What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

The Jesuit ultra-leftist weekly America Magazine had an article by a self-described liberal-minded priest who made a decision to celebrate the traditional form of Mass when a group asked fo it.

I posted the whole article and made comments here.

There are some very good comments in this article what deserve discussion.

I will preface this with a point I have made fairly often.  When younger priests who never knew the older form of Mass begin to learn it, it will change their perceptions about what Mass is and who they are as priests.  Older priests will have much the same experience when they reaqcuaint themselves, especially after decades of having had only the newer forms of liturgy.  This must be a motive for Summorum Pontificum.

An excerpt from their latest number with my emphases.

Having decided to offer the Tridentine Mass, I began the arduous project of recovering—and reinforcing—my Latin grammar and vocabulary so that I could celebrate the liturgy in a prayerful, intelligible way.  As I studied the Latin texts and intricate rituals  I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.” 

The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?  

The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

Let me toss a couple ideas onto the table.

First, many opponents of the older Mass claim that its spirituality is contrary to, or at least out of keeping with, the spirituality of Vatican II.

Second, in Holy Mass (and elsewhere), because of the sacrament of Holy Orders, the priest is alter Christus.  When he says Mass, he is both acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) as Priest and Victim. 

Third, sacramental reality is not less real than tangible reality we perceive with our senses.  The sacred mysteries of Holy Mass make present the very events they portray: the Last Supper, the Sacrifice of Calvary.  By our baptism we participate in these sacred mysteries.

Fourth, one of the most important elements of a proper ars celebrandi described by His Holiness in Sacramentum caritatis is that the priest must be "transparent" (my word).  It is an abuse to impose your personality unduly on the liturgy.   By staying out of the way of the true Actor in Mass, Christ the High Priest, the priest is a greater bearer of the person of Christ in a special way in the liturgy.  That is an act of charity: sacrificial love, sacrifice of self for the good of others.  That is service.

One of the things that I was very struck by was the writer’s comment that during the Canon (which makes Calvary present) the priest felt loneliness.

I would like to open this to some discussion.  However, I will try to direct it.  Please follow my lead if I cut off tangents or try to get more thoughts on some point that has been raised. 

If I delete comments that are leading down rabbit holes, don’t freak out.  If people take the discussion in directions I have ask that we avoid, and I delete comments, don’t freak out.

I especially invite comments by priests.  As a matter of fact, if we can get priests talking together about this, I will then ask lay people not to comment, but to read carefully.

I got this e-mail about the situation of the TLM in Steubenville.

My emphases:

Fr. Z,

I wanted to share some good news here in the diocese of Steubenville.  Yesterday, St. Peter’s Church offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on its magnificent high altar for the first time in nearly 40 years.  What a joy to receive Holy Communion at an altar rail that for over a decade simply gathered dust.  The mass was celebrated with dignity and reverence, and the chants were executed beautifully.  And best of all, the church was packed—standing room only (and most Franciscan students were still on Thanksgiving break).

One could tell that everyone was a bit rusty, both the celebrant (silent Gospel but audible Canon) and parishioners (a bit of confusion on when to stand or sit or kneel).  However, I heard not a word of complaint.  I saw some people in tears.  One lady who had never read the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass mentioned that she was awestruck by the beauty of the prayers.  The good monsignor was lavished with praise after mass.  Methinks that the parishioners will be requesting this a little more often that once a month.

In Corde Iesu,

Give this one your creative shot!  o{]:¬)

The Jesuit ultra-leftist weekly America Magazine has two items right now on Pope Benedict’s provisions in Summorum Pontificum.

Here are a couple pieces, the first dreadful, and the second… well… I’ll let you discover that for yourself. 

From their latest number with my emphases and comments.

No News…

When Pope Benedict allowed wider use of the Latin Mass [Take note of their careful use of terms.] last July, he explained that he did not expect as a result any extensive return to the Tridentine rite. [Is that what the Pope said?] Rather, he said, he intended to heal rifts with traditionalist groups and allow [I think that is the wrong word.  "Allow" makes this all sound as if there is still an "indult".  There isn’t.  People have rights now.] young people attracted to the rite to experience it. [And not just once in a while, as an "experience".] He said he did not mean to lessen the authority of the world’s bishops, [Yah… but he did.  Right?  Pay close attention to what the writer does: with great stealth he plants the suggestion that Benedict intended XYZ but in fact he was deluded or he failed.  Watch.] who until then held sway over local use of the rite. Nor did he mean to offend Jews worried about offensive [A disputed point.] language in the prayers of Holy Week. To assuage fears that the old rite might compete with the new one, the pope proposed to review the situation in three years. [He makes it sound as if Summorum Pontificum could be rolled back.  It can’t.] The Catholic response to the permission in the United States has been predictable. [Get a load of the condescension that follows:] On op-ed pages proponents hailed it as progress; Patrick Buchanan publicly declared himself “a Latin Mass Catholic.” News outlets big and small ran stories showing priests facing the altar, not the people, and confirming in quotes and interviews just what the pope had predicted: some young people like participating in Mass using a rite they had never before experienced.  Something has changed. But how broad is Catholic interest? A recent New York Times story cited an objective measure: a phone survey [There we go!  Just what we need: polling.] of the 25 largest U.S. dioceses, in which diocesan officials said that a traditional Latin Mass has “emerged in just one or two parishes.” That meager interest confirmed information America obtained from an independent reporter we had engaged to track and write the story. There is no story, though things might change and interest build. For now there is little to report.  [This is great.  The Motu Proprio has been out a couple months and there hasn’t been an explosion of Masses with the old books.  WOW.]

