Someone alerted me to an article which appeared on 14 July, last, on at U.S. Catholic – publication/site to which I haven’t paid much attention.
My emphases and comments.
Two rites make a wrong
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
By goodwink
Ted RoseanWe are one church and we need just one Mass, this Catholic argues – even if that one Mass is celebrated in any number of languages. [I guess the Eastern Catholics are pretty much out of luck, not to mention everyone in Milan.]
At one end of the archdiocese where I live, a Mass is held in a gymnasium every Sunday, and a group of lively folk musicians accompany the assembly through a relaxed and informal liturgy. The mood reflects the music. Because it’s a gym, children seem to act less restrained, feeling free to roam a bit. Folding chairs are set up in a semi-circle around a portable altar that this group has used for many years.
There are no kneelers, of course, reflecting to some extent the impracticality of portable kneelers, but reflecting to a greater extent the theology of those gathered: These are "looking up to God in trust, not bowing down to God in fear" Catholics, [Initium sapientiae est timor Domini.] nurturing a view of church and theology that was born at the Second Vatican Council. [That is what the Council wanted for liturgy? Remember: there is a reciprocal relationship between how we pray and what we believe. Believe certain things and you will pray in a manner that reflects those believes.. and vice versa. As you pray, so you will come to have certain beliefs. ]
I know many of these Catholics and consider them to be very good people. Their liturgy is, I believe, a scandal.
At the other end of the archdiocese, a priest adorned in shimmering vestments murmurs prayers in Latin, facing the tabernacle, his voice barely audible to the assembly of worshipers kneeling behind him. [Because he is following the rubrics?] Many of these are silently and privately praying the rosary. At certain moments there is an exchange of words between the priest and the assembly. These words are in Latin. [Sounds as if there is more authentic active participation at this Mass.]
The atmosphere is reverent, reflecting to some extent the mood naturally created by silence, candles, and Latin, but reflecting to a greater extent the theology of those gathered: These are "kneeling before God in awe, not back-slapping brother Jesus" Catholics, preserving a view of church and theology set aside at the Second Vatican Council. [HUH? Who is this guy and has he ever read the Council’s document?]I know one of the people in the assembly to be one of the finest human beings alive-my father-but his liturgy is, I believe, a scandal. [What was done for so long, and which aided saints in their lives is a "scandal"?]
An outsider observing the two rituals Would never guess they belonged to the same church. [right] And in fact, many of the participants at the respective assemblies might admit that they don’t really share a faith with the participants in the "other" group. [Given the differences in their prayer, I would tend to agree.]
This is what makes these liturgies scandalous. They represent such polarized expressions of worship that they drift from the central purpose of liturgy as stated in the introduction of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "to be a sign lifted up among the nations, to those who are outside, a sign under which the scattered children of God may be gathered together until there is one fold and one shepherd." A church practicing such divergent forms of worship will hardly unite the scattered children of God. [The problem with this is that he doesn’t take into account that one of those expressions might actually be legitimate. Certainly the Vicar of Christ thinks that at least one of them is a legitimate expression. As a matter of fact the last Pope, John Paul II, thought at least one of them was a legitimate expression.]
Currently we are many folds under a shepherd who last year stirred the pot with his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum (Of the Supreme Pontiffs), sanctioning wider use of the old Latin or Tridentine Mass. Besides allowing individual parishes to conduct Latin Masses at the pastor’s discretion, secondhand reports suggest that Pope Benedict XVI would like to see a Latin Mass offered at every parish. Upon hearing this, I felt a rumbling that I’m certain was Pope John XXIII, who opened the Second Vatican Council, rolling in his grave. [Again, this fellow lacks perspective. John XXIII was quite the liturgical trad. ]
The problem with the gym mass is not the gym, or the folk music, or even the lack of kneelers. The gym liturgies I’ve participated in mostly adhere to the rite promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. The scandal is the fact that 100 yards from the gym, a splendid church sits where liturgy is celebrated by the other 90 percent of the parish every Sunday.
