Archbishop Nichols at conference on the older Mass

Do you remember that there was going to be a workshop in England for priests who want to learn the older form of Mass?

Here is a report from The Telegraph about the participation of the Archbishop of Birmingham (not Alabama), Most Reverend Vicent Nichols who preached to the assembled men.  My emphases and comments:

Apparently, His Excellency told the congregation:

    So the first invitation of the Holy Father is for us to avoid speaking or writing or thinking in terms of two rites: the ‘Tridentine Rite’ and the ‘modern’ or ‘post Vatican II Rite’. We should respond attentively and consistently to this invitation.

    Why does the Pope insist that there is one rite of the Mass? Because, whichever form is being used, the same mystery is being celebrated, the same rite is followed. There is one mystery and there is one movement, or structure, through which that mystery is enacted …

    I hope that your study of the Missal of Pope John XXIII will help you to appreciate the history and richness of that form of the Mass. And I trust that you will bring all that you learn to every celebration of the Mass you lead in the future.

    I have no doubt that each of us must strive for improvements in the way the ordinary form of the Mass is celebrated so that its inner mystery and spiritual movement is more clearly set forth. As Pope Benedict says, we must do all we can to bring out the spiritual richness and theological depth of the Missal of Paul VI, ‘for that will guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI will unite parish communities and be loved by them’.  [Certainly one of the objectives of Pope Benedict in issuing these provisions was to create a gravitational pull by the older Mass on how the newer Mass is celebrated.]

    Please remember that what you study here is not a relic, not a reverting to the past, but part of the living tradition of the Church. It is, therefore, to be understood and entered into in the light of that living tradition today.

    The Missal of Pope John XXIII will remain the extraordinary form of the celebration of the Mass, for, as Pope Benedict says, its use ‘presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often’. And the decision of the Church was that, for general use, it needed to be revised. But there are truths of which it can still remind us and it has treasures and consolation to offer.

    May the Lord bless your efforts in these next few days and draw you closer to the heart of the one saving mystery, that mystery which we now celebrate together.

I like this sermon.  

Whether His Excellency is for the older Mass or against it, this sermon has precisely the correct tone.  He is showing up where the priests are gathering. 

He is taking a leadership role. 

Here is a suggestion to those bishops who are hostile to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. 

If you don’t want that celebrations of the older Mass spread in different parishes of your dioceses, then take control of the situation by being friendly toward the older Mass, not hostile.  Take control by making sure that there are stunning Masses at the cathedral or a couple well suited places.  Go yourselves, Your Excellencies, often to be the celebrant or be in choro wearing every scrape of fancy duds you can put on.  Since the moon doesn’t look very interesting when the sun is shining, take control of the situation by leading, not by promises of tests for clergy and undue, and probably illicit, restrictions or impositions. 

People won’t be as interested in what they can have in the parishes when they can have it all in splendor with the bishops himself.

Lead from the front.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Archbishop Nichols at conference on the older Mass

  1. danphunter1 says:

    Father,
    There is so much talk about the Classical Rite informing the Novus Ordo and making it better.
    Why not just do away with the fabricated Novus Ordo and have unity in one form of mass, which is much more doctrinally sound and presents the sacrificial reality of the mass, much more evidently?
    After all, the Classical Rite nourished every single canonized saint in the Church’s history.
    If it worked, perfectly for them, why change it?
    God bless you.

  2. Paul Goings says:

    “After all, the Classical Rite nourished every single canonized saint in the Church’s history.”

    No one seriously believes this, do they?

  3. Dan: Why not just do away with the fabricated Novus Ordo and have unity in one form of mass,

    Because, first of all, that is not going to happen and, second of all, … that is not going to happen.

  4. danphunter1 says:

    Father,
    I bet you that the majority of the Fathers at the Council in the 1960′s never that the Novus Ordo would happen, but it did.
    Why couldn’t the reversal of this problem occur?
    I believe it can, and it will.
    Let Gods Will be done.
    Paul Goings:Every single canonized saint was nourished by the Classical Rite, be it, Latin Tridentine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.
    Not one canonized saint assisted, their whole lives, at the Novus Ordo.
    Kyrie Eleison.

  5. Larry says:

    Dan,

    Eliminate the Novus Ordo… and you still won’t have uniformity of liturgical rite.

    Or had you forgotten that the Latin Rite isn’t the only rite of the Catholic Church…?

    ;^)

  6. Matt Robinson says:

    “After all, the Classical Rite nourished every single canonized saint in the Church’s history.”

    No one seriously believes this, do they?

    I think that statement as of 2007 is a matter of fact, not speculation.

    There hasn’t been a single canonized saint who was raised with the New Mass.

    Even people like Mother Theresa spent more than 60 years in the TLM, and
    was already a Saint by the time 1970 came round, so I think it is a fair comment.

    I would like to see some children of Vatican II saints, but don’t know of
    potential candidates….even those who are still living….

    Serious qeustion, does anyone know of any “under 40″ potential Saints in the Church
    today? -babies and small children don’t count!.

  7. Paul Goings says:

    “Paul Goings: Every single canonized saint was nourished by the Classical Rite, be it, Latin Tridentine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.

    Not one canonized saint assisted, their whole lives, at the Novus Ordo.”

    Dan, I think that your last statement is correct, but unless you define “Classical Rite” to mean “every liturgy which isn’t the Novus Ordo,” then your first statement isn’t. (And if that is how you define it, then you still don’t have a premise to support your argument, but only a tautology.)

  8. Larry says:

    Dan & Matt,

    Asking for a horde of canonized saints weaned and raised on a Liturgy that’s existed for only 40 years is hardly a fair request. Knowing the speed at which the cause for canonization moves, please ask this question again in 50 or 100 years… ;^)

  9. danphunter1 says:

    Paul,
    All of the Classical Rites of the Catholic Church are of an organic development and are therefore very similiar and speak of great unity between them.
    This cannot be said about the Novus Ordo which has nuch of the Series III liturgical prayers from a protestant community:Anglican.
    This is disunity.
    So I mean every Catholic liturgy which is not Novus Ordo,which borrowed much from Cranmer.
    Kyrie Eleison.

  10. danphunter1 says:

    Paul,
    And the Lutheran prayer services.

  11. Matt Robinson says:

    Larry,

    Yes it’s not really fair question for canonizations,
    but in one sense it is a reasonable one.

    In our age of info saturation, and considering the
    millions of Catholics under 50 years of age, I think
    it is reasonable to ask if there are any “holy celebrities”
    out there among the post-VII generation(s).

    I really can’t think of any heroic figures….i.e.
    people establishing new orders, new missions, known for
    heroic virtue….in the -50 age group.

    This covers a lot of Catholics in a lot of countries.

  12. Jim says:

    Dan & Matt,

    As.king for a horde of canonized saints weaned and raised on a Liturgy that’s existed for only 40 years is hardly a fair request. Knowing the speed at which the cause for canonization moves, please ask this question again in 50 or 100 years… ;^)

    Comment by Larry — 29 August 2007 @ 2:24 pm

    Larry, The Diocese that I live in had 60,000 people attending Mass in 1970…now it’s 25,000, our Bishop expects the numbers to drop “Well below” 20,000 in the next 5-10 years. In 50-100 years from now there wont be any Catholics in the North of England…ergo, no saints either..!!!. Unless we get lucky and the “Renewal of Vatican II” some how or another abates, we wont have a church left in Europe.
    Only those who refuse to look life straight in the eye can fail to see what an absolute disaster the post Vatican II years have been for the Church. Bishop Nichols has “No doubts that each of us must strive for improvements in the way the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated”
    Gee..Vince you don’t say..?? My wife and I walked out of Novus Ordo Mass in the Grotto at Lourdes 2 years ago, what an absolute disgrace, thousands of English pilgrims, complete with numerous Bishops..etc..etc.. and a Geetar ‘n Bongo Band that would have made the blind …deaf…I kid you not.
    The Pope is a “Traditionalist”, Bishop Nichols and the rest of the English Bishops and others from further afield will have to get used to it. The Novus Ordo is holed below the water line and will sink, sooner or later….but it will sink.

  13. TJM says:

    Do you think the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated at
    the Bromptom Oratory is lacking in grandeur and sacredness?
    I agree, that the typical Novus Ordo AS IT IS NOW CELEBRATED
    in most parishes is the problem, but it doesn’t have to be.
    I’d be happy as a clam if my parish celebrated the Novus
    Ordo like they do at Bromptom. Tom

  14. TJM says:

    Do you think the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated at
    the Bromptom Oratory is lacking in grandeur and sacredness?
    I agree, that the typical Novus Ordo AS IT IS NOW CELEBRATED
    in most parishes is the problem, but it doesn’t have to be.
    I’d be happy as a clam if my parish celebrated the Novus
    Ordo like they do at Bromptom. Tom

  15. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Yes, all in all this is a good sermon but I have a few reservations about the second last paragraph.

