will be critical, and parishes will have to close. Beautiful churches -- what will become of them? The Bureau of Silly Ministries will only grow larger, bolder, and more varied, and they're not tridentiners.
Supposedly, a traditionalist group of some kind is interested in buying one of the Churches likely to be on the block. Until that happens, the only source for Latin Masses will be the downtown cathedral at 9 AM. Not an easy place to get to if you have kids to drag out of bed, but better than some situations.
I just don't feel all that optimistic. We have a bishop whose concept of Latin seems to be the music of Gloria Estefan. We have a shortage of priests that is going to get worse, with those well-versed in the tridentine rite likely to be the first to go. We have a congregation that has been so protestantized by wretched catechesis and infantile NO "reforms" that many of them wouldn't know a tabernacle from Barbie's Dream House.
Reviving the tridentine rite will take energy and commitment on the part of everyone, especially the clergy. I don't see it happening.
Gloria tibi, Domine,
qui natus es de Virgine
cum Patre et Sancto Spiritu
in sempiterna saecula!
Amen.
May God give us this blessing: to see the Latin Church restored to its glory in our lifetimes. To the One Who becomes really present in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in all orthodox altars around the world, nothing is impossible.
As a Roman Catholic priest I can celebrate the Mass in Latin whenever I want, if the congregation accept. I can use the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) which is the same as in the Tridentine mass of my childhood. Since most of you here have no Latin I fail to see why you are so nostalgic for the pre-Vatican II mass text -- what exactly is its outstanding merit? Is it just a badge of reaction against Vatican II?
IL GRAN RIFIUTO
The diarist claims that at the first vote on the afternoon of Monday, April 18th, Cardinal Ratzinger topped the poll with 47 votes, with Cardinal Bergoglio next on 10, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini third on nine, followed by Cardinal Camillo Ruini with six, Cardinal Angelo Sodano with four, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga with three and Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi on two.
After that vote, the conclave was adjourned and the cardinals returned to the Domus Santa Marta, where the diarist claims that the evening was marked by a series of meetings between cardinals, "two or three at a time after supper in their rooms".
At this point those who supported the cardinal emeritus of Milan, Cardinal Martini, redirected their votes in favour of Cardinal Bergoglio, who picked up 35 votes on the first of the two Tuesday morning votes. In the meantime, however, Cardinal Ratzinger's position had strengthened further as he polled 65 votes.
By the time of the second ballot on Tuesday morning, Cardinal Ratzinger had polled 72 votes, just five short of the two-thirds or 77 votes necessary for election.
At this point, Cardinal Bergoglio had edged up to 40 votes, not enough to win the election but perhaps enough to block Cardinal Ratzinger for as many as another 31 ballots.
The 1996 apostolic constitution, Universi Dominic Gregis, governing the election of the pope, stipulates that after 34 ballots, a simple rather than a two-thirds majority is enough to win.
It was at this point, according to the diarist, that events took a dramatic turn with Cardinal Bergoglio feeling increasingly uneasy about his own candidacy and eventually calling on his supporters not to vote for him.
At the final and fourth ballot on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 19th, Cardinal Ratzinger picked up 84 votes, more than the two-thirds majority, while Cardinal Bergoglio had 25.
Prof Blosser:
Why should 'economic' demand for the TLM determine (not influence, but determine) a bishop's decision whether to permit its use? I'm sure you're aware that that argument can be turned around, in favor of even more authorized options and innovations.
Doesn't the 'economic' demand argument undercut your comments about 'Philosophy or bowling -- the new college electives?'? I think of 'what's the use of the Mass?': are we to make decisions based on a hope for what the results might be?
Color me skeptical, but I'll dissent to the claim that more reverent Masses will result from a wider availability of the TLM. Maybe that will result after a decade or so of more available TLMs, but the passage of time may help more because of the passing of those enamored of liturgical options. I doubt those so enamored will be influenced by a wider availability, and I include both priests and diocesan liturgists.
Fr Spirit of Vatican II:
I'll admit to being nostalgic for the Mass of my youth. There is a comfort in what endured for many years and in what I recall from my own experience.
But that's not why I choose the TLM over the new Missal. Neither is the nostalgia because of my Latin language skills, which are basically non-existent.
I returned to the Church in 1992 after being away for about 25 years. When this Rip van Winkle went to the local parish, the utter banality of its prayers couldn't be ignored, and because of that banality, it was and is extremely difficult for me to unite myself with the priest.
There are other reasons, but again, nostalgia and a love or familiarity with Latin aren't really among them.
I think then Cdl Ratzinger wrote about the merits of the TLM and about comparing that to the new Missal. If you're interested,
http://thenewliturgicalmovement....t.blogspot.com/
might give pointers to the now Pope's writings.
"I can use the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) which is the same as in the Tridentine mass of my childhood."
It's pretty close, but not exactly the same.
"Since most of you here have no Latin I fail to see why you are so nostalgic for the pre-Vatican II mass text -- what exactly is its outstanding merit? Is it just a badge of reaction against Vatican II?"
I rather like Vatican II, so my interest in Latin Mass has got nothing to do with any reaction against it. There are several reasons why I think a renewal of Latin liturgy would be good for the Church. One is the sense of reverence and mystery that is created or encouraged when Mass is done traditionally. Another is that the the drastic break in liturgical continuity after Vatican II has not been good for the Church -- many have little or no sense of connection to the living stream of the Church's life, and part of the reason is because the Church's liturgy was rearranged so extremely. Of course, I don't necessarily have a problem with vernacular liturgy, but the translation has got to be done right, and the translation now have in English is horrid -- thankfully that is finally being fixed.