Faith in Focus

My Second First Mass
On presiding at a Latin liturgy

BY MICHAEL KERPER

ON SEPT. 23 I walked down the center aisle of our parish church, genuflected and made the sign of the cross while saying, In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Thus began my first Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 more than 22 years after my first experience of celebrating the Eucharist.

When Pope Benedict XVI issued his letter of July 7 eliminating most restrictions on the use of the so-called Tridentine Mass, my reaction oscillated between mild irritation (Will this ignite conflict? How will we ever provide such Masses?) and vague interest (Is there perhaps some hidden treasure in the old Mass?).

Within a week, letters [The following word might be what the writer wants you to continue with in your mind as you read…] trickled in. Some demanded a Latin Mass every Sunday, insisting that the pope had “mandated” its regular celebration. Others were more reasonable.  [At this point I have real sympathy with the writer!  Some trads can be as subtle and kind as a band sanders when expressing their desires.] In August, I met with a dozen parishioners who wanted the Mass. The meeting became steamy as I explained that I had never said the “old” Mass as a priest and had served such Masses as an altar boy for only two years before everything changed. Some thought I was just feigning ignorance to avoid doing it.  [So far, we have read what is probably an often repeated occurrence after the Motu Proprio was issued.]

A few days after the meeting, I obtained a 1962 missal, looked through it, and concluded, reluctantly, that I knew more Latin [What?  For heaven’s sake.  Why would knowledge of Latin be something to be "reluctant" about?  "Oh dear.  This is not so good.  I guess I am better educated than I thought.  If only I were dumber.  Then I wouldn’t have to willingly receive the group’s petition: If I am not up to the job, they’d have to get another priest.] than I had thought. My original cranky demurral crumbled under the force of my own pastoral self-understanding, which had been largely shaped by the Second Vatican Council. As a promoter of the widest range of pluralism within the church, how could I refuse to deal with an approved liturgical form? As a pastor who has tried to respond to people alienated by the perceived rigid conservatism of the church, how could I walk away from people alienated by priests like myself—progressive, “low church” pastors who have no ear for traditional piety? An examination of conscience revealed an imbalance in my pastoral approach: a gracious openness to the left (like feminists, pro-choice advocates, people cohabiting and secular Catholics) and an instant skepticism toward the right (traditionalists).

[There is a lot going on here.  Let me digress a bit.

First, the "liberal" approach sets up a moral equivalence between, for example, "pro-choice advocates" and "traditionalists".  There is no consideration of whether or not these are both legitimate for a Catholic to be.  While we want always to love the sinner and hate the sin, there is nothing wrong with being a "traditionalist", while there is with being "a pro-choice advocate".  To want or advocate for the TLM is not the moral equivalent of wanting or advocating abortion, or the stranger versions feminism, etc.  I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.  His comments raised this issue in my mind, so I digressed.  That’s what blogs are for.

Second, and this is very important, almost all progressivist liberals set up a dichotomy between "pastoral" and "intellectual".  This is a false distinction, of course.  However, in the mind of the liberal, these two concepts are inimical: you can’t be both pastoral and intellectual, or rather, intellectual in the way that leads to conservative or traditional conclusions.  No.  To be truly "pastoral" you must avoid reference to unchanging principles or objective truth, and so forth.  This is partly the reason why the writer of this piece expresses disappointment when he figures out he knows more Latin than he thought he did.  The real reason is probably that ignorance of Latin would disqualify him from having to be a servant also to the trads.  Nevertheless, and this is the point of this part of the digression, knowledge of Latin is kryptonite to the truly "pastoral" guy, "pastoral" in the sense that sets up moral equivalence between, say, pro-abortion advocacy and traditional liturgy advocacy.  The liberal will always fear traditional Catholicism.  They will seek to marginalize those who want it.  Clerics in power-positions are especially harsh in this regard with other clerics who haven’t the same power, but who are clearly "not pastoral" (in their sense)" because they know Latin, stick to the Catechism of the Catholic Church … or of Trent... etc.  "Low Church" is, for them, "pastoral" and those who demonstrate a condescendingly off-hand but jocular contempt for Latin, liturgy, clear doctrine, attention to the intellectual life, etc, will always win preferm