    The Archbishop says: “The Missal of Pope John XXIII will remain the extraordinary form of the celebration of the Mass, for, as Pope Benedict says, its use ‘presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often’”.

    Perhaps it’s time we ask what is meant by the term “Extraordinary”. Rumour has it (and it is just rumour) that the Holy Father originlly intended to use something like “first among equals” but “Extraordinary” was settled upon. But are we correct to interpret that as something like “less often?” One could easily say that while both Uses are good the Older Use is extraodinary. Changes the complexion doesn’t it!

    As for the necesssity of “a certain degree degree of Liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin Language” this clearly refers to the priests. The laity never did know Latin nor did they have a liturgical formation. In the Novus Ordo they still don’t have the latter. But there is no reason why a priest who wants this knowledge can’t attain it. Especially with the new situation.

    The archbishop goes on to say: “And the decision of the Church was that, for general use, it needed to be revised.” I’m afraid His Grace is a bit vague with regard to who or what body he refers to when he says that “The Church decided” and He is equally vague about just what changes were needed..

    Which Use will prevail? time will tell. It may be that eventually they will merge but with the Older Use forming the basis. I, for one wouldn’t object ot seeing the whole congregation singing the Pater Noster for example.

    And finally, I notice that my good friend Paul Goings has entered the fray. Debate him with caution folks. He has a sharp mind and he knows his stuff.

  16. AM says:

    Returning to the Bishop’s remarks for a moment :-) it strikes me that his characterization that “one rite of the Mass [means] whichever form is being used, the same mystery is being celebrated, the same rite is followed… there is one movement, or structure, through which that mystery is enacted” is leaving something out.

    For the Bishop’s definition would let us conclude that all the Eastern rites are forms of the one rite, too. The same movement (more or less), fundamentally the same structure, certainly the same mystery.

    The various traditional Uses of the Roman Rite are much closer to each other than the Ordinary Form is to the Extraordinary Form. Especially when you consider the Office as well as the Mass.

    One day I hope to understand what a Form of a rite is. Do the Eastern rites have Forms, too (as well as Uses)?

    AJM

  17. Ave Maria says:

    “The Diocese that I live in had 60,000 people attending Mass in 1970…now it’s 25,000, our Bishop expects the numbers to drop “Well below” 20,000 in the next 5-10 years. In 50-100 years from now there wont be any Catholics in the North of England…ergo, no saints either.”

    You know I was just reading about St. Augustine. During his life, there
    were hundreds of bishops in north Africa. He and a few stalwart others
    fought the heresies of the day with great courage. But after them, no one
    came to fill their shoes. Within 2 decades there were only about 20 bishops
    left in north Africa. A vacuum was created that would eventually be filled
    with islam. The faith was, for the most part, lost.

    We are in danger of this also in many places. Fr. John Hardon used to warn
    that whole dioceses would be lost and certainly we can see this happening
    in some places in the world. The return of our heritage of the
    extraordinary form of the Mass will be an aide I am sure but it is coming
    so late to the battle…

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    Back to the issue at hand ……

    Here is a suggestion to those bishops who are hostile to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

    The concluding paragraphs of Inside the Vatican‘s current-issue Survey of some of the reactions of US bishops to the Pope’s decision:

    “The motu proprio and the accompanying letter to bishops are readily available to the faithful on the Internet, so no one can seriously expect to get away with misleading people about their letter or spirit. The Pope’s will could not be clearer, coming as it does after decades of writing on the sacred liturgy: the extraordinary form of the Roman rite is a great treasure of the Church, and should be actively fostered wherever there is a desire for it, and treating it with contempt is over. What was sacred and great for us yesterday remains sacred and great for us today.”

    “That’s just common sense. And as of September 14, it is the law of the Church – a fact not even the least appreciative American bishop can change.” (emphasis added)

    Incidentally, the bishops whose comments were summarized in the ITV survey were their excellencies Lori, Egan, Melczek, Trautman, Kurtz, and Burke.

  19. Angelo Panzica says:

    The traditional Latin Mass, now known as the Extraordinary
    Rite, originated with St Peter the Prince of the
    Apostles and is the Ancient Roman Rite.

    Upon his conversion, St Francis of Asissi, wishing to live
    the same religious life that the Apostles lived with
    Jesus Christ the three years before He was crucified,
    petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his
    (Francis)Order of Friars Minor, the ancient Rite of the Roman
    Church which was held to be the “Rite of St Peter the
    Apostle”. During the pontificate of Innocent III, this
    rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St Peter,
    in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite
    was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome. Only three
    known copies of the liaturgical books of this rite were still
    extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope
    Innoncent III granted St Francis’ request and gave him one
    of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary
    Ritual and other books. The Franciscans are responsible
    for introducing this Mass to the rest of Europe and eventually
    to the New World. Pope St Pius V, a Dominican, broke with
    his own spiriutality, and canonized this Mass. Thank you
    Saint Francis of Assisi.

  20. Henry Edwards says:

    Incidentally, the bishops whose comments were summarized in the ITV survey were their excellencies Lori, Egan, Melczek, Trautman, Kurtz, and Burke.

    And also Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafayette, LA, whose statement was included in its entirety. The others were only extracted.

  21. Jordan Potter says:

    After all, the Classical Rite nourished every single canonized saint in the Church’s history.

    Not true. St. Sharbel Mahlouf was nourished on the Maronite Rite, not the Classical Roman Rite. It would be easy to find many other approved saints from non-Roman rites.

  22. Dan,

    Your comments jogged my memory of this past weekend.

    “This cannot be said about the Novus Ordo which has nuch of the Series III liturgical prayers from a protestant community:Anglican. This is disunity. So I mean every Catholic liturgy which is not Novus Ordo,which borrowed much from Cranmer.Kyrie Eleison.
    And the Lutheran prayer services.”

    The spirit of the “Renewal” of the liturgy, hit home this weekend, while
    attending my wife’s friend’s wedding. She is Lutheran, so we attended
    the 15 minute wedding ceremony. (I don’t like entering these places, but
    couldn’t avoid it…oh well it was real liturgical education for me).

    This must have been a Traditional Lutheran Parish…

    The “table-altar” looked more like an altar than most of our altars.
    And it faced East-i.e. ad orientam and against the wall (well no..it was
    built into a beautiful gothic-style altarpiece). It had an altar
    cross on its centre, and a stained glass window depicting Jesus above it.
    The only similarity to the Novus Ordo altar were the two candles on it.
    Other than that, it looked exactly like a traditional Catholic altar.

    Next, in front of the “sanctuary” was a beautiful wooden altar rail, complete
    with kneelers, just like our Traditional churches.

    I opened up the “Lutheran Book of Worship” out of curiosity and began
    reading.

    I was immediately struck by the amount of latin, and the beautiful, old-style
    English translations.

    The prayer service had titles for each part….in latin!

    Introit
    Kyrie
    Gradual
    Gloria
    Alleluia
    Sanctus
    Agnus Dei
    Communio

    Flabbergasted, I was uttlerly struck dumb by seeing “Te Deum”
    at the end of the service for special occasions.

    So I keep flipping through and arrive at the Psalms

    Each Psalm is entitled with its traditional Catholic latin 1st line:

    Miserere Nobis
    Cantate Domino canticum novum
    Judica Me Deus

    Completely dazed by this point.I see the English was good too….
    “and with thy spirit” for the preface. “Peace to all men of good will”
    in the Gloria. “Lord God Sabaoth” in the Sanctus.

    Okay, so Luther lived, what, 500 years ago, and his followers, still
    retain these elements of Catholic liturgical culture, yet after only
    37 years of aggiornamento, our own Bishops have eradicted even
    more!

    My wife asks me…”what are all the latin terms in their book”?

    I respond, “it’s terminology from the Catholic Mass”.

    Food for thought, no? We went far beyond traditional protestantism, and
    were lead straight into the most radical Calvinism by our Shepherds.

    Pretty sad, when they start to make Luther look like a Traditionalist?