Once, when gym repairs required the gym Mass to move back into the regular church for a while, there was some talk that the gym altar should be moved in to replace the regular church altar. Two altars at one parish screams division to me: "Our church is not your church; our worship is not your worship; we are not you." Such practices divide the Body of Christ-not the sort of thing those who led the council had in mind when they promulgated changes.
In the zeal that followed the council, many well-intentioned but liturgically ill-informed experiments cropped up in parish liturgies. Some progressive liturgies went too far [How far outside the law should they have gone?] and abused the intent of the council’s changes. [Who made them the arbiters of the Council’s intent?]
Many of these alternative practices have fueled the reaction of extremists [HUH? Why do people who want the older Mass have to be "extremists"?] who now want to [cliché alert! …] rewind church history and drop us all back into a Bells of St. Mary’s world, as black and white as the cassock and surplice of a 10-year-old altar boy. At one end of our church, progressives dance to the beat of their very own drummer, while at the other end nostalgic traditionalists turn back the hands of time. [When you read articles, be sure to watch out for the premises the writer wants you to accept without a challenge. Here the writer wants you to just accept that people want the older Mass because they want to "turn the clock back" out of some sort of "nostalgia". Is it not possible that people find something worthy in the Rite itself?]
In my judgment, the progressive, alternative Masses are much less troubling than the return of the Tridentine Mass. [Oh reallllly…. ] As mentioned, gym liturgies are mostly faithful to the changes promulgated in the council. While they may cross the line at times, at least they seem to be reaching in the direction the council members were pointing us toward. [According to whom? Certainly not Sacrosanctum Concilium. For example, SC says that Latin is to be retained, Gregorian chant has pride of place, and that no changes should be made in the reform of the liturgy unless they were genuinely for the sake of the good of the faithful. I contend that the older form of liturgy, unmarked by the reforms mandated by SC is still more in line with SC than the gym liturgy described above. In fact, the older form of Mass is more in line with SC than what we actually got via the Novus Ordo Missae. The fact is that the Consilium went far beyond the mandates of the Council Fathers.]
And let’s face it, my generation, the flower-power gang, is, well, beginning to push up daisies. [So, the writer is an aging hippie? Nah…. ] Progressive liturgies are fading away as the jingle-jangle of our tambourines increasingly exits stage left.
But prancing in stage right are the Tridentine Troubadours, flipping the altar around and turning their backs to the monumental progress of the Second Vatican Council. [And… that progress was…. ?]
What is scandalous about this practice is not the Latin. After discussing the issue with theologians and liturgists Keith Pecklers, S.J. and Mark Francis, C.S.V., [More evidence about the presuppositions of the writer. Note that he didn’t consult anyone favorable toward the older form of Mass.] both independently made the distinction between the Tridentine Mass, celebrated by Catholics between 1570 and approximately 1965, and the post-conciliar rite practiced in the Latin language. [WOW! What INSIGHT!]
Pecklers explains that the church has, since the council, always allowed the use of Latin in the reformed liturgy. Saying the Mass in Latin is no different than saying it in Spanish or Polish or English. [Well… no. That can’t be the case. There is nothing "magical" in the Latin language, but we are talking about the Latin Rite, not the Polish Rite or the English Rite. Latin means something, after all.]
The reformed liturgy is flexible enough to allow the use of Latin at times. Many parishes replace the "Lamb of God" and the "Holy, Holy, Holy" with the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus during the season of Lent. Besides being in complete conformity with the changes promulgated by the council, this appropriate use of the Latin can often deepen the spiritual tone of the liturgy and underline the gravity of the season.
