OMV and SJ superiors line up against Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum.

The provisions of Summorum Pontificum are meeting with resistance on the part of some diocesan bishops.  

However, the Motu Proprio also speaks of the role of religious major superiors.  

Some parishes are run not by diocesan priests, but by religious.  While they are not entirely autonomous from the local bishop, they are very much influenced by the will of the superiors of the order or institute that take care of them.

Some religious superiors are showing their real attitude toward the Holy Father, his provisions, the rights of the faithful and the Roman Rite.

Let’s take two examples, one from the USA and one from Italy.

In the USA we have the case of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, OMV’s.

At Saint Peter Chanel in Hawaiian Gardens, CA, USA, there was a older form low Mass for a few months. One day as Mass was ending the pastor announced that the head of his order had told OMV priests to stop saying the older form of Mass because providing the TLM was an "apostolate" that the OMV does not embrace. He also said that the 170 person average Sunday attendance was insufficient to justify the Mass there.  Some parishioners expressed their dismay, but the pastor was adamant.

I wrote about this back on 13 February.

Some parishioners began writing to the superiors of the OMVs.

Here is an example of a response:

Dear Ms. _____,
I want to thank you for your email and the concerns you shared regarding the Tridentine Mass at St. Peter Chanel.  I can understand how the news you have heard regarding the celebration of the extraordinary form is difficult. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify what has happened and to reaffirm our uncompromised fidelity to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church.

The decision to no longer offer the extraordinary form was made by our Major Superior in Rome in consultation with his Council. He arrived at this decision after careful study of the Motu Proprio in light of our charism and the needs for the people we serve.  Each Religious Community and Institute of Consecrated Life, under the direction of its Major Superior has the freedom to determine which apostolic works they wish to undertake according to their charism and spirit. This freedom is described in Article 3 of the "Motu Proprio" and is given to the Major Superior by the Holy Father.

The decision of our Major Superior for our religious community does not mean we not recognize the beauty and the validity of this extraordinary form permitted by our Holy Father, or the real need it provides for some of the Catholic faithful. It means simply this is not an apostolic work that our Major Superior wants us to undertake as a Congregation.

As stated in Article 7, the bishop has the responsibility to provide this form to the Catholic Faithful in his diocese to meet their spiritual needs. We have encouraged those who feel called to worship in the extraordinary form to pursue the options available by the diocese. For example, this extraordinary form continues to be offered in the diocese, and we have encouraged the faithful to attend this Mass if they are feel called to this particular form of worship.

We are grateful to God for the opportunity to offer the beauty of the liturgy to thousands each week. Like the extraordinary form, these liturgies are reverent, prayerful and spiritually nourishing. There have been and continue to be great miracles that take place at St. Peter Chanel parish. Whether it is the approximate 800 people who attend the four daily Masses, the 8,000 people who attend the 12 Sunday Masses or the many hours of confessions on a daily basis, God is working in and through Oblate priests and the parishioners in a powerful way. Our commitment to this spiritual work of mercy, along with the many good works at St. Peter Chanel we pray will only continue.

I thank you again for taking the time to write me. I hope I have helped to clarify your concerns.

With my prayers and warmest regards in Christ,

Fr. Bill Brown, OMV
Oblates of the Virgin Mary

In a nutshell, must we conclude that the OMV’s have determined that they are somehow separate from the rest of the Church in regard to use of the fullness of the Roman Rite?  That’s is what it looks like.  They don’t have the "charism", a slippery term, to provide for the spiritual needs of people through the TLM.  They have an apostolate that excludes such people. 

Okay.  That’s their choice.  Too bad.

Apparently the parishioners are still writing and working to resolve this situation and the Provincial has been communicating with the Rector Major, Fr Patrice Veraquin, OMV.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic…

On 23 December 2007 Holy Mass in the TLM was celebrated with great success and participation at a church, S. Stefano, held by the Jesuits at Sanremo, in Northern Italy.  

The Jesuits freaked out.

Here is part of a press release from Una Voce in my translation.