  23. DoB says:

    Making the Tridentine a show piece is a horror to me. Our little bit of Mozart in a pop music culture. Would it not be possible to have weekly praise and worship coupled with a catechism program (proper Catholic of course) every Sunday. Then once a month an obligatory confession and proper Tridentine Mass. This way we could satisfy communal celebration and retain proper sacrificial solemnity. On any given Sunday one would be required to attend one or the other. It is very difficult for “modern man” to accept the fact of the ressurection or transubstantiation. Should he be encouraged to partake so frequently if he cannot discern the body? Monthly communion was not uncommon historically. To modern man, traditional Catholic doctrine is a nonsense because he has taken leave of his senses. In order to help him we should not distort reality and hide the truth least it frighten him off. We simply need another mechanism in between, that leads him to the Truth via a more gradual path. You might argue that a Catholic in the pew should not be there/or receive Holy Communion if they do not accept the dogma of the Catholic Church. The fact of the matter is quite a few people in our Church are Catholic only in name. This is not good enough for God our Father, so it is not good enough for them and therefore it should never be good enough for the Church. I speak from experience, I was one of them and so were many of my friends -most of whom we have now lost.

  24. dcs says:

    Luther himself did not make very many changes to the Mass but he anticipated that more changes would follow. For example, although he was an advocate of versus populum, he wanted the ad orientem posture retained so the “faithful” would not be disturbed. (This is documented in Msgr. Gamber’s fine book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

    There’s always been a High Church/Low Church split among Protestants, especially Anglicans and Lutherans. I would say rather that the Novus Ordo tends to be celebrated in a very Low Church style, although it is capable of a High Church celebration.

    Radical Calvinism? Maybe. You should see what the Jansenists wanted to do to the liturgy. (Plus their “convulsions” prefigured the Charismatic excesses of today.) But my own observations lead me to believe that most Catholics tend toward (Semi-)Pelagianism rather than Calvinism.

  25. Calvinism when it comes to the liturgy, not doctrine…though ask your
    average church-goer about the Real Presence and you may be surprised.

    For instance, we have Bishops in places literally ordering people not to kneel,
    no incense or bells, ad populum, dry, didactic “word-centred” liturgies
    emphasizing protestant work-ethic values, horizontalism vis a vis laity
    and minister…a genuine bias against any type of mysticism, silence
    or the supernatural…not to mention a bias against most anything “high church”
    whether in music, art or translations….it all looks quite a bit like John Knox to me.

  26. Jim says:

    Most Reverend Vincent Nichols MA MEd STL

    Metropolitan Archbishop of Birmingham

    Born in Crosby (Liverpool): 8th November 1945
    Ordained priest: 21st December 1969
    Ordained bishop by Cardinal Hume: 24th January 1992
    Auxiliary Bishop in North London: 1992 – 2000
    Translated to Birmingham: February 2000
    Installed as Ninth Bishop and Eighth Archbishop of Birmingham on 29th March 2000

    So Bishop Vince thinks, all of a sudden that we should “Strive to improve the Novus Ordo”….what kept you Vince….I’m an electrician I work on Oil rigs, I have a very basic education, yet I’ve been telling anyone who would listen..( who weren’t many..!!)that the Latin Mass was the way to go, since 1982, I’m 49 at present. Look at Bishop Vincents biography taken from his diocesan web site, how could such an educated person, with all his responsibilities to his flock FAIL to see the church falling apart in England..!!! now he urges us to Take it easy, keep up the Novus Ordo, have the Remedy…the Mass of ages only in “Extraordinary” circumstances..that’s exactly what he and the English hierarchy mean, even if they don’t spell it out like that. The Pope has been the most terrible ..Bore..upsetting their apple cart.
    Last year at Lourdes. I was laughed at for even mentioning the Latin Mass…not so this year..!!
    One prominent priest said to my wife..”I like Jim….but that Mass is never coming back”
    that was said less than 3 weeks after the Motu Proprio.
    The great thing about the Internet is that Bishop Vincent might have the chance to read this on Fr Zee’s wonderful blog….and know that “Joe six pack” is ahead of the game…come on Vince don’t be shy….together we will rebuild the church.

  27. Thanks for the link to my Telegraph blog, Father. Interesting that you guys call Archbishops and Bishops “Your Excellency”. In England, it’s “Your Grace” for Archbishops (ie, the same style as a Duke) and “My Lord” for Bishops (ie, the same style as Marquesses, Viscounts and Barons). Except on formal occasions, you’d address them just as “Archbishop” or “Bishop”, though “Father” is also considered polite. I called Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor “Father” when I passed him on the steps of the Reform Club the other day, but it was only a second’s greeting as we don’t get on :)

  28. Jim says:

    I called Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor “Father” when I passed him on the steps of the Reform Club the other day, but it was only a second’s greeting as we don’t get on :)

    Funny that….I called him that at Lourdes recently, I grabbed his arm, punched the air and said…”We are going to rebuild the Church”, ( with the Latin Mass, that is)….
    then He grabbed my arm, punched the air and said……”I won’t forget that..!!”
    Thank goodness, for a moment I thought he was going to punch me…!!!! Ho…Ho…Ho…

  29. Joe Washinski says:

    St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, and the author of the Divine Liturgy used by the Churches of Constantinople, both in communion with the Holy See and those that are not, is not a product of the Classic Roman Rite.

    For what it’s worth, there are Rites within a Particular Church. The Latin Church is a Particular Church within the Catholic Church. So is the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, and all the others – none of which ever needed the laity to come to the altar to distribute Holy Communion.

  30. Jim says:

    Just seen on EWTN….only 9% of catholics go to Mass in Australia…”Building a Culture of Life” programme…lets not rush consigning the Novus Ordo to the dust bin of history…!!!!

  31. Jim says:

    St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, and the author of the Divine Liturgy used by the Churches of Constantinople, both in communion with the Holy See and those that are not, is not a product of the Classic Roman Rite.

    Yeah Joe…so St John Chrysostom would have been cool with the “Clown Mass”, or the “Kum bah Yah mi’Lawdy Mass”, or even the dumbed down, doggerel ‘n ditties Mass that most of us have to put up with, most of the time..?..I think not..!

  32. Kim Poletto says:

    Strive for improvements in the way the ordinary form of the Mass is celebrated? Does he mean, like instituting once a month “Dress up Sunday’s”, where parishoners are encourage not to wear shorts, T shirts, jeans and other revealing attire. There will be no imporvement in the way the ordinary form of the Mass is celebrated, until there is better formation of the priests. This will occur only when the Archbishop/Bishop leads the way by putting such things as applause during the Mass, i.e. homily, and other such nonsense to bed. Not long ago I attended a Mass at a parish that I swore I would never go back to (it coouldn’t be helped)because the Pastor uses the sanctuary as a stage for his performances. The priest celebrating Mass had attended the seminary here in Denver and had been ordained for about a 1 1/2 years. Present at this Mass was a seminarian who was soon to be ordained. In the middle of the Gloria, no less, this priest interrupted the Gloria to introduce the seminarian and then lead the parishoners (who followed)in givng a big roundd of applause in welcome. Pope Benedict XI, writing as Cardinal Ratizenger has something to say aboout that in a little book he authored on the Liturgy. Alas, it seems as if very few in this Archdiocese or other dioceses where I have travelled, have had time to read it. Probably too busy getting the early morning jog in.

  33. Joe Washinski says:

    Jim, exactly what are you talking about? My point is that not every saint was a product of the Classical Roman Rite. The Catholic Church is far more than the Latin Church. Within 15 minutes of my house there is a Ukranian Greek Catholic Church parish, a Byzantine Catholic Church parish, and a Maronite Catholic Church parish. Where did I come off in favor of Kumbaya? Or presenting St. John Chrysostom as favoring that nonsense?

    Oh, while I’m at it, neither St. Sharbel or St. Maron are products of the Classical Roman Rite either, and I doubt if wither one of them would like the Clown Mass or Kumbaya or Great things Happen when God Mixes with Man or that drivel.

  34. DoB says:

    Fr Z.
    “If you don’t want that celebrations of the older Mass spread in different parishes of your dioceses…”

    Pray tell, are you taking the “Michael”.

    PS.
    Still trying to lay my hands on the Te Deum recording, have some mercy and tell me the recording! My housekeeping is suffering in my fruitless quest. My beloved is complaining of neglect. Mercy, mercy I beg you.

  35. RichR says:

    I haven’t really heard any blogs talking about a very real struggle that is being set for the near future: the hymnal battle.

