Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Any idea what are the contents of this agreement alluded to in the final section of the article?
I have never been to an SSPX chapel and because of their irregular situation would hesitate to attend one, however you have to admit that they are doing their best. They are bishops, priests, and faithful who have been scandalized by vast changes Pope Paul VI himself called "innovation" and "novelty." Popes of centuries past taught Catholics to flee from such words, as if they were inspired by satan. I think a very liberal and understanding approach should be taken towards reunion with the SSPX. I seriously believe they did what they had to keep a clean conscience, even if their conscience was malformed.
I disagree with the term Lefebvrists. The attitude of the SSPX was not "founded" by Lefebvre and sprung from the hearts of scandalized faithful.
As for modernist vs eternal Rome, you have to admit that communion on the hand, versus populum, and etc CANNOT be part of the Eternal Rome, they are innovations and novelties, which LOOK very protestant.
I love and pray for the Pope and last I heard the SSPX does too.
I have lots of criticism about the way they handle the crisis the Church is in, but I felt it necessary to give a brief apologia for them.
I mean seriously, look at the language in this document:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
P6691126.HTM
Trad,
I'm going to make some very fine distinctions here. Please read carefully so as not to misinterpret what I am saying.
This is where an appreciation of tradition and the prudential arguments for a continuation of the developed traditional practice needs to be balanced as well with historical perspective on that which might vary from that developed tradition so that we aren't making statements or claims that, in the end, are off base.
While I can appreciate the importance of the two issues you are raising (and agree with their prudential, liturgical and theological importance and the ends which you are advocating) let's keep in mind some proper distinctions.
On the issue of versus populum, do look up Fr. Lang's excellent book. Here one must distinguish between the eschatological and cosmological orientation of the liturgy (which does not necessarily preclude any particular physical direction, as can be seen from history where this "accidental" direction sometimes occured, not by a principle of facing the people, but by a principle of facing the East) and between a shift in liturgical focus: ad populum; to the people.
These are two separate issues, even though the one or other practice can help or hinder it. (And that is where the prudential argument enters in, and the argument for the desireability of the traditional practice of ad orientem.)
Likewise can a similiar issue be stated with regard to communion in the hand. We should indeed recall that it does have historical roots in the Church -- but that this practice eventually developed and changed. Our argument again, here, is for this development, based again upon arguments from tradition, prudence, theology, practicality, catechetical value, etc.
But yet again, it is not an inherently protestant issue.
With those qualifications in mind, it isn't possible to state, as you have, "that communion on the hand, versus populum, and etc CANNOT be part of the Eternal Rome, they are innovations and novelties..."
There are valid and very powerful arguments that can be made for those two issues but this is not one of them.
It's important that our defense and argumentation on such matters be historically, theologically and traditionally informed.
Shawn:
In your argument there lurks the idea that historical research warrants change in liturigical practice. At least this is the way it seems to me. Correct me if I am wrong. Does this not in effect places the liturgy in the hands of historians? But out of this mode of thinking comes the idea that the liturgy can be engineered to achieve goals which are in essence sociological rather than spiritual and theological. However, Pope B. XVI seems to be saying that liturgical engineering is never justifiable. The liturgy develops and ought to develop organically.
To face the people in order to face the East in order to stress the escatological dimension of the mass is one thing. To face the people in order to rid people of supersition is another. The latter seemed to be the motivation in the mind of most of the clergy in the wake of Vatican Council II. What is the good of trying to suppress superstition when in reality everything that does not lead to the encounter with Christ is for a Christian nothing but superstition? For the telic end of Xtian life consists in seeing nothing but God or at the very least in seeing all things in Him. All else is superstition.
The eastward position in fact symbolizes the meeting with Christ the Light which ever springs from the East. That symbolism was handed down by tradition. Sometimes it was not always possible to achieve this for architectural reasons. But as you say that was an accident.
Now if we can agree that the post-Vatican II practice of facing the people was not initiated in order to maintain Church tradition with respect to the eschatological dimension of the mass any more than the Anglican practice of the priest kneeling at the "northend" of the communion table was, then I think we can accept "that communion on the hand, versus populum, and etc CANNOT be part of the Eternal Rome, they are innovations and novelties..." In other words we know what Trad's trying to get at, why quibble?