I'd be happy if they just turned the priest back around and kept all the tabernacles right where they should be.
Of course, I'll probably have to be dead and in the ground for 20 years for that to happen.
Forget TLMs- bring back the TAMs!!! Rome killed JC. Why do we want to learn their language again???
Jerusalem killed JC too -- why do we want to learn their language again?
Seriously, let's try and avoid making decisions based on anti-Roman and anti-Semitic bigotry. If the "Jew as Christkiller" slander must be repudiated, then so too must the "Roman as Christkiller" slander.
Here's what I posted over at Amy Welborn's blog on this subject:
I've attended just about every sort of Mass on offer, in this country and other countries. I've even attended Eastern-rite liturgies in three different dioceses. These days, I usually sing in the choir at what somebody here would probably call a "banal, lifeless" N.O. English Mass. I admit I'm not a huge fan of the N.O. as translated and normally celebrated; and Sacrosanctum Concilium could have been implemented better than by Bugnini and the ICEL. Right now, my attending that Mass is mostly about convenience. But the thing is, the 1962 Tridentine Mass is not the only alternative to that if you want good liturgy that conveys Tradition.
I've attended that version of the Mass in all its forms: Low Mass, High Mass, Solemn High Mass, Solemn High Nosebleed Mass...you get the picture. If the Low Mass is an "acquired taste," it's one I've never acquired and doubt I ever will. I dislike it now as much as I did in the late 50s and early 60s as a boy, and for mostly the same reasons. As an adult I learned Latin well, but I don't like knowing what's being said in spite of, rather because of, how the priest is saying it. As for the higher rites, I just have no patience for all the thurifer-swinging, biretta-tipping, chasuble-holding fussiness. For me, it gets in the way of interior union with the Lord. I feel like a spectator at a performance. For the same reasons, I dislike teenage hootenanny Masses and any Mass orchestrated by pant-suited feminazis.
All that said, the Mass I most like aesthetically is the N.O.—with all save the readings and homily in Latin. While writing my dissertation in England back in the late 80s, I sang in the choir at just such a Mass every Sunday. Both the plainchant and polyphony were sublime, though admittedly not in virtue of my contributions as a foghorn bass. The priest struck a perfect balance between accessibility and mystery. For me, the only thing missing was the ad orientem posture—but hey, you can't have everything, especially these days.
I simply do not understand why hardly anybody advocates celebrating Mass like that—i.e., according to the editio typica of the currently normative Missal. Duh. If one such Mass were offered in each parish each Sunday, and done even half-well most of the time, we wouldn't have nearly all dissatisfactions we do now. And you'd be able to get the same Mass anywhere.
If one doesn't have a priest who knows Latin, there's always some middle-aged academic type like me more than willing to teach them. 
Jordan,
So English is a great neutral language for Masses and therefore no one is slandered!!
And some of my favorite hymns like Amazing Grace(Prodigiosus Venia?), and On Eagle's Wings (In Aquila Pennae?) in Latin just will not be satisfactory to uplift my spirit.
I only like Amazing Grace when it's performed by a bagpiper standing atop the ben above my mother's ancestors' land in Gartnafuaran of Perthshire, so the skirling can waft on the winds down to the glen below. On Eagles' Wings is nice enough, though it's done to death, and the lyrics are a series of mixed metaphors.
I agree with the Church's judgment that Latin chant is aptly suited to the liturgy, and I'd prefer to see most Masses include at least some Latin chant.
I agree with Mr. Liccione. I attend a TLM partially out of a love for Latin but mainly becuase it is the only option around for those who prefer not to attend masses where the music is awful, the priest goofy, and the sense of holiness almost completely gone. A Novus Ordo mass that is in the tradition of Catholicism rather than the tradition of Evangelicism would bridge the gap (which is now very very wide) between holiness and accessability.
I agree with Dr. Mike on this. The Novus Ordo is beautiful when done correctly. For example, the Mass the Legionnaries of Christ say is awesome. Gregorian Chant, incense, silence, etc. It's just beautiful.
"When done correctly"?
Even Redemptionis Sacramentum has more holes than a Swiss cheese. The latitude in the interpretation of rubrics is of the essence of the NO -- and has been since its inception.
And, anyway, why have a NO in Latin with "smells and bells", but with almost no connection to our Latin past???
Well, I respect those who for some reason "love" the NO; I just hope my "rightful aspirations" for the Roman Mass are given due consideration.
Pure common sense from Apolonio -- there is NOTHING to prevent rich and beautiful celebrations of the Latin Mass today. Why the Novus Ordo should be regarded as something Radically Other than the Mass of my childhood I do not understand. What exactly is it that New Catholic is worried about? Is it that the responses are spoken by the faithful rather than an altar boy? Compare the texts of the Latin Mass in 1960 and in 2005 (with the Roman Canon) -- where exactly is there a dramatic difference?
I hate Amazing Grace.
The mass for the beatification of Teresa of Calcutta was in Latin and a very beautiful ceremony it was (except for the lamentable spectacle of the aphasic John Paul II). The Latin Mass has not gone away. Unfortunately bad taste and sloppiness rule the roost in the Catholic liturgy, and no one knows Latin any more or cares about it.
I would love to have a congregation for a Mass in Latin, with the old Latin hymns. I will even preach in Latin if you want me to.