    For decades, the big publishers out there (GIA, OCP, etc…) have ruled the liturgy. Their hymnals are in a large proportion of the parishes out there, and they have been expanding their reach with internet-based liturgical-planning services. It maps out all the songs, page #, etc.. for each Mass. And guess what, many of the songs in these hymnals are copyrighted by…..the same hymnal. So, if your parish is addicted to Haugen, you have to buy GIA hymnals. There’s no monopoly on hymns from the 1600′s – it’s public domain. Every hymnal has those. So these guys made inroads early on andfor a long time, these guys were it.

    Also, once a parish makes the huge investment of buying hymnals (sometimes over $10,000), they are reluctant to buy more, so they just keep the old ones in the pews. Maybe they will subscribe to the missalette, but even that may be on the cutting board.

    Now what is happening?

    The translations for the Mass are being re-vamped. What will that mean? Well, all these hymnals have Mass parts in them that will now be obsolete. Parishes are going to be scrambling to get new hymnals, and with the way things are going, OCP and GIA stand to take a big hit because internet communication has allowed smaller groups to present their hymnals at competitive prices, but with higher quality hymns that are more traditional. Also, the populace is getting tired of the old mood music that’s out there and, instead, they want music that elevates their thoughts to higher things.

    This is where things will get interesting. You are starting to see big names in the hymnal giants go on to other things. Why? Maybe they see the writing on the wall and know that their time in the spotlight is over.

    Watch for names like Jeff Ostrowski, Adoremus, Stravinskas, and many others make a huge splash on the scene. Many good publishers are preparing to take the music (and liturgy) back from the big-time publishers.

  36. RichR says:

    Oh yeah, and I don’t publish a hymnal, nor do I make any money by promoting them (or Mr. Ostrowski). I just love good music, and I see a great opportunity for parishioners to kill the sappy drivel you hear in the average Mass. When the translations come out, get involved in your parish and try to get any good hymnal in the pews. Remember, it will be there for another 20 years.

  37. Cacciaguida says:

    Abp. Nichols is “running” for Abp. of Westminster, isn’t he? Not that there’s anything wrong with that….

  38. Serafino says:

    Well, here in the United States we fought a revolution in 1776 so we would not longer be required to address fellow citizens as “Your Grace,” and “Your Lordship.” Although understanding the historical reasons for members of the hierarchy to assume such styles, it seems to be particularly out of place for those who have been called “to serve, and not to be served.”

    Even here the styles, although still officially correct, “Your Excellency” and “Your Eminence,” are falling out of use.(Some would say gratefully so.) Much in the same way the immigrate Irish here in the 19th Century use to address their priests as, “Your Worship.”

    I, personally find the style “Monsignor” which of course means, ” My Lord” for the same reasons to be distasteful for Americans. I avoid it, and address all holders of the title as “Father.”

    Yes, I know the history, protocol and all the rest of it. I also know many people love these forms of style. In fact, there are some priests in my diocese who would sell their souls for the title, “Monsignor.” In the present devastated condition of the Church in the United States, I find such titles somewhat foolish.

  39. Mike B. says:

    Matt,

    Where was that “traditional” Luthern church you visited? I’m just curious.

    Pax tecum,

    Mike

  40. Mike B. says:

    Of course I meant to type “Lutheran”!

    Mike

  41. “Or had you forgotten that the Latin Rite isn’t the only rite of the Catholic Church…?”

    As AJM points out, His Excellency has apparently forgotten that:

    “Why does the Pope insist that there is one rite of the Mass? Because, whichever form is being used, the same mystery is being celebrated, the same rite is followed. There is one mystery and there is one movement, or structure, through which that mystery is enacted …”

  42. Quilisma says:

    The Holy Father is very shrewd in stating that the Novus Ordo should remain the normal form of celebration. In fact, we should even go so far as to accord it “Pride of place” just as Sacrosanctum Consilium said we should do with Gregorian Chant – that way it’s almost certain to fall by the wayside!

  43. Quilisma says:

    Regarding RichR’s comment about hymnals…

    One thing that confuses me about hymnals and the liturgical directives is that I thought everything we sing at Mass – if it isn’t taken directly from the Roman Gradual is supposed to be approved by the Bishop (or the Bishops’ Conference).

    I cannot seriously believe that the majority of music which we have in our hymnals today has undergone such approval – or is that just a sign of the laxity of our bishops? (Don’t answer that one!) I mean, some texts are verging on the heretical or promote doctrinal errors (or even worse, complete banality!). One wouldn’t expect the prayers in Mass to contain such errors so why allow same with music?

    I suppose that most modern composers would feel over-constrained if they could only work with the texts of the propers – however, it would seem that their predecessors (Palestrina, Victoria, etc.)seemed to manage without too much trouble.

    What about the text of the ordinary though? Composers still write music for the Latin Ordinary and no-one (almost) seems bold enough to re-arrange the this text by re-jigging the words and yet the vernacular versions are frequently re-worded to resemble something competely unlike its original. Not that I’m saying that the current official vernacular translations are marvellous creations though.

    So, RichR – don’t worry about the hymnals being obsolete as, based on the bishops’ previous performance (if indeed they have performed at all), any text which vaguely resembles the Gloria or the Sanctus will still be perfectly acceptable for singing!

  44. Paul Priest says:

    I would appreciate some help please:
    http://onthesideoftheangels.blogspot.com/2007/08/to-allany-help-will-be-gratefully.html

    Tear me to shreds if necessary; my intentions are sincere but I’m only emphasising the detrimental aspects of the issue. I desperately need the voices and intellects of others to assist and clarify the root causes and the remedies.

  45. Simon says:

    Hymnals – we don’t need them – sing the Liturg.

  46. Federico says:

    Serafino,

    I think it would be a pity if the titles your excellency or your eminence or monsignore were to fall by the wayside in the US.

    These titles honor the office, not the man holding the office. The bishop is a successor of the apostles, cardinals are the personal advisors and electors of the successor of Peter, and monsignori are members of his household. Regardless of what you might think of men holding these offices, the offices themselves deserve honor and respect.

    Federico.

  47. Serafino says:

    Federico:

    I would be the very first one to agree with you about honoring the office. I, however, disagree with members of the clergy adopting the styles of the “nobility” as a way to honor that office. Jesus was the “Suffering Servant.” Those who represent him on earth should want to be honored with no greater earthy title than His.

    When Pope St. Pius X, who was from a very simple background, was asked what titles of “nobility” he wished to grant to his brothers in Riese, Italy, he replied, “The brothers of the Pope will be their title. “What greater title can they have than this!” There the matter ended. Pius X, who himself was uncomfortable with the courtly ceremonies of the papal office of that time, was not only a saintly man, but a very wise one, indeed.

  48. Bernard says:

    Thank God for the success of this Oxford Conference and the leadership given by Archbishop Nichols. Hopefully this sets the tone for other bishops. Praising the Missal of Paul VI is a political manovre, any Bishop with his mitre on the right way knows where the Holy Spirit is leading us. Pope Benedict is reordering things aright. Vincent Nichols and the good ones are totally onboard.

  49. RBrown says:

    Serafino,

    Revolution or no, those holding political offices is the US are commonly referred to as The Honorable Joe Schmoe. What is the difference between that and His Eminence or Monsignor?

    BTW, Jesus was the Suffering Servant, but He was also Lord.

  50. Mike,

    Where was that “traditional” Luthern church you visited? I’m just curious-Mike

    It was in a small town in Manitoba, Canada.

    As for protestant “high church” vs “low church”, again the analogy fails, because
    the Roman Catholic Church destroyed its “high church” liturgy for the most
    part from 1965 on, and replaced it with a “low as you can go” version in 99.9%
    of parishes I’ve visited from Seattle to Naples, Italy.

    I don’t think it’s credible to even speak of a “high” RC Church….we don’t
    even have that version thanks to our Bishops. Again, another case for this
    radical Calvinistic approach….they don’t have a “high” church version either,
    only the Lutherans and Anglicans.

    The Extraordinary Rite will likely become the High Church version of the Catholic
    faith, and this is another tragedy of the Bugnini revolution. We introduced
    a protestant-style “low church”, and now have to compensate by installing a
    “protestant-style” High Church for the more devout. Two different liturgies
    following 2 different theologies, at least in PRACTISE.

    It is “protestant-style” because there will now be a choice for Catholics
    to worship just like the Anglicans do….with the low church housing the more
    low-key liberals, and the high holding the more orthodox.

    What this all means for the future, God only knows. The Bishops are correct
    though, it will cause division of sorts, (i.e. I know quite a few people under
    30 years of age, myself includes, in my diocese who will never attend
    another Novus Mass regularly again, once the Extraordinary Rite is
    available) but for the moment it is the only sane course of action.