The Tridentine Mass [no one really uses this term anymore mostly because it is inaccurate.] is not simply the current Mass (the one promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970) spoken in Latin. The Tridentine Mass, which dates from 1570, reflects a very different-and incomplete-understanding of the early church. [? And the Novus Ordo is somehow more complete? If that is the case, why were certain important theological concepts stripped out of the Latin orations?] Francis argues that "the 16th-century framers [of the Tridentine Missal] lacked adequate historical resources, as they were unable to refer to manuscripts dating earlier than the pontificate of Innocent III, around 1216."
A church digging in its defensive heels at the peak of the Reformation developed the Tridentine Mass, taking shots at pagans, heretics, schismatics, and "perfidious" Jews. The rich revelation of the Old Testament is mostly absent, and the participation of the laity barely exists.
The Second Vatican Council had some very good reasons to call for an end to the Tridentine Mass and to promulgate a new rite. More sophisticated research uncovered a fuller understanding of how liturgy was celebrated in the early church. Improved scripture scholarship developed into a new lectionary with a wider selection of readings. Better historical research removed fictional saints from the liturgical calendar.
Perhaps most important for the average Catholic, the Mass was celebrated in the language of the people. [In violation of Sacrosanctum Concilium the Latin langauge was jettisoned.] Interestingly, while the Tridentine Mass began to be used in 1570, [Actually… the so-called "Tridentine" form of Mass is a lot older in its essential structure and orations than simply 1570.] Masses were celebrated in Latin as early as A.D. 350. Originally, the Latin replaced Greek because people understood Latin, and using Latin allowed more people to understand what was going on. [Another problem: the Latin of the liturgical texts was not the Latin spoken in the streets.] In 1965 the church once again came to the seemingly obvious conclusion that people should understand what is being said in Mass. [They did. They had books. Also, ask people after your average Sunday Mass these days what the readings were, or what the Collect meant.]
The Mass that emerged from the reform of Vatican II is wonderful, divine, human, and sublime. It works, [And yet vocations are down, people aren’t going to confession, and churches are closing.] and it is enormously superior to the Tridentine rite. We do not need to celebrate an old rite. We need to get more people to celebrate the existing rite well. [This is just bunk. I wholeheartedly agree that the newer form of Mass must be celebrated better. But these other claims are simply specious. He has no evidence other than his personal taste for his claims that the newer form is superior or sublime. If we look at what the life of the Church was before the changes to the liturgy and what is going on now, we might have some concrete points to work with. We need more time to make judgments like this. Perhaps one day in the future we will look back and be able to make a list of the many saints who were nourished by what the Novus Ordo gave them. We can’t do that yet.]
The stakes are high. We participate in the liturgy to praise God and to be transformed so that we can transform the world. [It sounds almost as if he got that from WDTPRS.] We need to do this together. We cannot gather the scattered children of God together if we ourselves are scattered.
Two rites make a wrong
Actually, I spent more time on this than it was worth. But specious claims do need to be answered.
Folks… there is a POLL attached to that article. You can click HERE for the POLL. Just mentioning the POLL on the chance someone might be interested in chiming in about whether you agree or disagree with the writer.
UPDATE 13 AUG 1524GMT:
UPDATE 3 Sept 0544 GMT:
Loading ...
One of the comments: “[The biggest effect of increasing celebrations of the Tridentine Mass will be?] a return to old ideas and beliefs. I am concerned about this, as the seminarians and young priests seem to be returning to these more conservative ways.”
Isn’t this article just screaming with heresy anyway? One mass is superior?
It’s interesting to note the comments which appear to have been part of the original publication, most of which are as poorly informed as the author of the article. The comments posted on the website are from much better informed Catholics, including at least a couple who occasionally post here.
I don’t believe I had heard of this publication before catching wind of this particular article in July. It won’t be gracing my mailbox anytime soon.
Ah, U. S. Catholic. The pride of the Claretians. The same mag ordered by the CDF not long ago to publish Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in full, after openly flaunting its pro-WO stance. Perhaps it ought to give Summorum Pontificum a run, no?