Hello
There should be no reason or excuse why the Roman Missal of Paul VI - in a holy, orthodox, accurate and poetic translation - cannot be celebrated in a 'traditional' Roman Catholic manner, 'facing the Lord', with reverence, solemnity and beauty, with all the so-called 'smells (incense) and bells (at the Consecration)', good vestments, sacredness and mystery. Take all that is possible and best from the old 'Tridentine' liturgy. Continuity. Use the Roman Canon.
Catholics are not supposed to be iconoclasts; it is not our way. Yet it happened. Let there again be sacred images, and proper veneration and communion. Remember and be surrounded by saints and angels, and allow them to teach us. Restore candles, and turn down the lights, and stop making the priest and the community the focus. Get out of the way.
Pretend we do not have electricity, if you get my drift.
Reconnect with what was good in our Catholic liturgical culture, heritage and faith. Do not reject the ‘old’, no! And not everything 'new' is bad, not if it grows organically out of, or is inspired by our past and heritage.
The priest does not have to 'face the people' when offering the Holy Sacrifice: let us return to the older posture and position; the tabernacle can be on the altar of God, chant and hymns can be in English and/or Latin. I am not an enemy of the vernacular, but the profane and vulgar. Nor am I against Latin if used intelligently, and authentically. Pray. Allow for silence.
Adore the Real Presence. The Holy Mass is not a ‘show’; it is mystic prayer and worship of the Divine Trinity. Desacralization is not Catholic. Let us kneel again.
This should have all been possible; is it too late? What has been done, and what is possible? It would take resources, work and prayer, and a great change of attitude and in the heart of many.
Much 'innovation' and 'novelty' comes from a bad spirit (the Evil One?), ignorance, or loss of faith.
I have been to Eastern Catholic worship in the vernacular, and know what is possible at its best. Simplicity and beauty. Good liturgists can use and adapt much of the old music and plainchant, and so forth. What is possible?
Things will never be perfect, not on earth. Still, that is no reason it accept the secularization, heresy and modern(ist) trash that is contrary to the true spirit of sound Catholic liturgy.
This may sound odd coming from a post-Vatican II western Catholic, but May the great saints, Methodius and Cyril, along with Pope John VIII, pray for us, in our time of liturgical confusion and struggle. We need to reach and touch as many english speaking Catholics as possible, and reconnect them with tradition and orthodoxy as best we can, before all is lost. What a time of grave crisis we all live in.
Just my opinion. I hope I make some sense. Thanks!
Still, that is no reason to accept the secularization, heresy and modern(ist) trash that is contrary to the true spirit of sound Catholic liturgy.
Please note that I am not against the Catholic traditionalist (1962 Roman Missal) movement loyal to Rome (the See of Peter) and Pope Benedict XVI. Thanks!
The priest facing the people -- isn't this closer to the practice of the early church than the priest with his back to them?
The present problems with the liturgy will be solved when we learn from Anglicans the importance of scriptural culture, well-prepared sermons, respect for beauty of language, decoration and music, and above all the joy of lay participation in the liturgy.
The headaches of the English speaking Roman Catholic Church where liturgy is concerned are UNKNOWN in the English speaking Anglican Communion (who probably use Latin more than the RCC does, knowing its aesthetic and contemplative virtues).
The ideologically driven, reactionary cult of obsolete liturgies is doing nothing to make the current liturgy more beautiful and spiritual. It has given the Latin Mass a bad name.
I see very little fidelity to Scripture and to seeking the will of the Lord in matters of worship in this fetischism of a vanished past.
"We need to reach and touch as many english speaking Catholics as possible, and reconnect them [and ourselves] with tradition and orthodoxy as best we can, before all is lost. What a time of grave crisis we all live in."
I think that many of the problems with contemporary Catholic liturgy can be corrected. But will they?
I just pray Mother Church can get through this evil and dangerous time. I fear for the future of our Church, yet hope in Christ.
May God help us!
"The priest facing the people -- isn't this closer to the practice of the early church than the priest with his back to them?"
I don't know. I'm not sure there's any clear testimony from the early church of the priest turning his back on God so the laity can see his face, but I've not study early liturgy enough to say for sure one way or the other. Certainly the liturgical practice of having everyone, including the priest, face east, or face God, is extremely ancient, and could have roots in the old Jewish Temple worship.
It is apparent that there are more important concerns with the current Catholic Church than its current positions in areas such as limbo and Latin masses. In Philadelphia this week, the grandjury investigating the sex abuse case in the Philadelphia Archdiocese released its 400 + page report. To say the least it was very embarrassing and has caused significant outcrys. Here is copy of one letter- to- the- editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer which summarizes some of the frustration:
“Dear Editor:
Where is the apology?
Born and raised Catholic in South Philadelphia, I always ran scared, scared that I would go to hell if I sinned. Priests and nuns were too often scary figures, rather than kind and gentle. As I grew, I began a healthy questioning of some of the tenets of my faith and sought my own answers. This week, the conclusions I reached not long ago were made even more clear.
The Catholic Church is a medieval religion operating in modern times. It clings to outdated policies, i.e. celibacy for priests, opposition to birth control, etc. It has always operated autocratically and above and beyond the normal rules that most of us play under (i.e. taxes, the law).
At least as shocking as the incidents of abuse listed in the grand jury report is the cover-up of the abuse engineered by the highest figures in the Philadelphia archdiocese. I hoped that the archdiocese would offer a grave apology and beg for the forgiveness of the victims and its parishioners.