    I will be one of the new hybrid High Church Catholics!

    For the other comments about the Eastern Rites, no one is disputing their
    holiness or efficacy….Dan and I were speaking solely about the Roman
    Rite as practised today, verses its predeceeding versions since what
    Saint Paul had delivered himself.

  51. Maureen says:

    I think there’s something a bit scary about how, when a piece of good news is posted about someone doing what he ought to do, and trying to heal wounds… we get a bunch of nasty-tongued posts against the Mass! It’s discouraging, really.

    Some people apparently are afraid of healing and of things getting better. They need to feel oppressed.

  52. Paul says:

    I do think the hymnal issue will be important. Although the propers are the ideal, one of the best things that can be done to immediately improve liturgy in an average parish–especially here in America–will be to have better hymns. After all, it wasn’t for no reason that the high mass was in decline for a couple centuries before its demise after Vatican II. There is something in modern culture that finds the ceremony of the High Mass off-putting–although precisely that element makes it appealing to some. So how to make the best of the situation? Since the Irish Low Mass tradition was silent, I’ve always thought we should translate more traditional German and Polish hymns (obviously, in addition to Latin ones.) For centuries these peoples sung them at Low Masses.

  53. Az says:

    Jim,
    You missed something important from your biography of Mgr Nichols. During the 1980s he was Director of the Northern Institute at Upholland and also General Secretary of the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales. He is a protege of Mgr Derek Worlock, the late Archbishop of Liverpool (whose biography he commissioned). Have you read Alcuin Reid’s review of this biography, ‘The Worlock Archive’ by Clifford Longley, at Amazon (US site)? I’m sure you’ll find it interesting. The crozier Mgr Nichols carried at Merton College is a copy of Mgr Worlock’s.

  54. Az says:

    Jim,
    You missed something important from your biography of Mgr Nichols. During the 1980s he was Director of the Northern Institute at Upholland and also General Secretary of the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales. He is a protege of Mgr Derek Worlock, the late Archbishop of Liverpool (whose biography he commissioned). Have you read Alcuin Reid’s review of this biography, ‘The Worlock Archive’ by Clifford Longley, at Amazon (US site)? I’m sure you’ll find it interesting. The crozier Mgr Nichols carried at Merton College is a copy of Mgr Worlock’s.

  55. danphunter1 says:

    Paul,
    You state that,”there is something in modern culture that finds the ceremony of the High Mass off-putting”.
    What do you mean by this?
    Could it be that since we live in such a banal and sinful time, that for the most part tends to be void of sacred beauty; that the holy beauty of an High Mass clashes with the profane?

    God bless you

  56. Paul says:

    Hello Dan,

    I wish I knew what it was! I think there’s something to your suggestion that there is a kind of modern aversion to the holy–or at least a loss of sight of the beauty of holiness. Part of it, I suspect, is simply that most moderns are just not as immersed in more richly symbolic ways of grasping spiritual truth as people of previous ages. Since there are some truths we can only know through figures in this life, it is a serious disability. Even the simple, I think, were once able to do this better. I blame the “rationalist” aspects of modern education. Modern people need more explained to them–but this in itself can lead to the temptation to make things too “word centered.”

  57. Serafino says:

    RBrown,

    All men are called to be honorable. However, the usage of the word “honorable” was never a title connected to “nobility.” The “honorable, John Jones” does not connect him to a “Noble Class,” whereas, “Your Grace” and “Your Lordship most certainly do.

    Lastly, as one who holds many advanced degrees in theology, you certainly know the title “Jesus is Lord” is a proclamation of His Divinity, and has nothing to do with styles of address assumed by some ecclesiastics and the so called ‘Nobility.”

  58. Jordan Potter says:

    St. Paul tells us to render honor to whom honor is due, custom to whom custom, etc. Christianity does not require a leveling egalitarianism in matters of styles of address. It’s okay to call men “Mr.” (“Master,” teacher) and “Sir” (“sire,” father), and Jesus won’t be mad at you. You can call a bishop “Excellency” and certain priests “Monsignor” (my lord), and you won’t be committing any offense.

    “Your Grace” acknowledges that everything worthy of respect about that person is by solely by God’s grace. But we can’t use such an address, because it’s associated with titled and landed nobility?

    Well, so is “Honorable.” “Honor” is an old feudal term for a landed estate.

  59. Jordan Potter says:

    P.S. Serafino remarked above: Well, here in the United States we fought a revolution in 1776 so we would no longer be required to address fellow citizens as “Your Grace,” and “Your Lordship.”

    That seems like a pretty lame reason to stage a violent revolution.

  60. dcs says:

    Matt Robinson writes:
    As for protestant “high church” vs “low church”, again the analogy fails, because the Roman Catholic Church destroyed its “high church” liturgy for the most
    part from 1965 on, and replaced it with a “low as you can go” version in 99.9%
    of parishes I’ve visited from Seattle to Naples, Italy.

    Which analogy is that? I wasn’t making an analogy, simply acknowledging that there are both “high church” and “low church” Protestants and always have been, and that the Novus Ordo tends to be celebrated in “low church” style (with which statement you apparently agree…).

  61. dcs says:

    Jordan Potter writes:
    That seems like a pretty lame reason to stage a violent revolution.

    Well, there was that horrible Quebec Act, too! You don’t expect red-blooded patriots to remain idle in the face of such tyranny, do you?

  62. Serafino says:

    Jordan Potter

    No body is saying it is a sin to use these titles. As I mentioned, there are people who love titles and “signs of respect in the streets and synagogues, and are fond of being called ‘Rabbi’…” I think it is pretty clear what Jesus thinks of titles.

    BTW, I find no reference to the word “honorable” as having anything to do with the “landed gentry” of the feudal period. I would be interested if you could quote your source. Even if it had, the common use of that word does not denote “nobile” rank.

    Lastly, you may certainly call your bishop “Your Excellency,” “Your Grace,” “Your Lordship” or any other title that pleases you. You may certainly call your parish priest, “my Lord,” or “Your Worship” all without recourse the Sacrament of Confession. So be at peace.

  63. ThomasMore1535 says:

    I am absolutely appalled at the comments being made here about the Novus Ordo. The examples of there being no canonized saint raised on the Novus Ordo is a huge straw man, considering that the Novus Ordo only came into existence a mere 37 years ago. So that would have to mean that anyone who attended the Novus Ordo exclusively would have to be no older than 37 in order to be considered for canonization. But I’ll be generous. Let’s suppose that that person was 10 years old at the time the Novus Ordo was instituted. So the youngest a person could be is 47 to be a canonized saint.

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous such an argument is? Let’s suppose it was 37 years after Trent. How many people were canonized saints at that point who had been raised solely on Trent?

    I am sick and tired of supposed lovers of tradition saying that the Ordinary Form is inherently irreverent. All of the examples that they give–clown masses, people wearing shorts, etc., are not, and never have been, an inherent part of the Ordinary Form. This is making straw men.

    Anybody who thinks that praising the Ordinary Form is just a “political move” by the Holy Father is seriously mistaken. Read any of his books, and you will see that he approves the Ordinary Form as a whole. He says it is fabricated because of how it was PRESENTED, NOT BECAUSE OF THE FORM ITSELF.

    Furthermore, I find it offensive to the dignity of the Office of the Papacy to suggest that the Vicar of Christ would be playing a “political move” in praising a missal that so many people here claim is inherently flawed.

    TJM seems to be the only man here with any sense. Anyone who could see the Bromton Oratory’s celebration of the Ordinary Form would never make the accusations that people here make.

    Furthermore, I highly suggest that you all take a look at Bishop Finn and the statements he has made about both Forms. Here is a man who has done wonders, absolute wonders, for Kansas City by purging it of a ton of dissent. He has launched a huge campaign against pornography, has invited the ICKSP into his diocese, and will celebrate the Extraordinary Form next month on Sept. 15th. And this same bishop has praiced the Ordinary Form, calling it an integral part of his priesthood. Is this man therefore not holy because he derives an immense spiritual benefit from the Ordinary Form?

    I suggest that anyone who makes the assertions like danphunter1 take a look at a group like Opus Dei, to which Bishop Finn belongs. They insist that all members wear pants and dress reverently at mass. Their priests wear cassoks, and follow the mass rubrics down to the smallest detail. Every single member I have ever met not only has a huge appreciation for tradition, but strives to live their whole lives as an offering in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I have met true modern-day saints, all of whom have been raised on the Ordinary Form. I’m sure that this will come as a shock to a lot of people.