“Mark Francis C.S.V. argues that ‘the 16th-century framers [of the Tridentine Missal] lacked adequate historical resources, as they were unable to refer to manuscripts dating earlier than the pontificate of Innocent III, around 1216.'”
Ah, the fallacy that we moderns are so much more advanced that our poorly educated benighted predecessors. Even if this quote is true (I note the lack of citation or reference for this “fact”), the point is that the Council Fathers at Trent did not need historical resources describing the pristine rite of the early Church. They were not interested in going backwards but, rather, taking what was bequeathed to them and moving forwards. It’s quite ironic that the so-called ‘progessive’ liturgists are actually just antiquarians who yearn for some golden-age pristine liturgy. The ‘traditionalists’ are much more interested in building on what exists and looking towards the future.
We don’t yearn (at least I don’t) for rabbit poultices for cuts because that’s what the ‘early doctors’ did. No, we learn from what we have and build on it. In the parable of the Good Servant, the Master rewarded the servant who invested his talent and gained more rather than the servant who buried his. By moving backwards to a mythical pristine liturgy we do worse than bury our talent. And what’s worse is that the ‘pristine liturgy’ used to justify the excesses of the past forty odd years isn’t even what we got.
Read the comments on that article- they’re absolutely, incredibly wacky.
Ah yes, a parishioner slid copies of this article in our sacristy with a note that we should read it. One look at the title of the article and I knew that it was trouble already. “Two rites make a wrong”? Fr. Z. is correct: What about the Eastern Catholics? Should we tell them that their liturgies are divisive and should therefore be eliminated?
The article states that the author is “a securities broker from St. such-and-such Parish in [city], [state].” No credentials. That’s it. Not that securites brokers can’t have any knowledge of the liturgy, but I’m going to need a little more than that.
As far as that poll goes, the results were based on the responses of 345… of its own readers! Why not poll a similiar number of readers of this blog and then let’s see how those numbers come out?
This article was flawed in so many ways that it was as laughable as it was offensive.
Oh boohoo, woe is us ;>) the only things accurate is that the Hippies are pushing up daisies and that younger folk are more traditional
Well, it’s just the kind of article you’d expect from U.S. Catholic, which strikes me as a younger sister of the dissenters’ rag National Catholic Reporter. I agree with the suggestion that the author has read much if any of the Vatican II documents, and it’s clear that he’s pretty clueless abot liturgical matters.
They seem to have turned off the poll…
I’m one of the semi-regulars here (more regular in reading than commenting, perhaps) and I posted several comments to that article, as well as a few others. I’m not much impressed with the articles I’ve read — Incoming Missal (a balanced look at the new English translation of the Roman Missal, the best article I’ve seen on their web site), Mixed Messages (on the anti-ecumenical impact of the new English translation), Sensitivity Training (on how insensitive the Catholic Church and faith are toward Jews, e.g. canonizing Edith Stein!), and Catholics for same-sex marriage? (on, well, you guess…).
The documents of Vatican II are sorely in need of being read by some of the “regulars” of US Catholic.
“looking up to God in trust, not bowing down to God in fear”
What a load of manure. For one, why do they not understand that kneeling is above all an act of adoration and worship?! Do they think that Vatican II somehow made us suddenly so perfected in nature that we no longer have need to offer God that sort of worship? The hubris of these types is unbelievable.
I am also continually amazed at the ignorance of those who think that prior to SP there was only one form of one rite in the Catholic Church. Way to insult the 20 something rites of the Eastern Catholic Church. Uggh.
Unfortunately, this article is a good example of what many “U.S. Catholics” really do believe to be reality, completely ignorant of history and oversimplifying Vatican II to the point of banality.
This publication is on its last legs of life. For the most part, it is an anemic caricature of stereotypical liberal Catholicism, usually with much less effectiveness and bite than the National Catholic Reporter. Nonetheless, this article is dangerous simply because some editor for U.S. Catholic actually let it be published, regardless of the many errors in verifiable facts.