Trad - While I agree completely with the goal of restoring the sanctity of the Mass, I cannot agree with some of what is declared to be tradition and ergo right and proper.
At the Last Supper, Christ probably did not place the bread on the tongues of his apostles. Apologies to Michaelangelo, but they likely did not all sit on the same side of the table. These are traditions which started somehow - perhaps as novel innovations iin their day. So did the tradition of selling indulgences which, for many years, was staunchly defended by the Church. I doubt we want to reach back to that particular tradition.
Even the terms we use can be somewhat awkward. As a traditionalist, you might be expected to support the tradition of obedience to the Pope. Yet you call for a "liberal and understanding" approach towards those who violated it. Does that average out to being a moderate?
I don't mean to pick on you in particular. But so many folks have thrown stones about this great cardinal and that horrid bishop, etc., sometimes I think we lose touch with the fact that there can be good faith and Good Faith on all sides.
When during the Credo I say that I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, that's what I mean. Peter and Paul had some truly momentous differences in their time but it did not lead to schism, excommunication and unending diatribes. Perhaps we should learn from them that the path to heaven is wide enough for us to walk side by side. Single file is not always required.
JohnK - I don't think the Church ever endorsed the sale of indulgences but rather the indulgences were granted to those who gave a donation to the Church. There is a significant difference - donating money can be considered an act of charity. They would still have to fulfill the other requirements of plenary indulgences - utter abhorrence of all sin, going to confession, praying for the pope's intentions etc.
While there were certainly abuses in practice, I don't think there is inherently wrong with giving indulgences for acts of charity.
Cardinals Ricard and Lustiger are snakes in the grass, as are all the French Bishops who tried to derail the "Moto Proprio".
Trusting these men is like trusting a cobra not to bite!
I sincerely hope that Benedict XVI knows these men for what they are with regard to this issue, and is prepared to issue the Moto Proprio giving total freedom to the Tridentine Latin Mass with or without their "permission".
Afterwards, when the people rejoice at the return of the TRUE Catholic Mass, I hope these men one by one get their walking papers from the Vatican. If some resign in protest, so much the better.
Daniel:
There is a difference between granting indulgence as a result of penance and charity and reminding people of their loved ones in purgatory end then encouraging them to ”donate” in order to get an indulgence for them! The “abuses” where, in my opinion, well known by the Church, and the Church did little to stop them. Enough on that.
In general I find it strange that not many consider the fact that the differences between The Roman Catholic Church and SSPX are greater than just a difference in liturgy.
SSPX may pray for the Pope, but in reality they don’t recognize his authority, they also reject many of the teachings of Vatican II. This is a greater problem than the liturgy! The liturgy has become the most visible symbol of the difference, but the differences go much deeper than that, this is obvious if you take a look at the homily given by Abp Lefebvre at the episcopal consecration in 1988 and also if you look at some of the information from SSPX. Abp Levfebvre and the bishops of SSPX actually expresses doubts regarding the validity of the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II!!!
This doctrinal difference, and others, is a much bigger obstacle to reconciliation than the liturgy. Bear in mind also that a lot of the identity of SSPX lies in the fact that they represent the tradition and the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II has left tradition and become modernist.
In the end it is up to SSPX to decide if they WANT a reconciliation or if they are happier in opposition…
Kenjiro,
What has Cardinal Lustiger said about this issue? We know he had an audience with the pope, but what he said was not disclosed, as far as I am aware.
Lustiger is a "living saint", if his manner and demeanour during the celebration of Mass is anything to go by.
Incidentally, while archbishop, the relics of the crown of thorns were routinely exposed for public veneration at his cathedral in Paris. I don't know if this practice continues today.
Kenjiro said:
"Afterwards, when the people rejoice at the return of the TRUE Catholic Mass ..."
So let's see: I suppose Masses celebrated according to the missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI are all FALSE Catholic Masses?
Come to think of it, since your expression "the TRUE Catholic Mass" indicates that there's one and only one such TRUE Catholic Mass (I assume you mean the so-called Tridentine Rite), it would follow that the Carthusian Rite of Mass, the Dominican Rite of Mass, the Cistercian Rite of Mass, the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil, et al., are all FALSE Catholic Masses.