But, so much enthusiasm notwithstanding, or perhaps really because of it (if only a few people, maybe even old people, were interested in the old rite, no one would bother to block it) the Superior of the Jesuits in northern Italy, the vice-provincial Fr. Alberto Remondini, immediately went to check out the convent at Sanremo and, a few days before the next Mass was to be celebrated, he decreed, in accord with the Provincial of the Province of Italy of the Jesuits, Fr. Francesco Tata, that "in all the churches in Italy cared for by the Company of Jesus, the Pope’s Motu Proprio cannot be applied and Masses in Latin cannot be celebrated, except for occasional events to be pastorally justified on a case by case basis" (naturally what those "pastoral" exigencies are are not specified).  "In any case, " Fr. Remondini continues, "in no case can Mass in Latin have fixed or periodical term, even were it be to be only monthly as in the case of Sanremo."

So, the Jesuits in Italy have concluded that the provisions of the Motu Proprio do not apply to people who frequent their parishes.  They have determined that pastors of parishes who are Jesuits do not in fact have the rights given to them in Summorum Pontificum


So, there is some resistance on the part of some diocesans bishops.  Religious Superiors also have skin in the game, it seems.

This is a serious matter that only the Holy See can clarify.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. pro-vita says:

    I assume that when they say ‘Mass in Latin’, they mean the extraordinary form? Or have the Italian Jesuits actually decided that the offical language of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be used in parishes run by the Jesuits? If that is the case, then things are a lot worse than they seem. It means that notwithstanding the Canons giving the faithful the right to the sacraments in Latin, the Jesuits will not abide by this.

  2. pro-vita says:

    Fr. Z:
    I assume that when they say ‘Mass in Latin’, they mean the extraordinary form? Or have the Italian Jesuits actually decided that the official language of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be used in parishes run by the Jesuits? If that is the case, then things are a lot worse than they seem. It means that notwithstanding the Canons giving the faithful the right to the sacraments in Latin, the Jesuits will not abide by this.

  3. Cal-Brian says:

    This is really a shame. I am familiar with St. Peter Chanel in Hawaiian Gardens, and was married there several years ago when I lived in the area. I always found the OMV priests there to be very good and extremely solid. I hope this can be resolved soon and for the better…

  4. Boko Fittleworth says:

    Well then, apparently the charism and apostolate of the OVMs is incompatible with parish ministry. They should continue to serve the parishes of which they have care in all ways (including offering the EF) until such time as they can withdraw from parish ministry and find a ministry more suited to their charism.

    By which I mean, an unwillingness (I would also argue an inability) to offer Mass according to the EF is incompatible with parish ministry. One must either bring onesself up to speed or withdraw.

    But to stop offering the EF, something to which parishioners have a right, is unacceptable.

  5. Ian says:

    I go to Jesuit university and our campus ministry office has put together a
    few Tridentine Masses but they are always during popular class times and poorly
    advertised. Many studends who attend believe it is on purpose. The only way to
    get anything moving is to band together and just keep requesting it.

  6. Ian says:

    I go to Jesuit university and our campus ministry office has put together a
    few Tridentine Masses but they are always during popular class times and poorly
    advertised. Many studends who attend believe it is on purpose. The only way to
    get anything moving is

  7. The Holy Father has repeatedly requested our prayers that he may have the strength not to flee from the wolves. SoAve Maria…

  8. FYI: I usually delete “Anonymous” comments.

  9. Paul Murnane says:

    I do hope the Holy See clarifies this issue and that it’s part of the upcoming clarification document. It’s sad that these superiors, as well as some bishops, place their personal agenda ahead of the spiritual welfare of the souls entrusted to them.

  10. magdalen says:

    It is such a shameful travesty when bishops and heads of orders and other
    high profile clerics or religious stand proundly and publicly in
    disobedience to the wishes of the Holy Father. What holy vocation would
    wish to enter a dissenting order?

    And so the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass in the extraordinary form is just
    an ‘apostolate’, one of many to choose from like cleaning up the
    environment or protesting for immigrants?

  11. Papabile says:

    I am startled by the OMV decision. I had an OMV as a spiritual director for four years at Catholic University. My experience was that they were all extremely orthodox, and in fact, my spiritual director encouraged my attendance and participation under the old indult.

  12. Fr. Anselm says:

    I suppose one needs to go back to the text of the Motu Proprio (haven’t got it in front of me). No priest, religious or secular,can be prevented from offering the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, and ‘public’ celebrations are within the competence of the rector or parish priest. Even if they are ‘unable’ to say this form of the Holy Mass it is for ordinaries (bishop/prelate ?)to make provision. Failing that, the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei. I hope the OMV priest you speak of will continue to offer Mass according to the 1962 missal and take the matter further. Such clear disobedience by the superiors of religious orders sets a bad example to their brethren.They have a right to our obedience, so surely they must obey the Vicar of Christ like everyone else ? The sophistry they use to justify non-compliance is truly unbelievable.

