I think I see what you're saying. I know that the connection to the past is an attraction to me as a convert. But at the same time, I personally had to be eased into the Catholic Church. I attended several years (because of my wife) before considering conversion from my Evangelical Protestantism. I have my doubts whether I would have made it if we'd been going to a Latin Mass. But who knows.

Of course, NOW I'm open to the idea. I'd like to see more parishes replace one of their three or four English Masses with the Old Mass. I also see the Latin Mass as drawing a stronger connection between my parish, and a parish in France or even Africa that also uses the same Mass.



I think orthodox Catholics get frustrated by the SSPX because they're so close, but they've separated themselves from the "pillar of truth." It's like how you get more upset when your child makes a bad choice than when the neighbors child does the same thing. They take a good thing, tradition, and let it cause a dangerous break with Sacred Tradition. Also, they give ammunition to Protestants who want to get people out of the Catholic Church (I've experienced this personally).

That said, I myself have probably been too hard on them, just as we are often to hard on our family members. I thank you for pointing out Pope Benedict's position, and I pray that I might be more like him.

Pope Bendict's motu propio was probably one of the most momentous acts in modern Church history.
It is not merely addressing a form or style that was brought back for "stogy" traditionalists. It restored continuity with the Faith.
It was actually a revolutionary (dare I say, counterrevolutionary) act.

"For heaven's sake, why would they be called Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist if they had been envisioned as a regular feature of parish life?"

One could say likewise about the Extraordinary Form. Is the 1962 Missal envisioned as a passing fad, too?

I'm certainly concerned about the pastoral situation of Catholics who long for reverence and tradition in liturgy. No one disagrees post-conciliar liturgical reform was handled very badly in some communities. (But not all of them.)

Complicating a "serene" reception are political, social, and theological factors:

Schismatics made the 1962 (or 1570) Missal their rallying banner. And we know from experience that when those close to you are perceived as betraying you, the emotional bleeding can be heavy. Why else would LeFebvre or Milingo be held in such comtempt when the pope hugs the A of C or and Orthodox patriarch?

"True believers" tend to be squeaky wheels. I don't intend that label to be insulting. I think it's true of both the Left and Right. At least on the internet, advocates of the 1962 Missal can be a bitter lot. Even good souls quote conspiracy theories, doubt the validity and efficacy of the Roman Rite, and cast moral judgments on others to make them pariahs, heretics, or worse. The Left does it just as badly as the Right, in my personal experience.

I think worship traditionalists also have a theological problem on their hands: Sacrosanctum Concilium. I know Rome did not want any adjustments made to the 1962 Mass for the 1984 indult. But the truth remains that every ritual of the 1962 Missal is unreformed. Considering the flap over the Good Friday prayer, I can only imagine the splintering of the traditionalist community if they took seriously a revised Lectionary, a harmonized martyrology, the permanent diaconate, a restored catechumenate, or any of the other prescriptions of the Church.

I'm very interested to hear how Dr Woods would suggest a compliance with Church teaching on the liturgy. By all means, avoid any of the problems of the past forty years, but for the sake of Church unity, suggest something. Then do it.

And how the old calendar, old liturgy is out of sync with the new Church calendar, the new Breviary, the current Liturgy and as Todd mentioned other reforms that were instituted which would make it ill fitting to the old liturgy as is. I myself would have preferred to see a massive reform of the Pauline Mass. Not all critics of the Motu Proprio are "liberal, heterodox nutters." I myself am a critic, and I love the old Missal...I use the 62 Missal as a secondary prayerbook, and it has a prominent place in my library. I trust in the wisdom of the Holy Father, and pray that the fruit that was intended bears out. I'm on the fence.

Abbé Laguérie of the Good Shepherd Institute has recently made some compelling arguments regarding requiring concelebration in the Traditional form. I cannot read French, but an english synopsis is available here:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Of particular pertinence is his note that in Sacrosanctum Concilium (I,4)affirms that all lawfully acknowledged rites are accorded equal right and dignity and that this diversity is considered an asset: “Even in the Liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity…” (ibid I, II 37).

I would think, based on this, that revising the Lectionary of the Traditional form would amount to a denial of this affirmation

Todd, whenever I read your posts an uneasyness always comes over me long before reaching its ending.

Todd, who are you calling schismatics? Those of us who adhere to Formis Extraordinarius are not guilty of schism by our association with the Missale Romanum 1962.

Remember: Lex orandi lex credendi! I’ll leave it at that for now. :-)

David, in my opinion, there should be no changes what so ever for at least a period of 7 - 10 years to the old liturgy. Making changes would essentially destroy it. Those who advocate change are only seeking that outcome and should be viewed with suspicion.

I’m curious what changes would you like to see?

Personally, I would have preferred a more reverent Pauline Mass...taking the traditionalist complaints into consideration and stiffening the guidelines for the Pauline Liturgy. I like the EWTN Pauline Mass, I think it is quite reverent and if it were universally celebrated like that, I think we'd be better off. However, I am aware of realities. I was against changing the Good Friday Prayer in the 62 Missal. No outside group has any business telling us who we can or can't pray for. You're right though, it would be impossible to meld the two without fundamental changes to the 62 form, which would have people screaming bloody murder. I don't like the idea of traditionalists defecting en masse to Extraordinary Rite Parishes (and on the flip side, more Protestantizing types dismissing traditionalist concerns, telling them to "go to the Tridentine Church down the road"), creating an us and them atmosphere. Even many traditionalists fall into the trap of believing that there is a Pre and Post Vatican II Church....an idea that the Holy Father himself said was ridiculous. I would like to see an eventual meeting of the two Rites, Tridentine and Pauline. Not to say they should be combined, but I've heard one of the reasons for the Motu Proprio being good is that there will be some cross pollenation and influence on the Pauline Mass to be more reverent. I would like to think so.