But it was not to be. In this era of spin, distortion, and blatant hypocrisy, the archdiocese had the gall to respond defiantly and angrily, decrying the report as anti-Catholic. Archdiocesan leaders tried to pull the ultimate reversal, to proclaim that they themselves were the victims. They should be ashamed of themselves.”
"13. Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.(3) What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience. Examining his heart, man finds that he has inclinations toward evil too, and is engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from his good Creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his beginning, man has disrupted also his proper relationship to his own ultimate goal as well as his whole relationship toward himself and others and all created things.
Therefore man is split within himself. As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itseLf to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains. But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out that "prince of this world" (John 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin.(4) For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment.
The call to grandeur and the depths of misery, both of which are a part of human experience, find their ultimate and simultaneous explanation in the light of this revelation.
14. Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator.(6) For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. Nevertheless, wounded by sin, man experiences rebellious stirrings in his body. But the very dignity of man postulates that man glorify God in his body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart."
From Vatican II: PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD.
GAUDIUM ET SPES
==
"1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers."
From: Catechism of the Catholic Church.
For my views on this, see:
http://apolonio.blogspot.com/
200...io_archive.html
scroll down to On the Liturgy.
It's badly written and there can be more said on this, but my main position is there.
NewCatholic said, "And, anyway, why have a NO in Latin with "smells and bells", but with almost no connection to our Latin past??? "
That's stretching it a little bit. For a good defense on the NO as a true restoration, see my friend's work:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/a.../
appendixa.html
This does not mean that the NO cannot be made better. Nor does it mean that the Tridentine can't either.
As for ad orientem, the priest should face the people during the Liturgy of the Word and then should lead them to face the Lord, to face east during the sacrifice. Uve Lang has a good introductory book from Ignatius Press on that issue.
Dear Apolonio,
You are a very orthodox and commendable young man, so I do not want to quarrel with you.
I can only say that these wild defenses of the NO were accpetable in 1969, when the world seemed new and the Revolution was just beginning... But no serious orthodox liturgical scholar contends that it is not a fabrication. It is. It is no restoration whatsoever.
And these are not my words, these are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger himself: "What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product"
Read Dom Alcuin Reid. Read especially Klaus Gamber's "The Modern Rite" (The Abbey Press); Klaus Gamber, the one of whom Pope Benedict said is "the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church."
Now, I perfectly accept the opinion of those who say the NO is "better", is "more interesting", or is "more suitable to the taste of modern man", or even that it "can be beautiful and full of Latin" (which is like saying that it is possible to rebuild a duck with frozen duck parts, but it will still not be a living duck...). But to say that it is a legitimate "restoration" or that it is not a fabrication is to deny reality.
Paul,
What are you trying to say with the "copy and pasters"?
NewCatholic,
I'll admit that there are some parts of the Mass which may not have been organically developed. Pope Benedict's position has been that he appreciates the good prayers that were developed as well as other good things, but what troubled him was how it was developed by scholars as if the liturgy is a book to be written. I have no problem with that.
My position is that of a reform of the reform. That is the position of Msgr. Gamber as well. My disagreement with him is sacking the NO. Practically speaking, I don't see that happening. I think the bishops are happy with the NO and it would be the normative liturgy for a long time. I really don't see how the NO is not an organic continuation of the Old Mass if the Roman Canon is used, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc.
"I really don't see how the NO is not an organic continuation of the Old Mass if the Roman Canon is used, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc."
But that's the trouble -- that's the exception, not the rule, of how the current Ordo Missae is usually offerred (at least in the U.S.). I'd prefer it if that were the rule of how Mass is offerred (Scripture lections ought to be vernacular, though, and some other parts of Mass can be vernacular too -- it needn't be entirely in Latin in my humble and probably irrelevant opinion), but I'm not holding my breath for it to change either. Eventually I expect it will change, and probably improve, but I'd be shocked if it were soon.
Ok. Enough already. If, as several of you have asserted, there's nothing to prevent the beautiful, reverent celebration of the Missal of Paul VI in Latin, complete with the Chant which the Church provides, etc., WHY IS SUCH A SPECTACLE SO LAMENTABLY RARE? Why do we spend our time here proposing the merits of Amazing Grace and On Eagles' Wings? {This is the same exercise, it seems to me, as proposing the merits of Hitler and Mussolini, respectively. One was solidly traditional awfullness, while the other was a new form of whiny nonsense.}
As a continuation of my note about there being significantly more important issues than Latin masses and limbo, the Philadelphia District Attorney has unfortunately published on-line the grand jury's report on the sex abuse scandal in our Archdiocese for the world to read.
The Grand Jury's Report on Clergy Abuse in Philadelphia
Full Text Documents | The Grand Jury Report
The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office released the following files as part of the Grand Jury report, all as PDFs. Note: For many of these PDFs, the contents begin on page 2. To search a PDF, click on the binoculars in the PDF toolbar.
The Grand Jury Report, 1.9 MB, 424 pages http://www.realcities.com/
multim...jury_report.pdf
Catalogue of Sexually Abusive Priests, (Appendix A) 635kb, 97 pages http://www.realcities.com/multim.../
appendix_a.pdf
List of Assignments (including Parishes) of Sexually Abusive Priests, (Appendix B) 151 kb, 27 pages http://www.realcities.com/multim.../
appendix_b.pdf
There are added appendices and references to follow-up reports at:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquir...er/
12644502.htm.
The report is quite graphic so if you read it be prepared to be shocked.