TNCath…
The errors are not merely in the “verifiable facts”…there are outright doctrinal errors being expressed here. At its foundation, this article is proposing that the Pope was (and is) mistaken in his elevation and promotion of the EF. The comparison of the abuse laden OF liturgy in the gym with the properly executed and reverent EF liturgy, calling them both SCANDALOUS suggests that the Pope’s actions were not only mistaken or ill advised, but are in fact scandalous. This is anti-Catholicism disguised as enlightened thinking… and poorly disguised at that!
Hmph. Yet another holier-than-thou person who wants us to think he has read the documents of
the Second Vatican Council when he clearly hasn’t.
Meanwhile, I am not sure what is wrong with a little fear of God. Thomas
Aquinas wrote quite succinctly about “filial fear.” Filial fear might have
kept the Health Club Killer from shooting up a room of women. (Apparently
he had been told by his preacher that even mass murderers go to heaven, and
he believed that any sin he accrued had been retroactively wiped out by
Jesus, no effort of any kind on his part, e.g. repentence needed.)
Good point about the Eastern Rite and the Milan Rite. Meanwhile, whoever has
the most kids who go to Mass wins.
For me, the Traditionalists like the SSPX and these types of liberals are both two extremes of disobedience.
My biggest pet peeve is how such people have entirely hijacked the Catholic justice and peace tradition while many traditionalists are ignoring Church teachings on Justice and Peace.
I recently left the group known as Pax Christi over such issues. That said, just because some within these particular groups have sadly included false teachings on abortion and homosexuality does not invalidate the entire Catholic justice and peace movement. Similarly, why should those who favour the traditional liturgy be linked to right wing politics?
Even mainstream Catholics who are committed to the more important struggle against the endless attacks on family values and morals still have an obligation to follow the Church’s teachings with regards to the victims of injustice, war and poverty.
Justice and Peace still remains a very important Charism and it is wrong to elivate one Charism above another. For example, does a special evotion to a particular liturgy somehow trump a special devotion to peace?
Surely we all want to see peace and an end to hunger and oppression? Surely it is our duty as Catholics to work towards the Kingdom of God? It is sad that such groups are unable remain committed to the core teachings of the Church while still carrying out their particular ministry?
However, if these groups have failed (and it seems that way) then how do we renew the Church’s clear devotion to the poor and peace?
Surely, the unborn, the dying, the victims of war, the hungry, the family…All can be served by Mother Church’s consistant life ethic.
I assume that the Catholic who wrote this attack on the traditional mass is probably interested in Justice and Peace. He should therefore consider the fact that at one time life revolved around the liturgical year, there was no room for the creeping in of God Bless America and other “state” celebrations into the mass. This would never happen in the traditional form.
Father, you were far to kind and charitable to the author of this dreck which seems to be little more that the talking points of the Notre Dame Summer School on Liturgy crowd. If anyone is engaged in uncritical nostalgia it is the author of the piece. Underlying it is poor scholarship, archeologism, and the hermeneutic of rupture.
However, I find the patronizing comments offered after the text to be even more more disturbing. “It denies the spirit and vision of Vatican II.” Or how about “Listen to those requesting it and help them clarify for themselves what they are really needing spiritually.” from a priest in Indiana.
And even more disturbing is the lack of editorial judgment on the part of a magazine published by a congregation of pontifical rite.
Hmph. Yet another holier-than-thou person who wants us to think he has read the documents of the Second Vatican Council when he clearly hasn’t.
A quick Googling of the author, Ted Rosean, shows that he graduated HS seminary in 2003 (Quigley, FWIW) and works as a securities broker in Illinois. There ya go.
My biggest pet peeve is how such people have entirely hijacked the Catholic justice and peace tradition while many traditionalists are ignoring Church teachings on Justice and Peace.