"Cardinal Hoyos...said that priests should be making the Extraordinary Form...available even without any initiative from the congregation. That clearly contradicts the idea that there have to be X number of people who are interested before the Mass can be allowed."

With all due respect to him, Dr. Woods uses some murky language that seems to be misconstruing what the Cardinal is saying here.

If we can work off of Dr. Woods' summary of Cardinal Hoyos' statement, we can argue that His Eminence seems to be saying that priests should be saying the Extraordinary Form even if there is not an expressed desire by a "stable group of faithful." The key word that reveals this implication is "initiative." This makes perfect sense, especially when one considers the real possibility that there may be a "stable group of faithful" in a parish who would ask for the Mass to be celebrated, but do not because of fear or intimidation. As a solution, Cardinal Hoyos suggests, the priest should take the burden of initiating the request for Mass off of the faithful and simply offer it, knowing that there will be some members of the faithful who will be there.

What Cardinal Hoyos does not seem to be implying--but what Dr. Woods seems to think he does--is that priests should be saying the Extraordinary Form in a parish without a "stable group of faithful" who are interested in having the Mass said. Such a thought would "clearly contradict" the Pope's own words in Article 5, para. 1 of the motu propio:

"In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962."

To argue, as Dr. Woods seems to, that there does not need to be "X number of people who are interested before the Mass can be allowed" is to run counter to the Pope's own pastoral desire in the motu propio that communities not be divided over the issue and priests not impose a personally preferred liturgy on an unwilling community (an argument that some Catholics make against the use of the Missal of Paul VI).

The people need to be there; the people need to ask for it (if they can).

"Todd, who are you calling schismatics?"

Sedevacantists, LeFebvre followers, radical traditionalists.

"Todd, whenever I read your posts an uneasyness always comes over me long before reaching its ending."

Not a bad thing, perhaps. Especially if you're sure it wasn't something you ate for dinner.

Todd,

How do you define/describe 'radical traditionalists' - since you already distinguish them separately from 'Sedevancantists' and 'LeFevre followers'?

Once again we Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are bashed. I even see this on EWTN forums.

I did not volunteer to be one to be able to around the santuary. I believed I was being asked by my Church to help it.

I consider it a privlege to help distribute the Eucharist not a right. I also distrubute the Eucharist to the homebound. I still have a sense of awe when approaching and opening the tabernacle.

My parish has two fulltime priests and 10 Masses every weekend. At least theree of them seat 1100 people each. One can see the logistical nightmare involved in 1 or 2 priests distrubuting communion.

I would love it if only priests and deacons distributed the Eucharist. I would gladly give up this if there were enough to go around. But if unless these people complaining about too many Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist can cough up more priest and deacons, we are going to be around for a while.

I find the technical term "extra-ordinary" interesting. We tend to use it in four particular references:
1. Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
2. Extra-ordinary Demonic Activity
3. Extra-ordinary Form of the Mass
4. Extra-ordinary salvation.
Liberals think 1 & 4 should happen all the time, but 2 & 3 *never*. Trads think 2&3 happen all all the time, but 1 & 4 are absurd.

Of course, the term really has very little to do with "frequency," so much as rules or practice.

Let's start with #4. The ordinary method of salvation is to receive the Sacraments through the Catholic Church. The Church teaches, however, that it is *possible* for "extraordinary" cases of people going to Heaven without juridical ties to the Church: catechumens who die before they can be received into the Church; non-Catholic Christians who are sincerely ignorant that the Catholic Church is the true Church; virtuous non-Christians who are sincerely ignorant of Christ's role as the Savior.

To hear some Catholics, these people can *never* go to Heaven; to hear others, they go to Heaven no matter what. The Church says we can't know.

Now, let's talk about #2. Ordinary demonic activity is temptation: but each of us is being tempted at every second. According to some people, the use of "extraordinary" in this case means, basically, "never happens at all." Yet, compared to temptation, which happens to everyone all the time, if 1/100, or even 1/10 people became possessed for a limited period of time, that would still be, strictly speaking, "out of the ordinary."

Now, #1: For the most part, Mr. Woods is right about EMCs. The Church is very clear that they are only to be used under certain circumstances, and that they are overused in the US. However, "extraordinary" does not mean "never." It really means "Not the normal way of doing things, but what happens when certain conditions are met."

Same with the TLM. The ordinary way to say Mass is the current, organically grown liturgy (I'm in the camp that argues that what goes on in most churches is *not* the liturgy described by Vatican II and the GIRM). But the extraordinary form is permissible for certain reasons.

Lastly, the analogy of priestly intimacy sounds nice at first, but it doesn't hold up for several reasons. Among other things, a certain kind of intimacy is exclusive to husband and wife. But there are other kinds of intimacy which husband and wife (or wife alone) share with the children.

My impression is that the Pope, as leader of our church, unequivocally has told us what we should do, and that is what we should do. Now, not some day.

In reading these blog comments, I see egos. What in the world does one's ego have to do with the Pope's instructions? If we want exercise our God-given right to be free to do our own thing, then we should do so -- but we have no right at all to impose on others of the Pope's thinking.