Not too many years ago, well, ...maybe it was...
Small Catholic group at the local secular University. Two good Ukrainian Greek (Byzantine rite) Catholic students wanted to teach their fellow 'Latin Rite' Catholics how to sing/chant/pray the Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God, in the (english) vernacular, set/adapted to the old melody (well, it sure sounded old, and quite lovely). They sang part of it for the group. Beautiful, simple. They were from a special choir, so did it well.
Somebody said/asked: 'Why doesn't our Roman Catholic branch have something like this today, so beautiful, sacred, and mysterious sounding?' (Guess who asked that? *LOL*) The young Roman Catholic priest in charge said something like this in response, 'We are taught to take the mystery out of the Mass'! This was the modern way. To which one of the (seemingly shocked) Ukrainian Catholic singers replied strongly 'Father, you cannot take the Mystery out of the Mass!!!?'
It made me think......
The Roman Catholic priest was not there much longer (he really was not a 'bad' person, on the contrary. I do not want to falsely depict him), but I personally cannot remember him allowing the group to do the Akathist Hymn. Nope. We prayed it later, with a Ukrainian Catholic priest, who was invited in special (by the 'shocked' Ukrainian Catholic, who else?)one afternoon to try to teach us how to chant it.
May God have mercy on us. End of this story, I hope you enjoyed it.
Dear Convergent;
Thanks....
I honestly care (I am angry, depressed, shocked...), but what should I be doing? How do we 'fight' or stop this horrible evil? I am barely a layperson, and a third-rate post-Vatican II alienated 'Catholic'.
I am at a loss for words; thus my "copy and pasters". Trying to shed some light on all this darkness. I am very sad.
May God have mercy on us, and help.
Fr Spirit of Vatican II:
The priest facing the people -- isn't this closer to the practice of the early church than the priest with his back to them?
I don't know, but why should we imitate what the folks in the catacombs practiced (as someone said 'you can't turn back the clock')?
The present problems with the liturgy will be solved when we learn from Anglicans the importance of scriptural culture, well-prepared sermons, respect for beauty of language, decoration and music, and above all the joy of lay participation in the liturgy.
I have no difficulty in lay vocal participation. My parish in the early and middle 1960s had the dialog Mass. I don't think I've ever been to an Anglican service, so I haven't the experience to comment on the other things you mention.
The ideologically driven, reactionary cult of obsolete liturgies is doing nothing to make the current liturgy more beautiful and spiritual. It has given the Latin Mass a bad name.
I see very little fidelity to Scripture and to seeking the will of the Lord in matters of worship in this fetischism of a vanished past.
If you don't want to discuss these questions, just say so, instead of using cliches and insults against the commenters here.
Convergent, if you don't think this topic is really worth discussing in light of other important topics out there, then just don't participate in the discussion, okay? Certainly don't try and change the subject so drastically.
Mike,
The 'economic' argument for the TLM is Keating's, not mine. I recognize a certain plausibility in it, though see its limitations, such as you note, as well. Certainly it cannot be the basis of the traditionalist apologia for the restoration of the TLM. I do think one could argue for the importance of restoring the "benchmark" for the "reform" called for in V-II, which has been all-but-lost, and that a circumstantial "free market" case can be made that a restored TLM could improve the reverence of the Novus Ordo (possibly).
My question is this: What is Prof. Duffy basing this prediction on? He's a pretty careful fellow, so there is some reason to pay attention to this.
But the squib doesn't give any substantive basis for his prediction. Seems pretty pie-in-the-sky to me.
You have a wondrously self-serving Catch-22 at work here:
(1) the clergy says, there's no demand for the tridentine rite from the laity, not even any demand for a sponge-bathed, gussied-up NO, so why should we exert ourselves to those ends?
(2) the wretchedly catechized laity says, "the triden-wha?"
(3) the clergy says "There! -- you see?"
If the tridentine rite is going to make a comeback, or if the NO is ever going to appropriate for itself a dimension of dignity, mystery, to say nothing of reverence, then it is not enough to sit and wait for the laity to demand it. The clergy has to get behind its leader, the Pope, frame the issues as he has, and "sell" them to their parishes. This, I am more and more convinced, they will not do.
For the clergy in America, Benedict's papacy is "Hurricane Benedict" -- a distinct threat to their "semper fi" status quo -- and it is time to batten down the hatches and weather the storm. Benedict will be "of happy memory" soon enough, and then they can get back to the business of desacralizing the sacraments, protestantizing the liturgy, and turning Roman Catholicism into a franchise operation -- all those non-mysterious things they've learned how to do as a result of their forty-year "engagement" with modernity.
Oh by the way, "On Eagle's Wings" is a truly gorge-risingly dreadful hymn. Why not just sing "Wind Beneath My Wings" and be done with it?
Like I said, On Eagle's Wings is nice enough.
On the other hand, "nice" comes from "nescius" (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't), which I think means something like "silly" or "foolish."