Do you have evidence that “traditionalists” ignore Church teaching on Justice and Peace? Perhaps because the movement was hijacked they ignore getting involved with a “movement.” Or perhaps they prefer to simply and quietly serve those in need without feeling the need to draw attention to their deeds by becoming part of something that is more about “look at me, I care more because I belong to a Justice and Peace group.
why should those who favour the traditional liturgy be linked to right wing politics
Maybe because the media links them there? In my experience the majority of the people belonging to the SSPX are no great fans of the Republican party though they may vote for them rather than the pro-death party.
“But PRANCING in stage right are the Tridentine Troubadours, flipping the altar around and turning their backs to the monumental progress of the Second Vatican Council.”
It seems like the author is trying to use code words (prancing) calculated to portray Roman Catholics who value what has been handed down to us through the ages as narrow-minded, effeminate dilettantes.
I love it when the liturgically ignorant trumpet their ingorance… God blessed Our
Holy Father, Benedict XVI!!!
Both the TLM only and the Novus Ordo only crowd seem to display an incredible ignorance of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. I wonder how our Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean and Byzantine Rite brothers would react to reading this article.
Also “Two altars at one parish screams division to me”
Isn’t this actually what happened when they slapped those ugly ‘movable’ alters infront of all those beautiful high alters is so many Churchs.
While the criticisms of the EF relative to the OF are misguided, I think they’re superficial the main point of the column, which is that the Church should have one rite, or rather, not more than one rite per local church (Eastern rite Catholics living outside the East notwithstanding). The presence of different groups like this even within the same parish is rightly called a scandal. Regardless of the legitimacy of the EF, having different congregations participating in the 1962 form of the Roman Rite rather than in the in 1970 form of the Roman Rite may undermine the Parish and Diocesan structure and thereby Catholic unity. How can the EF exert a gravitational pull if all the EF laity act as if they’re in a different church than the OF laity? (This is also a concern of the Holy Father, who takes pains to underscore in SP and in the accompanying letter to the Bishops that the OF is still the OF and the presence of the EF shouldn’t pose any threat to Church unity.)
That is, the situation Rosean describes as scandalous is a result of the same hermeneutic of rupture so often lamented in this blog. Yes, some of the things he says are silly and stupid, like his description of the EF and OF as two separate rites, or his belief that a uniform OF is a return to the early, pre-Tridentine Church, or the even dumber claim that the Fathers at Trent were more concerned about heretics and anathemas than the Fathers of late antiquity. But if we can look past Rosean’s lack of a decent education, the call for a more uniform liturgy that reflects the unity of the Church and the actual documents of the most recent Council is surely something we can all agree on, right?
Some of the comments under “If I were pope and faced with appeals to allow wider use of the Tridentine Mass, I would?.?.?. ” are really scary, like:
“Ask every pastor to spend a month of homilies explaining the correct theology of the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
– So the TLM does not express the correct theology of the Eucharist? And the NO does? How many catholics today dosent have a twisted understanding of the Eucharist because of the protestanized new eucharistic prayers and the versus populum practice which undermines the aspect of Sacrifice of the Mass?
“Say that the decisions of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were very good and that I had no intention of going back.”
– First of all, Blessed John XXIII has nothing to do with abandoning the old mass, and Paul VI hade the same concerns over the liturgical deveopment after the indtroduction of the new mass as Benedict XVI has today.
“Listen to those requesting it and help them clarify for themselves what they are really needing spiritually.”
So catholics today dont need what catholics for a thouasand years plus needed? And someone need to clarify that for us?
U.S. Catholic. A true rag that should not be allowed into any catholic home. And, uhmm, what is their circulation rate these day? 100 readers? If they have an internet site, I doubt if thier daily or yearly hits come close to WDTPRS. Another example of a once thriving religous order down the drain.
In addition to my previous statement
Also “Two altars at one parish screams division to me”
Isn’t this actually what happened when they slapped those ugly ‘movable’ alters infront of all those beautiful high alters is so many Churchs.