About ten years ago, my wife and I had to dinner a very religious Protestant couple. He was a minister. We discussed Christian religion and I said at one point that if God had intended for women to be ministers (my literal meaning, priests), then I believed that He (Jesus) would have had one or more women as Apostles. Jesus broke every other rule in the books at the time, so why would He not have broken that one, too? Turned out the fellow's wife was preparing to become a minister. They were polite, of course, as any of us would be, but I doubt that they spent a moment in critical though about what I said. What they wanted was more important to them than what was clearly implied or, relating to the subject of this blog discussion, clearly instructed.

There are, in my humble view, far too many unrestrained egos in the American Church today, resulting in too few active parishioners who wish to follow instructions from Rome, whatever they may be.

My impression is that the Pope, as leader of our church, unequivocally has told us what we should do, and that is what we should do. Now, not some day.

In reading these blog comments, I see egos. What in the world does one's ego have to do with the Pope's instructions? If we want exercise our God-given right to be free to do our own thing, then we should do so -- but we have no right at all to impose on others of the Pope's thinking.

About ten years ago, my wife and I had to dinner a very religious Protestant couple. He was a minister. We discussed Christian religion and I said at one point that if God had intended for women to be ministers (my literal meaning, priests), then I believed that He (Jesus) would have had one or more women as Apostles. Jesus broke every other rule in the books at the time, so why would He not have broken that one, too? Turned out the fellow's wife was preparing to become a minister. They were polite, of course, as any of us would be, but I doubt that they spent a moment in critical though about what I said. What they wanted was more important to them than what was clearly implied or, relating to the subject of this blog discussion, clearly instructed.

There are, in my humble view, far too many unrestrained egos in the American Church today, resulting in too few active parishioners who wish to follow instructions from Rome, whatever they may be.

I guess you could call me a "follower" of Arch.LeFebvre,as I drive 45mi.one way to attend the Mass I served as an alter boy 57 years ago.I was around when the "Novus Ordo" was created, with the "help" of Protestants and their friends in the Masonic Order. I tried the N.O.,which is very close to where I live,but couldn't quite stomach the farce they perpetrated on the Catholic worshipers. I am now at the age where I won't even buy green bananas,so I don't have time for all the silly banter about "schismatic",or who is a "follower of LeFebvre". I only know I feel quite comfortable with the Mass I have known since I was a child,and the Mass my father knew when he was a child,and my grandfather etc, etc,etc. So when the time comes for this
"schismatic" to greet St.Peter,I would much rather have Archbishop LeFebvre at my side than a N.O. bishop like Weakland or Mahoney.

#######
#######


Why ignore what Father Malachi
Martin had written about the
Roman Catholic Church?

The traditional mass would be
but a bandage on a mortal wound
that is the Church today.


#######
#######

"Once again we Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are bashed."

Indeed. I consider it a mark of likely immaturity.

I remember thirty years ago when people would shift in lines in my home parish to receive from the priest. As if the Person in the Sacrament was second fiddle to the person handling the hosts.

It reveals a lack of focus on the Mass as worship centered on God; the supporting players become all-important. Usually we liberals are criticized for such an outlook. I think we see it can be held by the self-styled orthodox, too.

"How do you define/describe 'radical traditionalists' - since you already distinguish them separately from 'Sedevancantists' and 'LeFebvre followers'?"

I was thinking Mel Gibson's chapel. I think his dad accepted the pope, but split from Rome prior to '88. I was trying to cover all the bases of conservative schism, not just the two well-known ones.

This is an interesting accusation. I was not aware that the Masons and Protestants were involved in formation of Catholic Masses especially since both of these groups tend to see the Catholic Church and "the enemy".

I tried the N.O.,which is very close to where I live,but couldn't quite stomach the farce they perpetrated on the Catholic worshipers

I hear this acccusation(or similar)alot about the Novos Ordo Mass, but noone can explain why it is a farce other than it is not in Latin, the "original" language of the Mass. By the way, the orginal language of the Mass is Greek actually.

I am a post Vatican II Catholic (actually I was born in the middle of Vatican II; 1964) so I really only know the Novus Ordo Mass although I even I recognize that it is not now the Mass I know as child. A lot of abuses of the form have been allowed destroying it's reverence. I look forward to attending a Latin Mass someday when it is offered in my area.



Although I have no problem with the Latin Mass or anyone who wishes to attend them. The above argument is not a good one to use to support dissident movements. The "comfortable" argument can be used to justify all kinds of wrongs. I'm sure prior to the civil war a lot of Americans were "comfortable" owning slaves and didn't want that to change that since it is what their father and grandfather's, etc. did.

There's so much here to talk about. Let's start with EMs:



What this is saying, in case you missed it, is that Extraordinary Ministers of Communion should trained, a last resort, and rare.



Clearly, these are different applications of the term. Extraordinary in the case of the Mass is more like "Extraordinary Magisterium" than "Extraordinary Minster of the Eucharist" - less commonly used than "Ordinary Magisterium", but of a higher order.



When one recognizes how inappropriate it is to receive from an EM instead of the consecrated hands of a priest, it becomes something that they do not wish to give sanction to. Additionally, for some of us, the unnecessary presence of EMs is a distraction of a magnitude that makes a proper disposition for receiving the Eucharist quickly evaporate.

I have been exclusively attending Indults/Extraordinary Form Masses since 2004, and there has never been a situation, even in standing-room-only parishes, where communion was "excessively prolonged", thus necessitating a non-ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

In most parishes, EMs exist more out of a sense of inclusivity than necessity.

There is, at the very least, anecdotal evidence to support this theory. Jean Guitton, a French Journalist and close friend of Pope Paul VI, is reported to have said:



We know that Protestants were invited to attend the second Vatican Council, and that in some committees their considerations were taken into account. I would not say that they were directly involved in the drafting of the Novus Ordo Missae, however.