Hello again. I thought some here might find this of quote of interest, written some time ago. I happen to agree with it (Thanks!):
“If an angel allowed me one suggestion as to what more than anything else would most quickly restore the sense of the sacred to the Mass it would be this - to do away with Mass facing the people. I am convinced that the position of the priest at the altar is the single most important liturgical "external" symbol, the one that carries the most doctrinal baggage. To put the priest back on our side of the altar, facing with us towards God, would at one stroke restore the Mass from an exercise in interpersonal relationships to the universal prayer of the Church to God our Father. This reversion to the correct symbol wouldn't even need new or corrective legislation. It may surprise even Catholics that the turning around of the altar (or rather, of the priest) was not legislated in any Vatican II document or in any document since. The only remarks pertaining to the 'versus populum' (facing the people) mode of the altar and Mass are to be found in the 'Instruction on the Liturgy' (October 16, 1964) issued hot off the mark by the radical Cardinal Lercaro, president of the new Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, after the 'Constitution' had been passed but before the end of the Council: "It is proper that the main altar be constructed separately form the wall, so that one may go around it with ease and so that celebration may take place facing the people" [...]. That's all. Ideology, not law, transplanted the priest. As in the Protestant revolution, the radical intent was to replace the idea of an altar of sacrifice with that of a table for a community meal. In Rome, Mass is still commonly said 'contra populum', facing away from the congregation; the famous Brompton Oratory in London never departed from the tradition. Orthodox priests changed because it was made to seem hopelessly old-fashioned not to, and they thought, mistakenly, that it was a change without theological costs. With the priest facing God once more as leader of the people, the importance of the microphone will diminish, and the priest can stop making faces at us. He and we can go back to thinking only about what is happening in the Mystery.”
From: “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church” (1986, 1990), By Anne Roche Muggeridge
man with black hat: Critical Mass: When is an indult not an indult?
Phil:
Understood and agreed.
Paul (re your most recent comment):
The reasons Muggeridge gives for restoring the ad orientem posture are among those I have for favoring a restoration like that too. Even so, a reasonable balance would be in order.
The versus populum posture makes perfect sense when the priest is addressing the people. It does not make good sense, in my view, when the priest is addressing God on behalf of the people. And so I believe both postures should be used accordingly where appropriate. That's why a free-standing altar is important and why I agree with Cardinal Lercaro's 1964 remarks.
Such will, I hope, be part of the "reform of the reform" that the Pope apparently desires.
Best,
Mike
"The versus populum posture makes perfect sense when the priest is addressing the people. It does not make good sense, in my view, when the priest is addressing God on behalf of the people. And so I believe both postures should be used accordingly where appropriate. That's why a free-standing altar is important and why I agree with Cardinal Lercaro's 1964 remarks."
The priest does not need to go behind the altar to adress the people. The several parts of the Roman [traditional] Mass already included the faculty for the readings to be read facing the people (table unnecessary), the obligation for the Sermon (technically not part of the Mass) to be said facing the people, additionally to those few parts of the Mass during which the priest has to turn (as the Orate Fratres).
Alves:
Technically you are correct. But a free-standing altar is important to permit a greater use of versus populum than was prescribed in the 1962 Missal—e.g., for such moments as the Preface Dialog (not mentioned therein) and circumambulating the altar for incensing. That's why I agree with Cardinal Lercaro's remarks.
I agree with most traditionalists to this extent, however: the reform of the liturgy envisioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium was not nearly as extensive as what we ended up with in the 1970 Missal. Reforming the reform to make its connection with the old Missal more organic is vital. It would also obviate institutionalizing two Roman rites.
Best,
Mike
At the risk of exacerbating the digression above, I will add a link to the lengthy reply of the Philadephia Archdiocese in response to the grand jury report:
www.archdiocese-phl.org/grandjury.htm
Now, back to the topic at hand...
Now to reflect on part of my 'sad story' (from above):
"The young Roman Catholic priest in charge said something like this in response, 'We are taught to take the mystery out of the Mass'!"
"It made me think......
The Roman Catholic priest was not there much longer (he really was not a 'bad' person, on the contrary. I do not want to falsely depict him), but I personally cannot remember him allowing the group to do the Akathist Hymn. Nope."
I do not want to judge any person's heart, intentions, true meaning, and so on. I wish to leave the task to the Lord. I make mistakes all the time. This may be one of them.
However, my comment that "he really was not a 'bad' person", though true from my limited perspective, does not honestly put an end to the matter. No. There was more to it.
For many years after, even tonight, his unfortunate words have continued to haunt me:
'We are taught to take the mystery out of the Mass'!
'We are taught to take the mystery out of the Mass'!
The words seem accurately to reflect what so many have spoken about here.
Maybe I remember it all wrong; and perhaps I misunderstood what he meant. I hope so.
I think that Catholics are in a very dangerous crisis. I believe at times that the shadow of the Anti-Christ looms. Sin, confusion, error and ignorance abound, or so it seems. Was it always like this? Concerning the Holy Mass, I suggest we always try to be careful about what we say, and do. This applies to me especially, and God knows it.
I always lose my cool on this issue. No wonder some are calling it 'the liturgical wars'. Given the spiritual and liturgical 'damage' I have seen and experienced during my post-Vatican II life, I hate to think what could happen if it gets worse.
Perhaps I exaggerate. I wonder.
Thanks!
Paul:
The Church has confronted crises just as serious, a few even more so, before: the Marcionist heresy of the first half of the second century, in which the Roman Church itself lost half its members; the Arian crisis that started in the early fourth century and lasted at least two centuries in the West spanning the collapse of the Western half of the Empire; the utter moral degradation of the papacy in the tenth century, when it became the plaything of the corrupt Roman aristocracy; the papal schism of 1378-1414, resolved only by a council that promptly veered into a concilarism rejected by the very pope it installed; and the Protestant Reformation, occasioned by spiritual weaknesses evinced in the failure of Leo X and his immediate successors to implement the needed reforms of Lateran V.