  13. Perhaps the time has come for Rome to dissolve the Jesuits a second time, and then turn their property over to faithful religious communities.

  14. This s a bit off the topic, but does anyone know whether or not the Jesuits have abolished their habit? I once heard Fr. Pacwa say that the Jesuits never wore a habit. then what was it that they were wearing at John Carroll University well into the late 1960’s?

  15. B. says:

    Remember, when Fr. Bisig wanted to prevent the FSSP priests from saying the Novus Ordo, he was immediately deposed by Rome without further ado.
    I bet that neither the OMV nor the Jesuit superior will face any consequences.
    Which just proves that Rome still does not apply equal standards.

  16. B. says:

    Remember, when Fr. Bisig wanted to prevent the FSSP priests from saying the Novus Ordo, he was immediately deposed by Rome without further ado.
    I bet that neither the OMV nor the Jesuit superior will face any consequences.
    Which would just prove that Rome still does not apply equal standards.

  17. Article 3 of SP reads, in pertinent part:

    Art. 3. Communities or Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life … wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so.

    This would appear to pertain only to an order’s own oratories or chapels and not to any parishes that they may staff. A parish remains a diocesan structure even if staffed by religious priests.

  18. Richard says:

    In my experience of having discerned with the OMV’s, at during one driving two hours every other Sunday for Mass and spiritual direction at St Peter Chanel in Hawaiian Gardens, and having captured a glimpse of the OMV liturgical life there, it would be a hard sell for me to identify just how the TLM would not fall into the “charism” of worship there. A priest kneels at the foot of the altar after every Mass said there and leads a rosary and divine mercy chaplet (unless there’s like another Mass starting in a half hour).

    There’s a great distinction between the American OMV’s and the Italian OMV’s. The Italian OMV’s are way more liberal, and most of the congregation’s higher superiors are from the Italian Oblates. There is a major distinction between the “charisms” of the American and Italian Oblates. It’s unfortunate after the great history of orthodoxy and orthopraxy at Hawaiian Gardens that suddenly the Italian Oblates’ “charism” is being imposed upon St Peter Chanel, where orthodoxy has born so much fruit across a wide spectrum of demographics, between large populations of Filipino, other Asian, Hispanic, and Anglo people there.

    To say that the TLM doesn’t fall in line with the “charism” of the OMV’s is bit of a cheap shot to the folks in Hawaiian Gardens. There is such a distinction between the “charisms” of the Italian and American Oblates that there St Peter Chanel parishoners have never seen any precedent for that “charism” of the Italian Oblates now being imposed upon them. It’s as if the Italian Oblates can step in out of nowhere now and tell an otherwise orthodox community what it should be doing, when their “charism” has had little to do historically with how things have always gone in Hawaiian Gardens to begin with.

  19. SP Changed everyhing from indult to faculty. A priest no longer has to ask premission from a bishop (and I assume Religious, and this will be clarified). It saddens me to hear about the OMV’s. I have written a letter to them…As I’m discerning a vocation with them. And I would offer both rites when I do become a priest.

    For the softening of the hearts of the superiors oremus: Pater Noster…. Ave Maria….. Gloria Patri……

  20. Paul, South Midlands says:

    I wonder what they would do if these churches instead celebrated the Novus Ordo, but wholly in Latin with sung plainchant, ad-orientem, the canon said in silence, no lay readers extraordinary monsters or kiss of peace involving the laity, and communion kneeling on the tongue only?

    For that matter how many of the congregation would actually realise it was not the extraordinary form?

  21. Hieromonk Gregory, I think can answer your question. The Jesuits do not really wear a habit: it was not part of their original charism from St Ignatius, and they wore ordinary clericals. However they had in some places adopted a gown popularly known as the Jesuit ‘wings’, and as far as I know it was derived from a gown worn by schoolmasters. The Jesuits of course were once a major teaching order with great schools such as Stonyhurst in Lancashire and Blackrock college in County Dublin. It was only really worn by the English and Irish provinces, and I think to a lesser extent also in the USA (also derived from the English province, a notable protege being Archbishop John Carroll).
    Oliver Hayes, Birmingham, England

  22. RichR says:


    I wonder what these orders hope to achieve, especially in light of an impending clarification on precisely this issue. Ranjith has more than hinted what the Holy Father/PCED plan to conclude in these cases, so the camel’s nose is already in the tent (in a good way).