Thus we see the wisdom of Mr. Tribe's recent recommendation that we exercise caution and restraint in the language we use in these matters. It's all too easy for overstatement and absurdity to creep in.
I, for one, have had enough of the idiotic expression, 'Mass of All Times'. There is no such thing.
In relation to the French Bishops, this article is on the front page of the UK newspaper, "The Catholic Herald":
THE CATHOLIC HERALD 5 JANUARY 2007
“Pope picks up the phone in defence of the Old Rite”
BY MARK GREAVES
POPE BENEDICT XVI has spoken by telephone to a number of French bishops to persuade them to accept a wider use of the Tridentine Mass, it has been claimed.
The Pontiff brought French bishops who oppose the Tridentine Mass "to a reluctant but decisive change of view", according to the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP), an organisation of Old Rite priests that the Pope strongly supports.
It is widely expected that a papal document will soon be released to allow priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass - using the pre-Vatican II1962 Latin Missal - without the explicit permission of the local bishop, though probably only in the low-key setting of a "private" celebration. The document, which will be released motu proprio, or on the Pope's own initiative, has caused concern among bishops in France, where traditionalist groups are particularly active.
But efforts by the French episcopate to "torpedo" the initiative have failed, according to Videre Petrum, the FSSP's British newsletter.
"It is said that the mild but persuasive words of Pope Benedict, who personally spoke by telephone to many of the most intransigent enemies of tradition among the bishops of France, worked a sort of miracle, and brought them to a reluctant but decisive change of view, or at least to a recognition of the limits of disobedience," the newsletter said. Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, a former prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said last month that the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission had discussed the document and would pass on its conclusions to the Pope.
The cardinal added that he did not expect the commission, set up in 1988 to oversee Vatican relations with traditionalists, to discuss the document any further.
Commentators say priests will be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Rite without permission at "private Masses" that would be nevertheless be open to the public.
The proposed reform would put pressure on the bishops of England and Wales to adopt a more welcoming stance towards the FSSP, which currently has only two priests based in London.
Thanks to Trad for posting that link to Changes in the Mass for Greater Apostolate by Pope Paul VI. I had never read the official change-over before, and as Trad points out, the wording is remarkable. I can imagine how shocking it would have been to read this in 1969. Wow. I hope we consider how confusing and shocking it may be for many in the Church when the Classical Latin Mass is brought into greater use once again.
Sursum Corde
Proklos,
I only have a minute, but what I am speaking of is this:
In determining whether something is inherently non-Catholic or anti-Catholic, we have to have not only a theological understanding, but also take a historical view.
For example, it would be ridiculous to state that communion in the hand is fundamentally non-Catholic or contrary to Catholicism given that, historically, it has been practiced in the Church.
The focus in those kinds of issues ought to be on the theology that underlay a practice, an argument from tradition for the practice, and an argument for the practice as best supporting the theology.
Using such a method, one would argue (for example) for the common direction of priest and faithful, not because anything else is inherently non-Catholic (which would result in awkward situations thereby for various Roman basilicas in history, including up until the present), but because of the eschatological and cosmological importance of the East, the development of this to a "liturgical East" symbolized in common direction of priest and people, and any other arguments (practical or liturgical) of how this might be more easily contravened and comprimised by the priest facing toward the people.
Incidentally when I say argue for the practice, I mean the practice of communion recieved in the mouth by the hand of the priest.
Alcuin:
There is a big difference between saying that a legitimate plurality of liturgies exists, and saying that the New Mass should be part of it. In its form, content, and circumstances of origin, it is radically different from all of the venerable rites that you listed.
Besides, the people who have an active interest in preserving the varied historic liturgies are traditionalists, whereas the New Mass partisans have destroyed or corrupted them to the best of their ability.
I think I am done posting comments on this blog. In fact, I wonder if having comments where people can talk trash does more harm than good. There is a reason why serious academic journals have peer-review process: the reputation of a journal is based on the work of its contributors. And since I take it that NLM is a serious group I might suggest doing something similar for comments: letting anyone one off the street say "The pope/cardinal/bishop/priest is an idiot or 'snake in the grass" doesn't do anyone any good. It just makes the speaker and the forum look bad. One might respond that "Well, the truth hurts." However, statements like the above are given without documentation or analysis and as such merely vacuous display of emotions.