As for Masons, Archbishop Bugnini was the one who drafted the schema for Sacrosanctum Concilium and who was the principal author of the Novus Ordo Missae. There has been much ink spilled over whether he was suspected to be a freemason by both John XXIII and Paul VI, and if I'm not mistaken he himself talked about these charges in his own memoirs. He was eventually given a symbolic banishment, removed from his position at the Consilium and sent to be the papal nuncio to Iran in 1975.

As Michael Davies recounts, "Rumours soon began to circulate that the Archbishop had been exiled to Iran because the Pope had been given evidence proving him to be a Freemason. This accusation was made public in April 1976 by Tito Casini, one of Italy's leading Catholic writers. The accusation was repeated in other journals, and gained credence as the months passed and the Vatican did not intervene to deny the allegations."

Considering how openly the Communists admitted to infiltrating the Church and her seminaries to try to bring Catholicism down from the inside, the charges of freemasonry doing the same are hardly outside the realm of possibility.

I remember my fathers horror when some Italian clergy determined that the "Hootenanny" was our traditional folk music and would be used in our Mass. I only wish he could have lived to see the restoration of the old Mass.

Thomas,
Your interpretation of Cardinal Hoyos' remarks may be correct or Dr. Woods' interpretation may be correct. What strikes me, though, is that one interpretation denies that there is any inherent value to the Tridentine rite. Maybe, Cardinal Hoyos made his suggestion because he agrees with His Holiness that the older form is a treasure and has worth far beyond whatever pastoral benefits it may bring.

So Dr Woods thinks he’s owed an apology, does he? Rather egotistical, but whatever. People were calling him and his like disloyal for years because they WERE disloyal for years! And the Pope has most certainly not said the contrary. Understanding the sensibilities of those who liked the Latin Mass is one thing, defying the authority of the Church is another. The Pope neither justified nor said he understood such, well ... disloyalty. And by relaxing the rules for saying the Latin Mass he has simply given effect to the spirit of Vatican II, allowing people to pray in the way that best suits their temperament. Equally, it should not be forgotten that the vernacular Mass was perceived in most of the world as an American imposition and a sell-out to the Protestants. There were lots of people who never liked it and now that the US is in decline, saw their opportunity to get rid of it.

For those of you who are not old enough to remember the era of the Latin Mass, this is what it was like in the Dublin suburbs in the 1950s. There was a Mass every half hour, so the thing had to be got over quickly. A gong sounded and the priest and four altar boys came out on to the altar in a vast church so full that people were standing in the side aisles. With his back to the congregation, the priest started to mumble inaudibly at high speed (that didn’t matter, nobody understood anyway!). No microphones, of course. Everybody had their own “trick” to kill the time. My mother said decades of the rosary or leafed through her prayer book (nobody said “missal”) full of memorial cards for deceased friends and relatives and “holy pictures” of various saints, sometimes with prayers to the saint in question on the back. Every so often, one of the altar boys would move the missal from one side of the altar to the other, which woke everybody up. Sometimes we sat, sometimes we stood, mostly we knelt. No sermon, of course. Then the consecration. Everybody got dead quiet. The shuffling, the fidgeting and the coughing suddenly stopped. The people standing in the aisles knelt down on the hard marble floor. In the silence, the cruets clinked on the side of the chalice while everybody held their breath (remember the old joke about two curates at the side of the altar, one full of wine and the other full of water?). Then the bells, first the host, then the chalice. Everybody started to breath and the shuffling, fidgeting and coughing started up again. At communion time, the celebrant was joined by three other priests who proceeded to distribute communion in conveyor belt style. By this time, the church door was banging every few seconds as people arriving for the next Mass looked in to see how we were getting on. Quickly, the celebrant returned to the altar and resumed Mass amid the general shuffling and whispering, while the other three continued to distribute communion. Many people only realised that the Mass was over (you could hear nothing with the shuffling and kneeling down, could see nothing with all the people standing up on the way to and from communion!) when they saw the holy joes and holy marys blessing themselves (THEY never missed a thing!). All that in 25 minutes! Was there much “religion” in that?

Thank you, Michael Kenny.

As I read these blogs, I began to feel very unique in my love for the current liturgy, yet I know almost every Catholic I know old enough to remember the days of the Latin Mass much prefers the current mass as do I. My memories of the Latin Mass I grew up with are similar to yours. (I'm 71 and was ordained in 1982, old enough to have lived with the Latin Mass, struggled through Vatican II, and learned to love the subsequent renewal of the Church)

James, thank God for Extraordinary Ministers. They faithfully bring the Eucharist to many places where it would not go if not for them. Please keep up your good work for the Lord. I wonder if a partially-hidden clericalism is present in some of these positions opposed to lay involvement.

I remember Bishop Sheen stating that "Christendom is dead" during one of his TV talks many years ago. wonder if it is possible that undergirding the nostalgia for the Latin Mass is a desire for the return of Christendom, something I suspect we all desire but are unlikely to see anytime soon. However I doubt a return to the older rite will bring a return of Christendom - actually I think it would result in even more departures from the church.

At least where I live, the current liturgy has brought Christ from the realm of being watched from afar to instead become an interior reality in the lives of our parishioners bearing the fruits of the Spirit in their lives.

I think most of us would like to have the Latin Mass available for those for whom it is very meaningful, and even to participate ourselves from time to time, but please, don';t knock the current liturgy from which we gain so much spiritual nourishment.