    All this does is confuse people and cast a negative light on these orders.

    Most unfortunate.

  23. Shane says:

    I think it would be wise to go a bit easier on the Oblates.

    The way I read SP, it does seem as though the Major Superior is fully within his right to make the decision he has. Article 3 states that if an individual community wishes to offer the Extraordinary form often or habitually, it must be taken to the Major Superior. Now this would indicate to me that he has the right to make the choice he has in the case of the OMV, otherwise this section of article 3 would make no sense.

    Let’s remember that it really doesn’t get much better than the OMV. I realize my opinion may not be popular on this blog, but I do believe that there is a certain train of thought that exists which holds that any priest, bishop, or devout layperson who doesn’t like or approve of the Extraordinary form is evil or unfaithful. Now I personally think the Extraordinary form has many very high points, but I also believe that it contains some areas in which the theology seems a bit off or is wanting. Yet I assure you, you will not find a more faithful or obedient Catholic if you try. In other words, I am certainly not evil simply because I find some aspects of the Pauline rite superior.

    Don’t misunderstand me: I recognize the value of the rite of Pius V, and I recognize the freedom that people have to hold it in preference. I am not saying it’s bad, or that it shouldn’t be offered, or any such thing. I simply also recognize the value of the Pauline rite and believe that some of its reforms were improvements. I believe the ideal is somewhere in between the two.

    In any case, I think that this train of thought may lie behind some of the feelings regarding the Major Superior here. I can certainly imagine the possiblity that he really does feel that offering the Extraordinary form may in some way detract from the apostolate of the OMV. As I said, you really, really don’t get much better than the OMV. Here I think we have a case where the Extraordinary form is being wrongly viewed as an end rather than a means.

    You have a good and faithful order, one of the best, and one of those currently leading the revitilization of the Church in orthodoxy and in holiness, and yet because they choose not to offer one particular rite of the Mass they are suddenly an enemy to some. The rite of Pius V is not the be all and end all of a religious order. Rather, it is holiness and fruit. If they do not believe that the Extraordinary form is helpful for them to do this, then it does not make them evil. Now in both these areas, the OMV excell. Let us judge them on their fruit.

  24. Tim Ferguson says:

    Playing devil’s advocate a bit, a religious order would seem to have the right to determine the form of their conventual liturgical practices. Just as the Dominicans, back in the day, utilized their rite, it would seem that going ahead, if the Jesuits or the OMV wanted to remain exclusively Ordinary Form Mass offerers, they should be permitted to do so.

    When the issue of parochial ministry comes in, the ground shifts a bit. Since the motu proprio locates the right to request the extraordinary form within the parish, it would seem that openness to this form would be a prerequisite for parochial ministry. So, as Mr. Fittleworth says above, it would seem that, in excluding their priests from celebrating the EF, the OMV’s should then withdraw from parochial ministry, especially in those places where the faithful have legitimately expressed their desire for it.

  25. Jon says:


    You don’t know how much I hope and pray that the next time you’re in Rome you’re able to somehow, someway, fanangle just a half-hour of Fanta and brats in the Apostolic Palace.

  26. cor ad cor loquitur says:

    The FSSP and ICK priests are not required to say Mass in the ordinary form. Why should the OMVs and Jesuits be required to offer it in the extraordinary form?

  27. Dear Tim F.,

    Very in point as always. But I wonder if you aren’t a bit too strict on the suitability of the OMVs for parish work if they don’t celebrate the E.F? Surely there are lots of parish priests who for good or bad reasons cannot or will not celebrate the E.F. S.P. does not force them to do so. What it does is require them to hear their people’s request in good faith and help them have it answered, getting help from the bishop if necessary. It seems to me that so long as the SJs and OMVs do that, they are not “unsuitable” in terms of current norms. But you are the canonist, perhaps I am wrong.

  28. Hung Doan says:

    What the Jesuits decreed is utterly heretical and obnoxious. They cannot “celebrate mass in Latin.” How stupid to think that Mass in Latin refers to ONLY the Usus Antiquior and further that statement undermines the Holy Father and the teachings of Vatican II! Latin was NEVER ABOLISHED! Sigh! Shudder! I know, I know…I’m preaching to the choir but still…it gets my fire goin’!

