Now that I've had the opportunity to use one of my favorite 17th-century words, I'd like to address a point of contention that has arise in the comments section of the post I wrote yesterday about the Washington Post article on orthodox young Catholics.

Commenter David W. took a whack at something in the piece that he took issue with:

"They appreciate Benedict for his unwavering advocacy of what they hold to be "Catholic": ancient liturgical practices such as the traditional Latin Mass, the supremacy of the Catholic Church, Gregorian chants in worship and theologians who concur with the pope's teachings. As the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog for 24 years before becoming pope, Benedict earned this group's devotion"

I underlined that line, because if that is "what it means to be Catholic" where does that leave the Pauline Mass? I personally don't like the implications of it. Another quote:

"But even Benedict in person isn't enough to draw some traditional Catholics to the papal Mass next week at Nationals Park. They feel it will be too informal for their taste, and many dislike the idea of receiving Communion standing up instead of kneeling at an altar rail."

So this means those people are more Catholic than the Pope? What kind of arrogant nonsense is this? This isn't just about something like preferring Benedictine to Franciscan Spirituality...this reeks of Liturgical Snobbery. As if someone who chooses to stand is somehow "less reverent." The tone of that passage suggests exactly that.

First, it is entirely true that "ancient liturgical practices such as the traditional Latin Mass" are in fact very Catholic. Taken into the context of history, the longevity of that venerable liturgy means that it has been Catholic for a much longer time than the Pauline Mass; the fact that it is the fruit (as Dom Alcuin Reid and the Holy Father have both pointed out) of organic liturgical development rather than creation by committee means that it is more rooted in Catholicism than the Pauline Mass.

This is not to say that the Pauline Mass is not Catholic. It is to say that the Pauline Mass is lacking the deep roots and consequent fruits of the ancient liturgy, which has in its core substance existed for centuries even prior to its codification by Pope St. Pius V following the council of Trent. That the ancient liturgy is so bound up in the history of the Church, the lives of the saints, the battle against heresy and the economy of salvation gives it rather a more venerable and elevated position among the Church's treasures. One can't know the precise mind of the Holy Father on this, but I don't believe he decided to call it the "extraordinary form" simply to imply that it is unusual or outside the norm - rather, there is an implication that it is extraordinary in the very superlative sense of the term as well.

As for the point about the papal Mass at the ballpark in Washington, it would be good to remember that the Holy Father himself has expressed that there are problems with these large spectacle Masses:

The Pope recalled that everything began with a question presented in 1960 during a large International Eucharistic Congress at Munich, about how there could be the celebration of the Eucharist also at such events. To adore, it was said at Munich, can be done also at a distance, but to celebrate a limited community is necessary which can interact with the mystery. At Munich many expressed negative opinions regarding the hypothesis of celebrations of the Eucharist in the open, even with one hundred thousand people or more. But it was the Austrian liturgist Josef Andreas Jungmann, one of the architects of the liturgical reform, who created "the concept of ‘statio orbis‘" and thus legitimated celebrations as vast as oceans: in substance, if there exists the "statio Romae", and thus the place where the faithful gather to then go together to the Eucharist, so then there can exist also (and this is the case with Eucharistic Congresses), a "statio orbis", the gathering place of the world.

It is thanks to Jungmann, therefore, that today there are large Mass celebrations. Even so, for Ratzinger, these represent a problem for which a definitive response – as he said himself on 7 February last – "has not yet been found" also because, "if there concelebrate, for example, a thousand priests, you don’t know if this is the structure the Lord wanted."

Adhering to traditional practices - even those which are not required by the law of the Church - is not being "more Catholic than the pope". If this were so, all of the extraordinary sanctifying actions undertaken by the saints would be self-aggrandizing.

If someone chooses to extend their communion fast, spend an extra hour in adoration, observe ember and rogation days, fast and abstain on all Fridays of Lent, or forego a big stadium Mass that makes them feel uncomfortable because of the chaos and disorder that surrounds it offends their personal sense of the piety and reverence that Mass demands, they are simply conducting their spiritual life in the way that feels most appropriate to them.

As for the commenter who presented the notion that communion in the hand is an abuse, he is technically correct - it was considered an abuse until Pope Paul VI granted an indult to certain European Catholics who were already violating the Church's current discipline on reception of the Eucharist. The trend spread far and wide, with some arguing that the practice harkened back to the early days of the Church (which is also true), but there is as yet no definitive conclusion to the controversy.

Orthodox Catholics have the right to disagree on this one, and there are many arguments that can - and should - be made.