Agreed, but it sound as though the number, if any EM's used at a liturgy is a judgment call of the priest. How many are too many? What constitutes an extraordinary situation necessitating their use?

As a non-Catholic born in 1970, I find all the Vatican II stuff (including the New Mass) literally scandalous. It makes me think, "If I could be convinced that this is the true Church, then I could be convinced of anything."

...and how the "Good Ole Days" weren't so good. I concur, to a point. But my rebuttal is, and is the same to people for the Pauline Mass...if your mind isn't right for the Mass, that is YOUR fault, not the Church's. There was materials to both verse yourself in what was happening at the Mass, what was said, and what was going on prior to Vatican II. I don't knock the Pauline Mass, it has its virtues...and I think Vatican II was necessary. Sure I don't like some of the stuff, and I myself sit uneasily within the "traditionalist camp." This Us versus Them mentality that is taken against people who prefer the Pauline Mass and God forbid, acoustic guitars irks me...as if they are somehow less Catholic. There is a big danger in that, one that I have come back to frequently on this website.

I don't have a problem with guitars (though Vatican II does say you're supposed sing a capella), just with *how* they're used. After all, "Silent Night" was written for guitar. I've heard guitars used very effectively as secondary instruments to organs at Mass, and I've heard guitars played very softly and classically.

I just don't like going to mass and feeling like I'm supposed to be dancing around a sombrero, riding a horse, or pounding my head against a trash can.

At one parish I used to a attend, there was this 50-something man who danced like Elvis all through Mass.

And when you argue the "guitar issue," (or whatever), it boils down to "This is the way I like the Mass, and I'm not going to attend if it isn't this way."

Well, of course, with many traditinoalists, it's the same attitude. In that caes, both are equally wrong.

I want to see that the person's attitude is, "This form of worship expresses the apporpriate attitutde toward Almighty God."

Funny. When I'm on the Communion line I'm self-conscious about NOT appearing to prefer the priest (who is usually directly ahead and thus gets the bulk of traffic by default) to the lay EM (who requires a little turn to the side) -- in part precisely so that people like you can't lay that rap on me. Not unlike, I suppose, people who are loath to be thought racists lingering extra-long near a door in order to hold it open for a black person.



My, how self-styled liberals love to throw conservative phrases and concepts back at them, whether it's the letter of the law from some Vatican document (on those occasions where they agree with it), the idea of obedient submission to spiritual authorities (usually when they're suppressing some traditional practice or group), or in this case, the need for liturgical ministers to be transparent, leaving the focus on Christ.

The problem here is that the ubiquitous practice of making extraordinary lay ministers "ordinary" fixtures in and of itself discourages transparency. Indeed, more broadly speaking the liberal enthusiasm for divvying up liturgical roles so as to hand every layman a tiny slice of the clerical pie, and thus make his participation more "active" (of which project EM's are a key component), by its very nature works against transparency and Christ-centeredness.

You have to be careful about saying things like this. It is one thing to say you prefer the old rites to the new, but to say the new rites are corrupted is something else altogether. If the Novus Ordo is corrupt, this means the Mass as celebrated by hundreds of millions of people every Sunday throughout the world is leading Catholics astray.

John Paul II celebrated the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict celebrates it every Sunday. Are you accusing Benedict XVI of celebrating a rite that is Communist and Freemason influenced? Don't you think if it was, the Pope would say so?

You may not like the Novus Ordo, and you may feel the freedoms it offers are abused, but it still bears the stamp of magisterial approval. I think you are walking a fine line, and a dangerous one.

And secondly...I grew up with the Novus Ordo. Not really knowing the Latin Mass, I admit I may lack perspective. But the modern Mass has led me in the direction of faith, and it is simply wrong to bash a vessel that, for whatever its shortcomings, leads millions to salvation. Unless of course you are claiming the the Novus Ordo leads people away from salvation, in which case you are a schismatic.

I have prayed some of the Latin prayers, and sang many of the Latin chants, and I have to say that, beautiful as they may be, after a while I tire of reciting something I do not understand. Latin is a dead language, and it is crazy to expect millions of Catholics to learn Latin simply so they can say the Mass. Jesus didn't even speak Latin, he preached in Aramaic, which just goes to show you that Our Savior chose to teach in the vernacular of the people, and not in any formal or holy language of his time. He could have taught in Hebrew, right?

So if we are really going to get back to the basics, the Mass should properly be in either Aramaic, Christ's language, or Greek, the language Paul most often wrote in.

As for the Eucharistic minister thing...I live in a rural parish. Priests are in great shortage here. Our priest serves three parishes. Not three priests in a parish, three parishes to a priest. Given the breath of his duties, our pastor chooses to use Eucharist Ministers. Doesn't the priest know best the needs of his parish? Who are people who have never set foot in our church to judge what constitutes need? Too many people here slyly bashing parish priests in their choices. No priest is perfect, and I am certain many do not do things exactly as the Vatican would have it. That is human.

Again, I'm not trying to defend what every pastor worldwide is doing, but I am trying to point out that the challenges and pressures of every pastor are different. It is pretty easy to think a country pastor is an unwashed hick, but I happen to like mine, whether he is right to use Eucharistic Ministers or not.

I actually laughed out loud at that one. One of the funniest things I've read in quite some time. Perfect visuals.



That's a non-sequiter. If the Novus Ordo is corrupt, it could be neutral in its effect (conferring only sacramental graces through the reception of the Eucharist) or it could present a modest impediment to spiritual growth, despite those graces. We needn't be dualistic about it.