People in churches who still have high alters probably dont know thats what they they are. I know when I wasn’t taught that when I did my RCIA in ’07. I had to figure out on my own that the table in front of the tabernacle was actually the alter.
Both the TLM only and the Novus Ordo only crowd seem to display an incredible ignorance of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic
That statement seems to show an incredible ignorance of the TLM only crowd. Again in my experience many TLM only people have a great respect for the Eastern rites, often attendeding them in preference to the NO and argue for greater respect of the TLM by example of the Eastern rites.
Cavaliere
My apologies, I wondered if I needed to clarify my comment. By saying TLM only or Novus Ordo only I was not refering to people who only attend one or the other but people who have feelings of unwarrented superiority, like those espoused in this article, that their rite should be the only rite of the whole church. I ment no disrespect to anyone who attends and prefers the EF.
I look forward to seeing the full text of “Summorum Pontificum” published on the US Catholic website, preferably with an additional commentary from Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera.
Reading this tripe is always distressing in that it reflects two widespread and popular misconceptions. 1.that what has been done with the New Liturgy was mandated in its detail by the Council. 2. That customs such as the silent Canon were in fact deviations wrought by the incredibly stupid Middle Ages. Clearly this writer and one should add any number of the Clergy need to go back and once again study the history of the Liturgy or Liturgies.
With regards to a silent Canon, given the propensity of good and Holy priests to alter the words at will argues for a silent Canon. Tell me that our Medieval forebearers did not understand the Mass, I think they may not have apprehended every word in Latin, but I will be willing to bet they had a greater appreciation of the Mystery and the nature of the Sacrafice which many Gym Mass Catholics do not comprehend and in FAIRNESS to them MAY not have been taught.
The appalling catechesis of which this writer is a fine example is responsible for these attitudes and practices. The exact quote from His Holiness about “what previous generations held sacred” slams down this ill informed buffoon’s comments. When listening to this and one will encounter any number of priests who share this opinion one is astounded the failure to recognize the sacrafice indeed the encompassing of the entire Christian mystery incarnate once again and offered to the Father in an unbloody manner! The thought of this makes one wish to be on ones knees in prayer awe and gratitude.
The command to be present weekly not a burden but a joyful duty even if the choir cannot sing and the priest cannot preach. The mere act of the Sacrafice is entirel awesome and commands every level of Human art and reverence. As the ancient Hymn says Let all Mortal flesh keep silence. Only at a Solemn Mass in one sense does one feel this but every Mass has this if said properly. I am scandalized and appalled by the “Gym” Mass but I have no authority to declare it invalid. In like fashion the more I read and study the greater respect I have for those who went before us in the Faith in preserving the Liturgy and dismay at the dismanteling performed by Bugnini and others.
JPG
Kmart, thanks for the clarification but I think the point is still missed. I believe that those who support the TLM exclusively intend so within the Latin Rite exclusively and do not intend the TLM as the sole rite of the Church to the exclusion of any other Rite.
Many of these are silently and privately praying the rosary.
I hear this a lot (What’s the deal with this) I have never seen it myself. At the TLM that I attend everyone, and I mean everyone, are reading from missals, even the young. Besides, how on earth would they know that if it’s private and silent?
(“They represent such polarized expressions of worship that they drift from the central purpose of liturgy as stated in the introduction of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: ‘to be a sign lifted up among the nations, to those who are outside, a sign under which the scattered children of God may be gathered together until there is one fold and one shepherd.'”)
I guess I read a different document, because I thought “the glorification of God and the sanctification of the people” was the “central purpose”…(as stated in SC 7 and reflected in the Catechism, esp. paragraph 1089.) Silly me…
Masses were celebrated in Latin as early as A.D. 350. Originally, the Latin replaced Greek because people understood Latin, and using Latin allowed more people to understand what was going on. In 1965 the church once again came to the seemingly obvious conclusion that people should understand what is being said in Mass.