The Church has survived all that intact. Today's crisis is no worse, though admittedly no better; indeed, I would argue that there's a greater percentage of loyal, educated laity and clergy today than in many of the crises of the past. As John Paul the Great said, quoting his Master: "Be not afraid." Just follow the Lord.
Best,
Mike
Fr Sprirt of Vatican II:
Regarding 'ideologically driven, reactionary cult of obsolete liturgies' and 'fetischism of a vanished past', Perpetua posted her proposed article for AD2000 on the Juventutem blog:
http://juventutem.blogspot.com/
2...etificavit.html
There is a generation maturing which finds solid reasons for supporting the old Missal, reasons where those cliches are irrelevant. There are confident, cheerful members of that generation who by their display of confidence and cheerfulness, argue more effectively against cliches and insults, than by stooping to that level.
As a young Traditionalist, let me just state that I find it both reaffirming and hilarious when crotchety old Boomers sneer at me for my love of the Church and all her Traditions. Keep it up, Spirit of VatII and ilk, we’ll cheerfully bury your little revolution with you. 
GFvonB, you may be right about the liturgy, but if you're talking about "burying" the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, count me out.
Where (perchance I should say "if") the teachings of Vatican II disagree with Sacred Tradition, the later (not latter) must be abandoned. However, where there is a legitimate way to read the documents of Vatican II entirely consistent with Sacred Tradition, we have an obligation to hold fast to the truth.
Santiago, I think GFvonB wasn't referring to Vatican II at all, but to Fr. Joseph O'Leary, who goes by the nom de keyboard here of "Spirit of Vatican II."
Indeed, that was my meaning. The teachings (or more properly, norms) of the recent Council (an entirely pastoral Council, according to our current Holy Father) are crumbling quite nicely on their own.
Dear Michael Liccione
Thank you very much. I suppose we Catholics have to face the unique challenges and 'darkness' of our own time, and will be held to account, before God, for the choices we make, and how we conduct the struggle. There are ways of succeeding, in Christ Jesus, that are beyond the standards of this 'world'.
"Just follow the Lord."
Thanks again!
Paul - so will all Christians have to face the challenges and be called to account before God.
Just as a point of interest, there are many Episcopal parishes throughout the country in which the mass is celebrated with the mystery and splendor that it deserves. Some notable examples are St. Paul's in DC, St. Clement's in Phila., St. Thomas and St. Mary the Virgin in NYC, Advent in Boston, Ascension in Chgo., Advent in San Francisco, St. Vincent Cathedral in Ft. Worth, St. Thomas in L.A. In some of these the altar is still against the reredos, and priests face eastward. I understand that the evidence that the early church celebrated versus populi is not as strong as thought not that many years ago. The Anglican Church, of course, was heavily influenced by the work of Vat.II, and also changed from the ad oriens position to versus pop. However, a local diocesan bishop may permit ad oriens to any parish priest. In the Diocese of Albany that is the position in the Cathedral there. Thx.
Two things:
Every Catholic is allowed to attend any licit celebration of any approved Mass.
Once you get beyond actual scholarly description of liturgy or the rubrics, almost everything else written on the subject is subjective opinion.
Of course, some of these opinions are better-informed than others, which is why we pay more attention to Benedict XVI's than to Joe Pew's.
Which is why the argument over which liturgy is "better" is futile - there's no objective decision available.
Anne,
Bravo with the exception of B16 knowing more than Joe Pew. There are a number of JP's, in my opinion, that equal or surpass him in knowledge. And infallibility in my opinion does not "come into play" with respect to liturgical issues. Actually "infallibility" has a very weak biblical foundation if any at all in my opinion but I do classify myself in the JP's with less knowledge than B16.
Fr. O'Leary asks rhetorically whether the priest facing the people isn't closer to the practice of the early church than the priest with his back to them. So ad fontes! O'Leary wants to get back to the origins. Hurrah!
On the other, hand he speaks of those who love the traditional Mass belonging to an "ideologically driven, reactionary cult of obsolete liturgies" and exhibiting a "fetischism of a vanished past."
Well, which will it be, Father, back to the sources or forward into uncharted waters?
By the way, I can't help loving Pius XII's answer to his first question (Isn't the priest facing the people closer to the practice of the early church?). Pius XII writes in Mediator Dei: "The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches, to require cruicifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer; to condemn polyphonic chants, even though they conform to the regulations of the Apostolic See.... This attitude is an attempt to revive the 'archaeologism' to which the pseudo-Synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to the synod and resulted from it, and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardina of 'the deposit of faith' entrusted ito her by her divine Founder has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.... See that your flocks are not deceived ... by a mania for restoring primitive usages in the liturgy."
I'm sorry, I was not sufficiently clear. I was speaking of the former Cdl. Ratzinger as liturgical scholar, not in general.
I have a sneaking suspicion that for most of us, infallibility touches the liturgy as much as is expedient for our own preferred Rite, and no more.
Anne,
You would make a great priest! I will continue to work on your behalf and those of other qualified members of the Catholic Church.
Convergent:
Are you the same person who posts as "BHM-Reformed" on Pontifications? You sure sound like them.
Anne's mind seems to me way too sober and logical to permit her approving your fatuous "work on her behalf." I'm "qualified" by most standards, certainly by yours, to be a priest, save for one thing: I'm twice-divorced-and-annulled. And I'd like being a priest. There's just one catch: given the Church's pastoral norms, I have no vocation to the priesthood. It's a lot more likely that such norms would change to permit men like me to become priests than they would to permit women—after all, JP2 said women's ordination is a doctrinal issue, and a closed one at that, not a disciplinary one. But I don't favor changing even the changeable norms to permit men like me to become priests. We have too much baggage to carry. So if somebody like me can say that in all sincerity and consistency, then somebody like Anne can say the same regarding a doctrinal norm that Rome has definitively re-affirmed.