If the Eucharist is all we need from Mass, then the shape our liturgy takes is irrelevant so long as it does not impede the consecration of hosts and the distribution of communion. But if liturgy is about more than that - even if the composition of the liturgy itself is not essential in the way that the form and matter of the Blessed Sacrament are - then its composition effects the outcome.

Therefore a Mass that is, of its nature, less reverent or less well-suited to lift hearts and minds to contemplate (for you Von Balthasar fans out there) the "ineffable poverty of the Divine, Incarnate, Crucified Love", then it can be viewed as retarding or impeding spiritual growth in comparison with a more well-suited liturgy.

In the case of the Novus Ordo, I find this to be the case. It is not in any way intrinsically evil, but I believe it to be less effective (and perhaps, in some details even counterproductive) toward the end it should be achieving.

The statistical evidence of what has happened to the beliefs of the faithful seems to bear this out, particularly the loss of belief in the Eucharist, which is primarily encountered in the context of Mass.

These are dangerous times in the Church. Walking those sorts of lines is the inevitable reality for Catholics who care about preserving the faith. To suggest that because a liturgy has been approved that it is above criticism is hardly a position that the Church would countenance. A number of priests, bishops and theologians (including the Holy Father) have been critical of the Novus Ordo, even noting its deleterious effects on the faith.

Fair game, in my opinion, all the more so because it's valid. It would be much easier to be fix if it weren't valid, in fact. Then we could just get rid of it and start the Council-recommended liturgical reform over from scratch, and perhaps even a sense of caution, proportion, and deference to Tradition, rather than the fabrication that we got.



Read Veterum Sapientiae. It's an apostolic constitution, so it carries quite a lot of Magisterial authority.

Pope John XXIII asserts that "Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all." He also cites Pius X, and reiterates that "The Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular."

The Holy Father argues that precisely because it is a "dead language" is what makes it suitable - it is as immutable as the teachings of the Church.



The argument isn't about "getting back to the basics" or "getting back to what the very first Catholics did". It's about getting back to what the Church found, through development of doctrine and discipline, to be most efficacious.

Again, citing VS:

"The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold...In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic." It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure . . . of incomparable worth." It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity."

Frequently, that answer is "No." If it were "Yes", there wouldn't be GIRMs, Rubrics, Missals, and Vatican Instructions. Priests could just say Mass however they saw fit.

Rome is constantly trying to correct this attitude that the priest knows best in every case, and tells him when he is allowed to exercise his discretion and when he is not.

Hence, instructions like the one I cited on EMs.



They are:

a.) The Pope
b.) The heads of Pontifical Commissions, charged with making things called "rules"
c.) The bishops
d.) Vicar Generals, etc. charged with deputing authority

and finally...

e.) Lay Catholics who, because of the profound and abundant availability of juridical and instructive texts on liturgy, can, in comment boxes (or in person) point out that the Church says "X" and Fr. Friendly does "Y". Fortunately, we armchair theologians don't get to make any staffing decisions or take disciplinary action.

But we sure can bring our nerd library of Vatican documents with us to a discussion like this.



I am thrilled that you like your pastor. That doesn't in any way mean that he is right, any more than not liking him would make him wrong.

Nobody is calling priests "unwashed hicks", least of all me. There is an unfortunate ignorance of these issues in the Church, and many of the priests (and laity) who don't know are really not to blame. They're no less wrong for that, however.

Steve--you stated it very well. There is a great deal of ignorance in the Church regarding our liturgy--including it's purpose and form. So many folks think the liturgy is something that is supposed to entertain us. It's all about what WE get out of it. And usually those also do not know that there is actually a book of 'rules' that are to be followed regarding the mass.

I would venture to guess that only about 10% of the EME's in our parish have even heard of the GIRM let alone any papal documents regarding the use of the EME. Our parish abuses the use of EME's more than anywhere I've ever been. But I don't see it as something done arrogantly---but purely out of ignorance. I would even go so far as to say that I think many would NOT be EME's if they truly knew the guidelines.

And to agree with Deacon Osgood---YES! EME's are necessary, especially for visiting the sick and homebound. That is a very special ministry to be a part of and one that cannot possibly be fully covered by the priest in a parish of any significant size.

Todd, thanks for responding.

"My, how self-styled liberals ..."

Self-styled? Does that mean you think I'm a closet conservative?

Regarding "the need for liturgical ministers to be transparent, leaving the focus on Christ," it's not a new concept, nor is it one that clergy and laity both can afford to neglect.

"The problem here is that the ubiquitous practice of making extraordinary lay ministers "ordinary" fixtures in and of itself discourages transparency."

I don't agree. In fact, it might be just the opposite. Most parishes have made pragmatic choices in this regard. My current parish employs seven to nine at Sunday Mass, and my musicians still program two hymns (plus an anthem at the two big Masses). Ten minutes with ten Communion ministers means forty for a single priest. That would be a major obstacle to transparency, and it would garner comment that the Mass, seemingly, is all about the priest going it alone.

"Indeed, more broadly speaking the liberal enthusiasm for divvying up liturgical roles so as to hand every layman a tiny slice of the clerical pie, and thus make his participation more "active" (of which project EM's are a key component), by its very nature works against transparency and Christ-centeredness."

You have a mistaken notion of what liberals consider active participation. More often conservatives criticize lay people involved in ministry as usurping "ministry," as if that concept were somehow foreign to the non-ordained.

I tend to look at the squeamishness over lay people distributing Communion as an artifact of a mob mentality. "EWTN and my other traditionalist gurus bash it, so I'd better hop on board, too."