    Quite frankly, I don’t know why Fr. Z, who is a fine priest, puts up with this hogwash. It goes against the expllicit statements of our Holy Father, as well as Summorum Pontificum.

  64. Mike B. says:

    Matt,

    Thanks for the information. I have heard of such “traditional Catholic-looking” Lutheran churches but have never been in one. As I take a yearly fishing trip to NW Ontario every year, perhaps I will visit Manitoba and try to find the church you mention. How ironic I would find it to discover a Lutheran church that looks more “Catholic” than many of our own “Catholic” churches!

    Thanks for the info and the insights.

    Pax,

    Mike

  65. Paul says:

    To pick up on something Thomas More said, there are many religious orders, etc. that do not only a reverent Novus Ordo, but a deeply reverent one–such as Miles Christi, which we are lucky to have in the Detroit area. The big problem with the N. O. as officially prescribed, I think, is that its liturgical spirituality is still a “babe in arms,” and yet so much is expected of it. As such it has much yet to learn from its parent–the Usus Antiquior. To be sure, its rubrics will never be as tight, nor its symbolism and as multi-layered. But they need not be, given the more limited ability of many moderns to apprehend these things. Yet I optimistic about its future. It is still something of an “ugly duckling,” but it has the potential to be a swan.

  66. Paul says:

    [Grammatically corrected version of previous post]

    To pick up on something Thomas More said, there are many religious orders, etc. that do not only a reverent Novus Ordo, but a deeply reverent one—such as Miles Christi, which we are lucky to have in the Detroit area. The big problem with the N. O. as officially prescribed, I think, is that its liturgical spirituality is still a “babe in arms,” and yet so much is expected of it. As such it has much yet to learn from its parent—the Usus Antiquior. To be sure, its rubrics will never be as tight, nor its symbolism as multi-layered. But they need not be, given the more limited ability of many moderns to apprehend these things. Yet I am optimistic about its future. It is still something of an “ugly duckling,” but it has the potential to be a swan.

  67. Jim says:

    My Dear AZ, I did not miss anything on Bishop Nichols biography, I only copied and pasted it from his diocesan web site. You point out that he is carrying a copy of the crozier of the late Mgsr Worlock. Several people have noted that Vincent Nichols, is in the running for the next Archbishopric of Westminster…Some eminent people have spilt ink, informing the lower orders…such as Me, that Mgsr Worlock was “DENIED” the See of Westminster because the late great Auberon Waugh…son of Evelyn..of Blessed memory, had Worlock in his sights and was going to “De bag him” at every turn, ie make jokes at his expense. In the end Bron had to content himself with remarks like…”Cardinal Hume’s new kind of Church”..etc.etc..as Churchill might have said….”Some new”….”Some Church”….Wreck more like, at least from where I’m sitting…..are you listening Vince…!!!

    ThomasMore…so it’s only presentation that’s at fault…that’s O.K then..??all we need is a bit of window dressing and all will be well….I think not.
    Come on over to my place, bring the family…We’ll have Cabbage ‘n Custard for starters….Carrots and Cappuccino soup, followed by French animal guts wrapped in sausage skin…Andouillettes..(I don’t know how to spell check in French hence the “Visceral” “guts” description….but I have the Tee shirt…I can assure you…never …ever go there, let the Froggies eat their own animal guts…Ho…Ho…Ho…). As you can see, all of the above “Ingredients” make for a wonderful feast…but not how I have presented them. Ergo…I think the same holds true , only WORSE, for the Novus Ordo. A bit of Fludde of Noye, here, a dash of Ben Hur trumpets there, sprinkle in some Bob Dylan and some leggy lovelies tip toeing through the tulips, ending up in the lap of Fatty Arbuckle….result….Catastrophe….as the man said “YOU CAN’T POLISH A T**D”….it has been a disaster of Universe wrecking proportions and it has to go…..O.K …a short stay of execution to wean the faint of heart from their pacifier…..but after that…..BANG….

  68. dcs says:

    Serafino writes:
    I think it is pretty clear what Jesus thinks of titles.

    Quite right. “You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am.” (John 13,13)

  69. RBrown says:

    RBrown,

    All men are called to be honorable. However, the usage of the word “honorable” was never a title connected to “nobility.” The “honorable, John Jones” does not connect him to a “Noble Class,” whereas, “Your Grace” and “Your Lordship most certainly do.

    All men are called to be honorable, but all politicians are not. Even those who are corrupt liars are nonetheless addressed formally as The Honorable . . .

    Your Grace and Your Lordship refer to a bishop’s authority, just as when nobles were addressed as such, it also referred to their authority.

    Lastly, as one who holds many advanced degrees in theology, you certainly know the title “Jesus is Lord” is a proclamation of His Divinity, and has nothing to do with styles of address assumed by some ecclesiastics and the so called ‘Nobility.”
    Comment by Serafino — 30 August 2007

    When someone is addressed as “Lord”, it signifies authority or dominion over someone or someplace. Jesus is Lord in itself doesn’t signify his Divinity–thus the NT phrase the “Lord God” (Kurios theos).

    In so far as He is God, “Jesus is Lord” is short for “Jesus is Lord of the Universe”.

  70. Jordan Potter says:

    Serafino said: BTW, I find no reference to the word “honorable” as having anything to do with the “landed gentry” of the feudal period. I would be interested if you could quote your source. Even if it had, the common use of that word does not denote “nobile” rank.

    Here is an example of the use of “Honor” in the manner to which I referred above:

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266(192910)44%3A176%3C648%3ACROTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

    In origin, calling magistrates and rulers by the honorific of “Honorable” partakes of that earlier, feudal connotation of the word “Honor.”

  71. Matt Robinson says:

    ThomasMore,

    I stand by my statement. I’ve been far and wide, and the most faithful sector of the Church are the 60+ plus age group hands down. They foot the bills and have the strongest sense of collective Catholic identity. (remember Elvis, Rock and Roll, other
    bad influences were ALREADY part of pop culture in the 1950′s…so
    saying the pat answer that they had better culture doesn’t cut it…they still had something else that we dont…a Catholic sacramental culture which was still grounded in Apostolic Tradition).

    The Trent comment is a red herring, as Trent did not usher in
    a massive upheaval of any sort to Catholic doctrine or practise.
    The upheaval came from heretical Bishops and priest, who promptly LEFT the Church to start their own sects and took millions with them.
    Also, there were many notable figures in the Church throughout
    that period. Post VII is different, as we witnessed a self-inflicted,
    manufactured crisis of faith and a swift collapse of religious life across the board.

    There are strands of faith here and there among younger generations, but it is nothing compared to the identity of the last generation formed in the “Tridentine” Rite.

    Blaming secular culture alone is a canard, yes it is a factor, but
    the reason for the Catholic Church’s implosion came from within, not from without. The Church flourished in other times of gross
    immorality and upheaval…look at the Church in France after the Revolution. France was even more messed-up in 1846 as it is today, but the Church came back from the brink with real supernatural dynamism and unity.

    I simply ask, where is this dynamism today? Show me any
    potential capital “S” Saints out there or great figures formed
    by the New Mass? Under 60 years of age… That is all I ask? For a Church with 1 billion people, it shouldn’t be hard to find some in this internet age. (It is a sincere question too not rhetorical).
    Surely by the age of 60, one should have time to have left
    a big mark, no?

    The one man who the Holy Spirit chose to be Pope, amid a literal throng of Cardinals, who did nothing but sing the praises of the Novus Ordo, called the Mass a “banal, on the spot product”, “produced as though in a manufacturing process”. At any other age, anyone saying things like that about the Mass would be barred from being ordained a priest let alone becoming Pope.

    This speaks volumes…Believe me I lived at a very devout
    Benedictine Monastery for 2 years where the NO was done as
    best as can be expected. Yet the vocations are still not there, nor
    the dynamism. These devout Monks are literally dying out. About
    5 new brothers and priests in the past 35 years. Good, holy men.

    The New Mass seems to me, a classic example of the maxim:

    “Man proposes and God disposes”.

    I don’t believe God was not consulted at all when it came to:

    1. the 26 new Eucharistic prayers – the movement to make
    new canons spawned from disobedient Bishops in Switzerland, Belgium, Germany – who began allowing “ecumenical canons” many of which were heretical – Paul VI was so appalled that he allowed 3 new official non-heretical canons to be created which soon spiralled into 26- something no where alluded to in VII – SC.