But oh, I forgot: as I explained at Pontifications, since you aren't really Catholic at all, we hold no theological premises in common by which such questions can be adjudicated.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
My statement to Anne was "for all qualified individuals" of the Catholic Church. If you don't believe you are qualified then so be it.
Yes indeed, BHM Reformed and Convergent are the same. BHM are my initials. Convergent characterizes my desire for converging all religions. To do this, our Church needs to get back to its first century CE roots and fellows like the historical Abraham and Moses must be "demythisized". The Conservative Jews are making a start at this. Bless them!!!
With respect to JP2- there is no biblical foundation for infallibility as I have noted on many occasions. JP2 was a great man but infallible, NO WAY!!! Making saints out of Pio and Juan is a good example of his "fallibility" in my opinion. You might want to read some background information about these two to see what I mean.
Thanks for clearing that up, Mike. I was a little confused by Convergent's post.
Again, my main point - the proper response to the original quote is "Well, you're entitled to your opinion."
The proper response to Trads who insist that you must go to the TM is the same.
Please don't think that I am trivializing the importance of liturgy, just the futility of trying to solve the problem with subjective arguments. Especially since neither side has a canonical leg to stand on in opposing the other side.
I suppose BHM is referring to the false accusations of adultery that were leveled against St. Pio.
For myself, I'm convinced the miracles attributed to St. Pio's intercession are undeniably authentic, and that his stigmata were real.
pb, I agree with Pius XII that we cannot fetishize the early church. My sole point is that those who speak of the priest having his back to the people as if it were hallowed early tradition may not be correct; it may be a recent innovation unknown to the early church. The issue is not what is older but what is more fitting for celebration of the Eucharist.
Mike,
Actually, I did not know about the adultery accusations leveled at Pio.
The supposed stigmata and supposed miracles cause concern. You can "googlize" the situation for both "saints" to see what I mean. Some reports even question the existence of Juan.
The "economics of sainthood" also are disturbing. Medals, relics, tee shirts, baseball hats, key chains, bumper stickers etc. just seems a bit tawdry. I guess the vow of Capuchin Franciscan poverty has its limits.
Maybe you could get some support from the good Friars for a study of the Historical Jesus
Ooops, make that Jordan and drop the last sentence.
Huh? Friars for a study of the Historical Jordan?
I know some tried to argue that St. Juan Diego may never have existed, but it's been definitively proved that he did exist, and that he has living descendants. Arguing that St. Juan Diego never existed is akin to flat-earthism.
Really, you think the Church today isn't going to be thorough in considering someone's canonisation? Medieval popular devotions might have canonised saints of dubious sanctity or dubious existence, but canonisation through popular acclamation or the development of a local cult isn't how it's done anymore.
When I was a Protestant, I too regarded with disdain the population manifestations of Catholic devotion to saints. Now I revel in its tawdriness and tackiness. :-P
Same with me, Jordan. I always had great respect for the image of the Crucified -- but only the Lord Himself knows how many times I disdained those pious pictures of the Sacred Heart (and the double pictures of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart). They seemed puerile and out-of-touch; yet, I was the one who was puerile and out-of-touch.
BTW, "population" in my previous post is just another one of my crazy typos -- I meant "popular," but sometimes my brain thinks it knows better than I do what I mean to type.
And why is New Cath so chronically sour, sullen and bitter? What is really "making his blood boil" , as he puts it, is no doubt his complete inability to address or refute any of the observations put forward here, combined with a touch of homosexual panic. In any case, anger is a poor counselor, and he would do better to calm down before he posts his venomous and often calumnious messages.
I do not think his gayness is the most important thing about RH Benson or anyone else for that matter. I merely pointed out that he lost his Catholic following because he was perceived as gay and that his new Catholic following are trying to banish that perception -- in both cases for bigoted reasons. This does no service to an appreciation of Benson's talents as a novelist.
oops, wrong thread
Jordan,
Are the descriptions of Pio and Juan's miracles posted somewhere on the web? I am curious as to what they were and how many. I can't find a web site for Congregation of Causes of Saints. More Vatican secrets?
As I recall, at or around the time of their canonisations, ZENIT carried stories about the miracles attributed to St. Pio and St. Juan Diego's intercession. But I don't know if the ZENIT website archives from that year are still available.
Sainthood, relics, tackiness -- there is nothing new about that combination -- and it is useless to rail against it. I always think of Lourdes as the Church's great success in raising popular religion to a dignified theological level. Lourdes is a place of the Church, not of an offbeat cult. Or at least that is what I felt in Lourdes in 1973.
Jordan and Spirit,
Thanks for the information. It is greatly appreciated. ZENIT has archives but not a search engine.
Added notes:
Of the thousands of crutches left by those "cured", only 66 total Lourdes-related miracles have been "authenicated" !!!! And one must wonder if they hyped the cure of the lame, how many of the 66 are real? http://www.catholic.org/featured...ine.php?
ID=1252
There also appears to be limits to miraculous "powers". e.g. there has never been to my knowledge the replacement of an arm or leg. And most if not all the miracles of JC have come under question from critical analysis of the reported events.
Commenting by HaloScan