I suppose if one's liturgical experience is confined to watching concelebration by the fistful on EWTN or a handful of hardy souls at the 1962 Mass, I can understand the questions. I hate to break it to you, Todd, but many large parishes around the world have a genuine need for lay ministers. We're far more fruitful and evangelical than some might suspect.

Todd--I know you addressed your remarks to Todd A. but I'd like to jump in to share my parish experience with you and others on this thread. We have 1,800 families in our parish, 2 priests, one and one-half deacons for four weekend masses. The parish only prints about 1,000 bulletins each weekend as all 1,800 families do not attend(I do not have a mass attendance figure to share). We have at least 7 EMEs per mass. Many times the deacon(s) and/or priest will sit while the EME's distribute. Sometimes it's a "race to the finish" in the commuion line to keep up with it's fast pace. (You have to time your run/walk just right to not run into the person receiving and your "bow" to the Sacrament can be rudely interrupted by the person behind you if you are not careful. We never need a second song. For daily mass, we have at least three---to help distribute communion to all 23 of us that attend.

Would you or anyone consider this abusing the position?

As a former Catholic, I'm amused at the concern for the Latin Mass. So many of the priests of late come from countries such as Ghana, etc., that the faithful cannot understand them anyway. They might as well be speaking in tongues. Perhaps a moribund language is appropriate for a moribund faith?

I should have said, "self-styled progressives." Just a little tit-for-tat after your preceding reference to "self-styled orthodox." But think nothing more of it.



This is a pragmatic question, and it speaks to the original (and sole) ostensible purpose for lay EM's -- the avoidance of unreasonable delays indistributing Communion. It does not speak to the question of what best promotes transparency. To which question I say: the more lay ministers, the more individual motives and egos, the farther removed from the one alter Christus presiding at the Mass = the less transparency. And the more the Mass resembles a group performance of parochial Illuminati.



May I suggest in turn that you have an over-idealized, solipsistic, and unrealistic notion of the what the mass of liberals in the Church think? Just because you have carved out a super-fine definition of the perfect Orthodox Liberal (of which, naturally, you're the paragon), doesn't mean it's a representative definition.



Whew! Good thing neither of those qualifiers applies to me!



Your forbearance in breaking it to me does you credit, Todd, but I can take it. The surgeon's knife and all that. Still, the use of extraordinary ministers in parishes that "need" them according to the letter isn't really what I'm critiquing, is it? Rather the making ordinary of the extraordinary, as I think I clearly specified.

Furthermore, neither is the issue the personal fruitfulness (whatever exactly that means) or evangelicalness (ditto) of individual EM's. Rather it's the (at-root highly clericalist) practice of using the EM role as an ordinary means of lay ecclesial advancement, with its attendant theological errors and diminishment of personal transparency in the role of liturgical minister.

Thanks, Beth. Indeed, just because one parish in fifty (or whatever the long-shot ratio is) can make a reasonable case for "needing" EM's, it doesn't diminish the fact that the other forty-nine have turned a reluctant permission aimed at an extraordinary need and made it a blanket wave of approval for use in any and all circumstances.

Frankly, I have little doubt that this was the original intention of the forces that pushed the concept of the EM through the Church. Unless you want to argue that in the early 1970's parish life was truly being crippled by having to spend an extra 87 seconds on the Communion line.

Thanks for responding, Todd.

"It does not speak to the question of what best promotes transparency."

I think I did speak to it. Any number of Communion Ministers, be they concelebrants or lay people promote a certain transparency in that is becomes largely irrelevant from whom one receives. What is important is the Who that one does receive.

Sure, you can have more egos in a cadre of lay ministers. It might be more likely in a concelebrated Mass, for all we know. The foibles of liturgical ministers do not sink the reason for their role at Mass.

"And the more the Mass resembles a group performance of parochial Illuminati."

When that happens (and I have to confess I've never seen it) it would speak to the formation of the ministers, be they lay or clergy. Remedial liturgical theology, please.

"May I suggest in turn that you have an over-idealized, solipsistic, and unrealistic notion of the what the mass of liberals in the Church think?"

You may, but you'd probably be wrong. I have no doubt that unschooled Catholics (some liberals, some not) place a great degree of importance on active liturgical ministry, even to the point of misidentifying it as participation. But in professional liturgy circles, the sentiment of ministry as participation is long-dead, if it was ever alive.

When I train liturgical ministers, transparency is one of the hallmarks of service I emphasize. It is possible to carry oneself nearly invisibly at Mass, and call no attention whatsoever to what one does.

Beth, I might ask if your parish has a liturgist on staff. Your description strikes me as full of concerns. The lack of reverence in the Communion line being foremost: that should really be paced for ease and encouragement of bowing or signing.

Daily Mass sounds interesting. One priest and one deacon or EM for the chalice seems right for up to about sixty/seventy people.

"Would you or anyone consider this abusing the position?"

It just sounds like poor liturgy to me.

If you want to analyze it, giving Communion should take about five to six seconds per person. I make that at eleven per minute, give or take. If the priest were moving and the people were stationary, I think you could get another communicant or two in each minute. I think we can all do the math on a congregation of 100, 500, or 1000.

I think we have more problems with irreverent clergy and lay people than with the actual system of lay Communion ministers. I confess I don't see the fuss. But then again, parishes that hire me tend to be large, and they tend to have well-trained and reverent liturgy volunteers.

I'm available for hire to get your parish into shape through a workshop or something like that. Otherwise, I can only give you advice on what has worked for me in my parishes.

Somehow my response disappeared when I tried to post.

Steve, I have no problem with your argument. I can accept that the Latin Rite may be more aesthetically and morally pleasing than the Novus Ordo. My problem is with the implication that there is something wrong with the new rite itself.