This is my last post, although I will continue reading the articles on the main page I will avoid the comments.
The newspaper article makes the persistent error that the TLM was the mass in use "prior to Second Vatican Council",when the oly mass celebrated at VII besides the Eastern Rites and the Ambrosian was the TLM.It remained so until 1965.Its futile to get the media to get it straight ,much like calling NFP the "rythym" method. Cardinal Lustiger is an outstanding cardinal who had to clean up his diocese when he was appointed.Some of his auxiliaries quit in protest!He refused to send his seminarians to his own seminary.He was no CEO-bishop but a deeply pastoral one.Once,though,he was called in by JPII who told him he was disappointed that he had signed (along with the other Frnch bishops) their questionable catechism.Lustiger,reportedly was ashamed he signed it becausre the other bishops were signingit.However,in this great prelate's story there was a puzzling and disturbing fact:he opposed the TLM and was one of those responsible for having JPII shelve it.Now he attempts to do the same.Why? It must be in the wine.The hatred in France toward the Traditionalists must be unbelievable. But his obstinacy with regards to the TLM and his role in stopping the indult have removed him from my list of heroes.
Comments like "Paul VI and Bugnini were idiots", "Cardinals Ricard and Lustiger are snakes in the grass" and "...people rejoice at the return of the TRUE Catholic mass" are truly unfortunate choices of language.
No cause has any credibility if it is not charitable first.
A co worker recently told me that she hopes that a Moto Proprio about the 1962 Missal will not be printed because it would validate people who are "incredibly judgemental of everyone else in the pews." Comments like the above only reinforce her perception.
Perhaps all of our causes would be aided if lovers of Traditional Catholic worship did not act, write or speak in such tragic ways.
Daniel said:
"In its form, content, and circumstances of origin, it is radically different from all of the venerable rites that you listed."
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the Carthusian Rite. It's even more stripped down than the so-called "novus ordo." It doesn't even have an offertory. In very many respects, whether in its pre- or post-reform versions, it's quite similar to the current Missal.
The real issue with the current Missal isn't all the nonsense one hears about it. It's that it was arranged by monks and (probably unintentionally) for monks. For men immersed in lectio divina, meditation, and the other hours of the liturgical day, the current Missal provides ample spiritual, euchatistic sustenance. Alas, what's sufficient for monks isn't so for the majority of lay people, who are conscious of God for an hour a week, at most.
Anonymous, I am in full agreement.
I should correct my previous post. The Carthusian Rite does have an offertory, consisting of a single prayer (the 'In spiritu humilitatis', if I'm not mistaken). It's still less than what's in the current Missale Romanum.
Alas, what's sufficient for monks isn't so for the majority of lay people, who are conscious of God for an hour a week, at most.
I thought the new Liturgy of the Hours was designed to take care of that little problem.
El Jefe - "All it takes for evil to triumph in this world is for good men to do nothing."
You are correct that this is not a peer-reviewed journal. Its creator has decided to let it be a forum of dicussion rather than a single voice. That can be a good thing.
Admittedly there are posters who go to extremes. Their uncharitable comments are more damaging to Catholicism than those they oppose. Visitors here who are trying to learn would quickly decide that those who seek a more traditional approach to tre liturgy are wackos who disrespect anybody who holds a different view - even those who might be Princes of the Church.
Fairness demands that those visitors have a chance to see that there are cooler heads amongst those who seek change.
I do hope that you will reconsider you decision not to post.
The comments by Phillip and the article He attached, if true....and probably they are...is wonderful.
It proves that the Pope really is working to bring people around to the way things should be.
I must confess, I thought before reading this, that Benedict was just cringing in fear of the negative reactions, and deciding to do nothing about returning to the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I'm glad to have read this....it makes me think worlds better of Benedict XVI.
As for my comment about the Tridentine Latin Mass being the TRUE Catholic Mass...yes, I believe it is the true Mass of the Church. If you consider the tremendous outpouring of Grace it (and the Rites before it, and accompanying it) produced in the centuries up until Vatican II, and the enormous contributions to Faith life, and the arts, architecture, learning, music, religious practice etc., then yes, it is the true Mass of the Church.