    2. Communion in the hand – began by disobedient and often heretical
    Bishops in the same suspect nations for the same dubious reasons…
    our good ol’ friend the “ecumenical gesture”.
    Paul VI wrote a document saying it was contrary to established practises, and a danger to piety, but allowed it where it had been introduced by the disobedient Bishops. All the other Bishops got
    in line to demand it, so that by 1977 the exception had become
    the rule.

    3. Altar Girls….same thing…I was trained by say Mass
    by girls in 1985. 9 years before permission had been given.
    Again, the disobedient Bishops were rewarded and Tradition further
    obscured.

    I could go on and on. Many of the aspects of “renewal”
    were in fact blatant acts of open rebellion and disobedience, which the Church ended up sanctioning. (another striking difference from
    the era of Trent!). I fail to see how allowing practises
    spawned in the bosum of disobedience and illicitness could
    in an way up to a fruitful liturgical development and renewal.

    And sorry, but these practises are PART and PARCEL of the New
    Mass. It’s all a package deal at this point.

    I pray the Extraordinary Form accomplishes the purpose for which
    Divine Providence, and our Holy Father have desired…namely
    purifying “a Rite gone Wrong”…the Novus Ordo along with
    safeguarding an ancient Rite for future generations.

  72. Copernicus says:

    All of the Classical Rites of the Catholic Church are of an organic development and are therefore very similiar and speak of great unity between them. This cannot be said about the Novus Ordo which has nuch of the Series III liturgical prayers from a protestant community:Anglican. This is disunity. So I mean every Catholic liturgy which is not Novus Ordo,which borrowed much from Cranmer.

    Hmm… This is what Pope Benedict calls a hermeneutic of rupture, isn’t it? ;-)

  73. RBrown says:

    1. Bishop Finn was ordained for the archdiocese of St Louis, not Opus Dei (Prelature of the Holy Cross). My understanding is that he is a member of the priestly society of Opus Dei, which is a bit like a diocesan priest being a Benedictine Oblate or a Tertiary of the Franciscans/Dominicans.

    2. Although secular culture must take some of the blame for the Church’s present crisis, after Vat II the decision was made to try to effect detente with this secular culture. Cardinal Ratzinger had often made it clear that he thought this effort at detente was a failure.

  74. dcs says:

    ThomasMore1535 writes:
    I am sick and tired of supposed lovers of tradition saying that the Ordinary Form is inherently irreverent. All of the examples that they give—clown masses, people wearing shorts, etc., are not, and never have been, an inherent part of the Ordinary Form. This is making straw men.

    Isn’t this itself something of a straw man? I don’t know many people who would say that the Novus Ordo is “inherently irreverent.” Even otherwise hardcore traditionalists have lauded the late Msgr. Schuler and EWTN for the reverence of their Masses.

    I would say rather than the NOM is not inherently reverent. Its celebration often seems like it is a reflection of the priest’s own personal devotion.

    Larry writes:
    Asking for a horde of canonized saints weaned and raised on a Liturgy that’s existed for only 40 years is hardly a fair request.

    Very true. How about a horde of vocations then? ;-)

  75. Paul says:

    As concerns the N.O. and vocations, I do think it is relevant to remember that religious education collapsed after Vatican II. Once stricter discipline was taken off in a whole variety of matters, we got to see how weak certain fundamentals in the Church were. As someone who grew up after the council, the N. O. Mass was almost the only decent catechesis I had as a child in the 1970s (often minus the homilies, alas.) We liturgical obsessives :-) need to be careful of the ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ fallacy here.

  76. Martha says:

    Matt Robinson stated:

    “I pray the Extraordinary Form accomplishes the purpose for which
    Divine Providence, and our Holy Father have desired…namely
    purifying “a Rite gone Wrong”…the Novus Ordo along with
    safeguarding an ancient Rite for future generations.”

    I have to say I agree with what you say, Matt. The N.O. has been a complete disaster and surveys provide the statistics as evidence. The National Catholic Reporter conducted a survey in 2005, which found that in the age bracket of 18-25 year-olds, only 15% of Catholics attended weekly Mass. That in itself says a mouthful. Notice the source of the survey. It’s not trads making up figures.

  77. Greg Smisek says:

    Mr. Robinson wrote:

    the 26 new Eucharistic prayers

    I’m afraid 26 is far above my poor power to add or subtract.

    In addition to the Roman Canon, I count 6 other Eucharistic Prayers in the 2002 Missale Romanum (II-IV, plus 3 for Masses with Children). In the U.S. and many other places, we can add in the 2 Eucharistic Prayers for Masses of Reconciliation and 1 for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions. That’s 9 new Eucharistic Prayers (or 12 if you count the four options of the last one separately).

    Presumably the rest (17 or 14, respectively) are locally composed and approved by the Holy See for a particular occasion or for ongoing use in a certain locality? I’d be interested to know where.

  78. Maureen says:

    You do realize that’s a statistic about “wild oats”, and not about being born after a certain point.

    Of course, it would help if people that age had ever been taught that you’re supposed to attend Mass if reasonably possible, and that if you don’t, it’s a sin. I learned that from my mother and my family, not from CCD.

  79. ThomasMore1535 says:

    RBrown,

    I am very well aware that Bishop Finn is not part of the CLERGY of Opus Dei. He is a member of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, which is a pious association of priests inseparably united to the Prelature of Opus Dei. All members of the Priestly Society would say, without qualification, that they are part of the family that is Opus Dei. But you are COMPLETELY MISINFORMED in assuming that it’s like being a tertiary. It is nothing of the sort. It is not a religious order at all. Bishop Finn remains a secular priest. He has taken no vows. He has written extensively on how Opus Dei has been the primary source of his spiritual formation for much of his life as a priest. Please get your facts right. St. Josemaria wrote again and again that being a part of Opus Dei, whether in the clergy or in the Society of the Holy Cross, is NOT akin to a religious vocation.

    Second, regarding dcs’s comments that I am possibly drawing a strawman regarding assuming that most traditionalists believe that the Novus Ordo is inherrently irreverent, I only urge you to re-read some of the comments above. I fully agree that how the Novus Ordo has been PRESENTED is a disaster. It has to be celebrated in a more traditional manner. That is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he said that it is fabricated. NOT the content of the Ordinary Form itself.

    “Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms) I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use of weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been prese3nted with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.” Cardinal Ratzinger, “Feast of Faith,” p. 87.

    This stands in stark contrast to comments of people like Matt Robinson, who seem to find nothing good about the Novus Ordo.

  80. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Finally, if any of you want to see how a reverent celebration of the Ordinary Form leads to a surge in vocations, please view this:

    http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=22953

  81. Henry Edwards says:

    ThomasMore,

    Whether strawman or no, let me suggest it would be a mistake to conclude solely from comments here anything at all about what “most traditionalists” believe. A sizable majority of the folks I attend a Sunday TLM with are under-forties who — like you and me both, I suspect — migrate readily back and forth been the ordinary and extraordinary forms of our sacred rite. (Perhaps I ought to clarify that I am hardly an “under-forty” myself; indeed, if for no other reason, I would have to attend the TLM in order to worship with a majority of people so much younger than me.)

    I am fortunate to attend (with 3 miles of my home) a daily Novus Ordo Mass whose reverence no one could reasonably criticize. However, the fact that so many Catholics do not have such an opportunity is due (I believe) to structural defects in the Novus Ordo that invite the “deformations” that are so prevalent.

    I recall a statement of Martin Mosebach in The Heresy of Formlessness that might be paraphrased to say that … The fact that, with sufficient effort the Novus Ordo can be celebrated properly, reveals its weakness. As the fact that, with sufficient effort the TLM can be celebrated improperly, reveals its strength.

    Regarding those “structural defects” (if that’s what they are), I think of the cover of the current issue of Inside the Vatican where — above the words “The Old Mass: A Return to Tradition” at the bottom, we see in a much larger font the words “AND NOW, THE REFORM OF THE REFORM”.

    I’ll bet this gets the mind of Ratzinger just about right — that the motu proprio is important not only for the restoration of our revered ancient rite, but perhaps even more so as a precursor for steps that Benedict will take to correct those defects (whether in structure or in presentation) that have largely forestalled the revitalization of the liturgy that Vatican II surely envisioned.

  82. RBrown says:

    TMore,

    I am very well aware that Bishop Finn is not part of the CLERGY of Opus Dei. He is a member of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, which is a pious association of priests inseparably united to the Prelature of Opus Dei. All members of the Priestly Society would say, without qualification, that they are part of the family that is Opus Dei. But you are COMPLETELY MISINFORMED in assuming that it’s like being a tertiary. It is nothing of the sort. It is not a religious order at all. Bishop Finn remains a secular priest.
    He has taken no vows. He has written extensively on how Opus Dei has been the primary source of his spiritual formation for much of his life as a priest. Please get your facts right. St. Josemaria wrote again and again that being a part of Opus Dei, whether in the clergy or in the Society of the Holy Cross, is NOT akin to a religious vocation.