The above is a common error promoted by Progressives.
The change from Greek to Latin at the beginning of the 4th century was NOT a change to the vernacular. Rather, it was a change to the language of Empire. If the Church had done in the late 1960’s what had happened almost 1700 years earlier, English would have been the liturgical language for everywhere for the Roman Rite–including Germany, France, Spain, and Latin America.
I have the lowest regard for US Catholic, even less than for the NCR. Where the NCR does not make any bones about what its agenda is, US Catholic purports it to be a moderate, pastoral kind of Catholic publication that is appropriate for parish magazine racks. Yet, when it comes down to it, it is just a deceptive liberal rag.
If Pope John XXIII was “rolling in his grave” I doubt it is over the return of the TLM into the Church…Afterall he did write Veterum Sapientia…Perhaps the author needs to be sent a copy..Didn’t he also sign it on the Altar of St. Peter’s just to show how serious he was? I have read that in several places….Even open minded, I do not see how many people could agree with the content of this article..It stretches the truths so far they snapped by the third paragraph…
Actually, I spent more time on this than it was worth.
I disagree. It was worth it!
“jamie r” commented: “…the call for a more uniform liturgy that reflects the unity of the Church and the actual documents of the most recent Council is surely something we can all agree on, right?
Theoretically anyway. But as usual the devil is in the details. Would the “hippies” welcome the restoration of ad orientem worship and Communion-on-the-tongue-and-at-the-rail? Could the “traddies” accept girl-altar-boys and ordinary-extra ministers of Holy Communion? “Pro multis” or “for all”? The traditional Offertory prayers or the minimalist new ones? And whither the Calendar and Lectionary?
Given the modernist mafia’s tendency to defy small reforms, e.g. Cdl.
BalonyMahony’s response to “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, and stonewall broader ones, e.g. the English-speaking episcopal conferences’ treatment of the new translation of the 2000 Missal; I can’t hold out much hope for any sudden increase in liturgical unity. Certainly Pope Benedict knows that the desideratum of a “uniform liturgy” is very unlikely to be achieved in his lifetime, meanwhile we can be thankful that he has given the traditional Mass its freedom while nudging the Ordinary Form in a more traditional direction. Perhaps before the end of his pontificate we will see the “old” Offertory made optional in the new Missal, Mass ad orientem accepted as a legitimate option, some modifications of the Calendar, or even a T.L.M. celebrated by the Pope or in his presence. The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.“The Mass that emerged from the reform of Vatican II is wonderful, divine, human, and sublime”.
Wonderful? because of the dancing vestal virgins offering incense at the sanctuary?
Divine? because a priest dressed like a clown is “celebrating”?
Human? because a cookie is used as Host and grape juice is used as Wine?
Sublime? because Don Moen’s songs are better than Gregorian Chant?
Yeah right. And that’s the bottom line because Cardinal Mahoney said so.
I happened to see the magazine at the library last week-but I didn’t pick it up and read it.
Poor St. Anthony Mary Claret, the founder of the Claretians-he must be turning in his grave over this!
Father,
thanks for spotting Rosean’s article.
It’s positively ‘inspirational’!
http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2009/08/kcs-stab-at-ted-roseans-us-catholic.html
I noticed this “author” sells securities. If his “scholarship and research” skills that he used for this article is indicative of his skills related
to the selling of securities, I would refrain from utilizing his services. Tom
This fellow doesn’t know what he’s talking about (which is obvious). Those prayers go back to the early Church and the term “perfidious” is an adjective which in Latin is not pejorative. It states merely that the Jews are without right faith by not accepting their Messiah.
Perfidious is in fact very kind compared with rhetoric from certain Church Fathers against Jews. If he wants to go back to the Early Church, maybe he’ll adopt some of St. John Chrysostom’s tracts against the Jews for the Good Friday Liturgy?