Having said that, I am not (repeat NOT), saying that the Paul VI Mass (Novus Ordo) is invallid, sinful, heretical etc. I'm just saying that on face value over the last 40+ years, the results have been a complete collapse and turning away from the Faith. It has been as if a power plant (the Tridentine Latin Mass) was turned off, and replaced with nothing. Any non-biased observere looking at face value at the Church over the last 400 years since the Council of Trent up until Vatican II will see an almost unbroken line of growth, spirituality and zeal. Looking at the last 40 years we see a total collapse.
Just look at the USA Catholic Church in two or three areas.
Look at the state of priestly and religious vocations(men and women), Catholic parish schools, and Mass attendance.
Compare the great explosion of growth from about 1840 until 1970, and then again, from 1970 till now. It will shock most people to the ground! It did me.
On a personal note, I live near a great old Irish-American parish....a great Gothic building built in stone.
It has a huge church, rectory, convent, and 2 schools. I did alittle research in the PJ Kennedy Catholic Directory about this parish.
IN 1950, there were 9 priests in residents, in 1962, 11, 2006...2
IN 1950 there were 22 Sisters of Mercy in the school, 1962, 40, 2006...0.
School enrollment: 1950, 1,175, 1962, 1,411, .....2006.. (closed since 1989).
This can be duplicated thousands of times.
I feel sorry for the Irish immigrants who built the parish in the 1880's, only to see it as it is today.
It makes me sad, and makes me wonder.
Why ? Was all the reforms worth it all? Not!
Apologies to Michaelangelo, but [the Apostles] likely did not all sit on the same side of the table [at the Last Supper].
Msgr. Klaus Gamber presents persuasive evidence in his book The Reform of the Roman Rite that they did indeed sit on the same side of the table.
Kenjiro,
Recently I've looked into Bugnini's Reform of the Liturgy in order to understand how the Office was revised -- it makes detailed and interesting reading. In revising psalmody, it seems that the work groups and Consilium looked carefully at Anglican, Reformed, and Taizé practice regarding the use of imprecatory and historical psalms. It appears the Consilium pretty much followed the Anglican lead in bracketing these psalms and verses in various ways.
That's just one small example. Multiply this approach across liturgical practice and you get fewer perceptible differences overall.
Maybe there are real benefits to this kind of ecumenism I'm not aware of. Personally, it strikes me as superficial -- and potentially destructive, because any insider or outsider could look at the situation and conclude "eh, what's the difference?"
Result: the RC brand image weakens, and when it weakens, consumer brand loyalty (fidelity) diminishes and eventually vanishes. You end up in a state of religious consumerism where fidelity is seen as fairly arbitary.
It's a good way to demolish the influence of rival forms of authority, isn't it?
Kenjiro, you said "Any non-biased observere looking at face value at the Church over the last 400 years since the Council of Trent up until Vatican II will see an almost unbroken line of growth, spirituality and zeal. Looking at the last 40 years we see a total collapse."
Apart from being a rather rose-tinted view of the pre-conciliar Church (one which bishop Challoner who struggled to re-evangelize the English would not identify with), it is easy to assert that the decline of the last 40 years is due to the N.O., but it is impossible to prove it.
The seeds of destruction were already there long before Vatican II and were more to do with a widespread loss of faith rather than any resulting change in the liturgy. To be sure, the loss of faith in the Church and crisis of Catholic identity played a large part in the liturgical reform which followed the Council and that is why the N.O. Mass is the way it is - especially in its translated form.
But to this day, the crisis in the Church boils down to Catholics of all ranks not holding or teaching the Catholic faith, and this will not be changed by any liberalisation of the TLM.
The Motu Proprio, when it comes, will offer some relief to the troops in the trenches, but for most of us its practical impact will be non-existant. The real work to be done involves getting Catholics to believe as Catholics again, and when that happens the liturgy will sort itself out.
On Angelqueen about 6 weeks ago, a poster had links to pictures from the 50s of mass facing the people and tabernacles moved to the side. One very striking picture was a mass in St Paul MN from 1953. The altar was a simple table that was bare, there was no tabernacle in the center, and with the exception of the communion rail, it looked identical to what one sees today in most parishes.
So sadly, the decline was well underway by the time Vatican II started. Yes, there should have been better leadership(at all levels) to hold the line, but that didnt happen. That said, if even the 62 missal was retained word for word, but given the horrible ICEL translation, and also used the Novus Ordo rubrics,would we really be any better off today?