The Norvus Ordo has the advantage of accessibility. This is no small thing. Perhaps the Church might consider using the Norvus Ordo as an introduction to the Latin Rite. But Our Lord himself told his followers that he who is not against us is for us. I always took this to mean that we as the faithful should value the positive in fellow believers, rather than nitpicking.

Even Protestant services, even those in, gulp, megachurches are not completely at odds with orthodox Catholicism. These ways are the ways towards salvation for millions and we should take care not to scoff at them. I would guess that most orthodox people would find fault with the Masses at the local Church I attend, but I find them uplifting, and in the end, this is what matters most.

It goes beyond those things, though they are important. It's about being more spiritually beneficial. And I don't constrain my thoughts on this to the Latin rite. The other rites of the Church seem to have escaped most of the liturgical wreckovation as well. Before I became devoted to the older form of the Mass, I used to attend a Byzantine parish. That, too, was obviously a more profound experience of worship than the Novus Ordo was.



I'm afraid that's a problem I share - not so much with the implication as with the fact that there is something wrong with the new rite. I could direct you to any number of well thought out critiques on the subject, but the fact remains, and we are left with the reality of it.

The fundamental approach to liturgy changed in 1970. I can't think of a better way to describe it than "watered-down Catholicism", though "dumbed down" works nearly as well.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Bishop Trautman - a man who is emblematic of the post VII liturgical "reform" - was cited this week as having problems with the revised translation of the Novus Ordo:



Get that? He thinks you're too stupid[/] to figure out what a theological word like ineffable means. We need to hold your hand and make it easy.

Our Lord himself told his followers that he who is not against us is for us.

— "Michael Hebert"

He also said that He would "vomit" the lukewarm out of His mouth, and that not everyone who says, "Lord, lord" will be saved.

Which saying applies?

Italics off!

I'd first like to thank Steve Skojic for his explanation of the protestant and masonic influence on the Novus Ordo. Somewhere in my files I have that info. but being a novice on my computer, it would probably take me a month to find it!
To James,If one of the reasons for my support of the Traditional Latin Mass "is not a good one to use to support dissident movements",I
have to ask how can a Mass that has been our form of worship for 2000 years be a "dissident movement"?
To Deacon Frank Osgood,You claim ,in your thanks to Michael Kenney, that the traditional Mass would "result in even more departures from the Church." It appears that Michael's memory of the traditional rite would disprove your assertion of "departures". I think it was the Novus Ordo,that was the "dissident" movement,and was the direct cause of the departure of so many Catholics.

Honestly, what is so great about the Latin Mass? We have a couple opportunities for the Latin Mass in our diocese which are very poorly attended. The reason is, 95% of Catholics don't want it, understand it or see a need for it. While the Latin Mass may be a very Sacred and moving thing for a small group of people, most really don't see a need for it or understand why it is such a big deal. Personally, while the Latin Mass was meaningful and appropriate at one time, I don't think it is worth the energy trying to make it something that everyone should love and demand. The truth is they don't. I don't think Jesus wanted the Sacredness of the Last Supper and his offering of Himself in the Eucharist to become something so complicated, so distant, so removed from people and commemorated in a language that no one understands or speaks. Jesus spoke simply and directly. He used liturgical symbols, gestures and words that didn't need too much explanation. "Nobel Simplicity" Keep the most important thing, keeping the most important thing, the most important thing."

I have two remarkably divergent viewpoints. The fact that I hold both to be true should give the reader insight into my dysfunctional cerebral cortex.

First, I have been able to attend Mass (you folks would call it Novus Ordo) in St. Peter's, in front of the reliquary of St. Peter, in my local parish, local cathedral, several hotel rooms, my dining room, and outside several times. Seems to me that the Eucharist and the True Presence was what I was there for, regardless of the Eucharistic prayer and sundry "improvisations".

Second, as I have grown older, approaching now 50, the past 10 years have seen a tremendous growth in my faith and understanding of the Faith. And somehow in all of that, the Latin Mass seems to make more and more sense. Perhaps it was something that Bill Buckley wrote in Nearer My God.

I'm conflicted.

Or perhaps not.

And as to apologies, isn't it enough to know you kept the Faith and ran the food race?

Egads! Good race.

Spell check, nothing, I need brain check.

I am simply amazed as to how poorly I was trained in CCD. Catechism, indeed. My 4 sons have a much better grasp on their faith than I did when I was twice their ages.

I'm always impressed with the unCatholic tone that that TLM folks take against folks who don't believe the Extraordinary Form should be the Ordinary form of the parish Mass. I am very happy that our wonderful Holy Father has taken the path he has in implementing the Reform of the Reform.
It seems like the ripple effect has been to increase the reverence with which Mass is celebrated while still retaining the vernacular, the reception of the Precious Blood and the wider variety of daily & Sunday readings, all of which are a good thing. I personally pay more attention during, say, the Confiteor, if I am saying it out loud in my own language than I do if I'm reading along with the priest who is saying it in Latin at the altar.

Maybe Mr. Woods should first note the beam in his own eye while pointing out the mote in his brother's. His highly offensive book, "The Great Facade," where he called people who read Crisis and now this website and who like Mother Angelica and don't find her liberal and who liked John Paul II and didn't find him liberal "neo-Catholics." So fidelity to the Pope and the current Magisterium and lack of outright rebellion over girl altar servers and Communion in the hand makes one less Catholic and thus worthy of an ad hominem label. I've been waiting for Woods and his co-author to apologize for years. Doesn't look like it's happening any time soon.