    1. I thought I made it clear that diocesan priests who become tertiaries of religious orders remain diocesan priests.

    2. I said is was like being a tertiary–I never said it was the same thing.

    3. I realize that Opus Dei is not a religious order.

    Second, regarding dcs’s comments that I am possibly drawing a strawman regarding assuming that most traditionalists believe that the Novus Ordo is inherrently irreverent, I only urge you to re-read some of the comments above. I fully agree that how the Novus Ordo has been PRESENTED is a disaster. It has to be celebrated in a more traditional manner. That is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he said that it is fabricated. NOT the content of the Ordinary Form itself.

    1. In his Memoirs Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “But more than this (referring the revision of the missal) now happened. The old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure LARGELY (my emphasis) using the old materials from the previous one.” p. 148

    From that it would make no sense to concluded that he sees no problem with the content.

    2. Further, your contention is contradicted by Paul VI, who refers to it as a “new rite”, having “new rules”, and as an “innovation”. That indicates more than just a matter of presentation.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

  83. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Henry Edwards,

    I basically agree with everything you’ve written. I agree that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated reverently, but perhaps there is too much room for improvisation. What has to happen now is that the Extraordinary Form has to be seen as a reference for how the Ordinary Form is celebrated, and the rubrics of the Ordinary Form “tightened,” so-to-say, so that the way in which the Oratorians or the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, for example, becomes the norm. However, I must respectfully disagree with you, at least in terms of what I have experienced personally, regarding “traditionalists” and their view of a reverent celebration of the Ordinary Form. You have been much more fortunate than I have, it appears, in meeting people who are willing to “open their minds” (in the best sense of the term) to a traditional celebration of the Ordinary Form. Most, if not all, of the “traditionalists” that I have met (and I have the grace to be able to attend the Extraordinary Form on a daily basis) look very much down on the Ordinary Form itself, not just in terms of how it is celebrated. Indeed, to be honest, the ones I have met take a very “snotty” approach to it.

    Having said that, I very much rejoice that your experience has been different. I’m glad that there are traditionalists oout there who are interested in a reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form, and would love to meet them some day. If what you say is true, I would gladly revise my comments. I hope that you’re right, and I’m wrong.

    As for RBrown, I would appreciate it if you quoted that part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memoirs in full, instead of out of context. For your benefit, I will give you the full quotation, which actually shows the opposite of what you claim it dows.

    “[T]he old building was demolished, and another one was built, to be sure using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS NEW MISSAL IN MANY RESPECTS BROUGHT WITH IT A REAL IMPROVEMENT AND ENRICHMENT; but SETTING IT AS A NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER AGAINST WHAT HAD GROWN HISTORICALLY, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy APPEAR to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm.” Cardinal Ratzinger, “Milestones: memoirs 1927-1977, p. 148. (emphasis added).

    If this does not show a continuation of the Cardinal’s thoughts from his earlier work “Feast of Faith,” I don’t know what does. He clearly writes that the CONTENT of the Ordinary Form is fine, but its PRESENTATION has been a disaster, hence “SETTING IT AS A NEW CONSTRUCTION,” etc. This is a reference to PRESENTATION. Otherwise you’re suggesting that the Cardinal did a 180 in his thoughts, and that no honest reading of his work as a whole demonstrates this. He has been consistent in his thought since day 1.

    Finally, I have to insist that being in the Preistly Society of the Holy Cross is not even LIKE being a tertiary in a religious order. Not only do the priests in the society remain diocesen priests, they remain SECULAR priests. Thye do NOT swear any vows of obedience to the President-General of the Society, unlike tertiaries do for their religious superiors. They do not adopt the spirituality of the religious orders in any way, shape or form (though that spirituality is of course highly venerable.) St. Josemaria always bent over backwards in repeating, again and again, that no one associated with Opus Dei in any way, shape or form is LIKE a religious.

  84. Bernard says:

    Harry Edwards

    You’ve articulated something which I’ve experienced as the difference between the two norms/rites, the ‘structural defects’ of the Novus Ordo. Noticiable in a Latin High Mass NO especially when compared to TLM High M
    Mass. The latter has obviously evolved where the NO is piecemeal. This is where it becomes clear that Latin is not the main issue.

  85. Iubilus says:

    Dear ThomasMore,

    It is a small point, and it does not really pertain to the post, but as it has come up: secular
    clergy who are tertiaries of a religious order do not cease to be secular clergy, nor do they take
    vows to a superior. Like lay tertiaries, they do make promises, but in all things pertaining to
    their ministry and priesthood they are still subject to their local ordinary, the bishop. I do not
    know much about Opus Dei, which is certainly not an order, but it does seem to me that they do have
    a spirituality and the priests in the Society of the Holy Cross seem to follow a modified
    form of it, even as tertiaries follow a modified form of the spirituality of an order.

    It is curious to me reading these comments. I have long thought that the fighting between liberals and
    conservatives will be nothing compared to the fighting between those who prefer the older and newer forms of
    the liturgy. For myself, I prefer the rite of my own order, but I also appreciated the new form as it was
    celebrated by the chaplains of my college in the late 1990′s.

  86. RBrown says:

    As for RBrown, I would appreciate it if you quoted that part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memoirs in full, instead of out of context. For your benefit, I will give you the full quotation, which actually shows the opposite of what you claim it dows.

    No it doesn’t. If it shows the opposite of what I quoted, then I would say it’s a pretty poor paragraph–which it isn’t. The text I quoted is the topic sentence of the paragraph.

    Also: See below.

    “[T]he old building was demolished, and another one was built, to be sure using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS NEW MISSAL IN MANY RESPECTS BROUGHT WITH IT A REAL IMPROVEMENT AND ENRICHMENT; but SETTING IT AS A NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER AGAINST WHAT HAD GROWN HISTORICALLY, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy APPEAR to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm.” Cardinal Ratzinger, “Milestones: memoirs 1927-1977, p. 148. (emphasis added).

    1. Interesting that the word I emphasized (“largely”) you conveniently deleted with your “full quotation”. (Gee, I can only wonder why.) That word indicates that JRatzinger is saying that it is BOTH a matter of content and presentation.

    If this does not show a continuation of the Cardinal’s thoughts from his earlier work “Feast of Faith,” I don’t know what does.

    Well, there we agree–you don’t know.

    And of course you failed to respond to the text from Paul VI, who promulgated the missal and said that it is a “new rite” with “new rules”.

    He clearly writes that the CONTENT of the Ordinary Form is fine, but its PRESENTATION has been a disaster, hence “SETTING IT AS A NEW CONSTRUCTION,” etc. This is a reference to PRESENTATION. Otherwise you’re suggesting that the Cardinal did a 180 in his thoughts, and that no honest reading of his work as a whole demonstrates this. He has been consistent in his thought since day 1.

    I agree that he has been consistent.

    On the other hand, you continue to make the same mistake because you assume that the answer is 100% one way or the other. This is also why you cannot comprehend the analogy I made.

    Finally, I have to insist that being in the Preistly Society of the Holy Cross is not even LIKE being a tertiary in a religious order. Not only do the priests in the society remain diocesen priests, they remain SECULAR priests. Thye do NOT swear any vows of obedience to the President-General of the Society, unlike tertiaries do for their religious superiors. They do not adopt the spirituality of the religious orders in any way, shape or form (though that spirituality is of course highly venerable.) St. Josemaria always bent over backwards in repeating, again and again, that no one associated with Opus Dei in any way, shape or form is LIKE a religious.
    Comment by ThomasMore1535

    1. First you say that Bp Finn says that Opus Dei has been “the primary source of his spiritual formation for much of his life as a priest”. Now you say that diocesan priests who are attached to Opus Dei “do not adopt the spirituality in any way whatsoever”.

    ?????

    2. Dominicans (meaning priests, nuns, and sisters) do not vow obedience to the head of the Order but rather to the Dominican Constitutions. Obviously, neither then do the tertiaries.

    3. So you saying that no one in Opus Dei is in any way shape, or form LIKE a religious? Aren’t numeraries celibate? Like religious. Don’t they usually live in community? Like religious. Don’t they adopt in some manner a certain poverty by turning over the bulk of their income to the organization? Like religious. Aren’t their houses directly under Rome rather than a diocesan bishop? Like religious.