A lot of what was said is true. But I read once, and an elderly priest (72 yrs old.) I know who went thru the liturgical wars, and accepted everything (though He despises the Novus Ordo)told me not to expect much from the "Moto Proprio" for a year after it's publication.
Oh, the Tridentine Latin Mass will be back, and Benedict XVI might even celebrate it in St. Peter's(this priest is betting that He will, with Marini still at His side.) That would really rub salt into Marini's wounds.
But the priest said that it's the priests of His generation (between 60-70) that are most opposed to the return of the Tridentine Latin Mass. They were the ones when in their early 30's, were all for junking the whole tradition of the Church and making everything up from scratch.
He said that since most of the Bishops are in this age bracket, their opposition should be expected.
He still teaches at our seminary, and was surprised how many in His Philosophy Class (first years of seminary) are so ardently in favor of the Tridentine Latin Mass. Twenty-two young men between 18-27 and all want to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass.
The priest thinks this is ironic, because the few active priests of His generation all loath it.
I would disagree that many of the priests in the age bracket given by Mr.Shoda-60-70, wanted to junk the whole of tradition and makeit up from scratch.I believe they were content with the way things were.I know of a priest,now about 75,who is orthodox and a lover of the liturgy who shocked me when he said he would leave the priesthood if they ever allowed the TLM again.He said,"You dont know what its like to have to go into the pulpit and support wholesale changes in the liturgy which neither you nor they want.But you have to give the party line and convince them that it is going to be good.Do you know how painful it is to give up those things which you were taught to cherish and protect and then be forbidden to do them and if you do them get thrown out of the priesthood?Now after all that they want to bring the old mass back?" Many but not all of these priests went through an agony when the liturgical changes came and remain bitter over them.The most bitter priest (76) I know and a decided liberal was once a faithful traditonal priest.I lived through those times (I am 63) and I would not want to relive them.I am blessed because the parish life of mychildhood was so strong that it would not receed from my mind no matter what torture (and there was some)I would endure.I remember the TLMand I wait for its resurrection.I do agree that this age group of bishops must pass on before we will get true liturgical renewal.
http://tinyurl.com/yludjx
This is the original link, I think.
God bless!
dcs - Thank you for the reference to Msgr Gamber's book. I will be interested in reading it. One quote from it struck me as odd however:
"Back in 1947, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, pointed out that the person 'who wants to change the altar into the old form of the Mensa (the table) is going down the wrong road.'"
If there was concern about going back to an older form, when did the Mensa become the Altar? Are we as traditionalists turning into smorgasbord Catholics? Music from Pope St Gregory, ad orientam from St Augustine, etc.? If so, I cast my vote for sound systems before microphones and air conditioning as modern as we can get!
The post from Fr. McAfee above causes me to shiver:
"Do you know how painful it is to give up those things which you were taught to cherish and protect and then be forbidden to do them and if you do them get thrown out of the priesthood?Now after all that they want to bring the old mass back?"
I cannot find the words to express how strongly this has moved me.
All those faithful men, faithfully surrendering the very Mass which had nourished their vocations in the first place........
Only to behold a devastation of the vineyard.
And as if that were not enough, they must now live to see the contrary witness of faithful sacrifice- that of the Traditionalists who bore the insults, savage injustice, and eventual "excommunication" as the price of holding fast against the Revolution, vindicated.
There is something too awful about this.
In two hundred years, perhaps, a Schiller will come along and write it in five acts and it will eclipse Mary Stuart.
It is the parable of the prodigal son..
No, it is not.
Unfortunately the Mass in the United States has been politicized over the past 40 years, hence, the fights over "inclusive language", "Rainbow Masses, " etc. I know from personal experience that it wore out two of my previously faithful uncles and they simply stopped going to Mass. I believe that one of the reasons that the Pre-Vatican II Mass has gained favor with younger people is because that Liturgy is not susceptible to being politicized and hence when one attends there is a peace not found in the typical Sunday liturgy today.
I totally agree with Father McAfee that until the present generation of bishops have gone to their reward there will not likely be a meaningful reform of the reform. Too many of them were directly involved in the liturgical wars and bare scars from that era. Tom
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