  29. T. Chan says:

    This s a bit off the topic, but does anyone know whether or not the Jesuits have abolished their habit? I once heard Fr. Pacwa say that the Jesuits never wore a habit. then what was it that they were wearing at John Carroll University well into the late 1960’s?

    Hieromonk Gregory: As someone already answered, St. Ignatius wanted the members of his order to be dressed like the clerics of Rome–but they did develop a special form of the cassock, the “Jesuit” cassock–is this to which you are referring?

  30. Paul Murnane says:


    i agree with you regarding the OMV’s; St. Peter Chanel is probably the best and most faithful parish in LA and they are the tip of the spear in revitalizing this moribund archdiocese. In this particular case, however, the priests of the parish decided to add the EF to an already busy schedule because it would enhance their apostolic work. They were then over-ridden by the Major Superior. To use your terms, the priests on the grounds viewed the EF as a means for enriching parish life, but the Major Superior is using the situation as a means to his own end. To the detriment of souls, I might add.

  31. mrs. k says:

    Defending the Jesuits, as I am a musician at a Jesuit parish where we offer the TLM once a month, our Jesuit Fathers have been very supportive of the TLM here. They take the religious attire of the region that they are in — thus in USA they mostly wear clericals. (Yes, our Jesuits wear black). It is also interesting to note that Ignatian spirituality does not seek to fill liturgical rolls first, but the other rolls of the priest, such as hearing confessions, and teaching. (Of course they still see the Mass as most important) Jesuit Communities do not sing Office because in the eyes of St. Ignatius, the brothers are to sacrifice these pleasures of praying in common in favor of an apostolic solitude, for lack of better description. Jesuits don’t sing, but they do support music, as I’m sure you’ve heard. Just like anywhere right now, the new vocations are beautiful and orthodox. Please don’t show ignorance by implying that the entire Society is flawed because of some. I understand, however, how important it is for the Religious Superiors to be in line with Church teaching, as the others are obedient to them. But here, at least, it is happening.

  32. Habemus Papam says:

    cor ad cor loquitur: You miss the point. As Fr.Anselm makes clear above, no priest can be prevented from offering the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
    No religious order has the right to exclusively offer the Ordinary Form.

  33. Edward says:

    Dear Shane:

    Please list and explain which parts of the traditional form of the Mass you find theologically “off” or lacking. Also, in order to completely understand where you are coming from, please inform on which parts of the Novus Ordo you actually think were “improvements.” I am interested because I rarely come across self-described orthodox Catholics with your liturgical attitude.

    As for me, I do not trust any lay person or priest who has an aversion or dislike for the traditional liturgies of the Catholic Church. While I would not say that such an individual is evil or less Catholic than I (on the contrary, some are probably substantively much more Catholic than I), I would definately say that such thought is the product of an evil. Whether the evil is an evil flowing from some external force or individual internal weakness probably depends on the individual.

    However, admittedly, my attitude is influenced by the fact that I am one who finds nothing redeeming about the Novus Ordo, or the revolution of the last 40 years, and who has found whatever little amount of holiness I have through tradition.

  34. Tim Ferguson says:

    Actually, you are correct Fr. Augustine, and I was a bit harsh in my initial reaction and reading of the letters posted. I would say that if the religious order pastors hear the legitimate requests of their parishioners and accomodate them as much as their Order will allow (e.g., if they themselves won\’t offer the EF, they will welcome an outside priest nominated by the local bishop to celebrate it). This would seem to be an occasion for the local bishop and the religious order to re-examine the written agreement spoken of in c. 681 (which many religious order parishes still don\’t have, 25 years after the promulgation of the Code…) to take this issue into consideration.

    On the whole, I would say that it is certainly up to a religious order to determine their liturgical apostolate in their houses. As Shane rightly noted above, the mere fact that an order does not embrace the EF does not automatically mean that it is heretical or heterodox. I would take issue if an Order outright forbade members from celebrating the EF, since, it seems, the faculty to do so is extended to all priests of the Latin Church. At the same time, it is up to the bishop to determine if an order is suited for parochial ministry within his diocese (respecting, of course, agreements which are currently in force and legitimate custom).

    Fr. Augustine, perhaps you could enlighten me – were Dominican priests, \”back in the day\” permitted to use the Roman Missal without permission of their superiors, especially in non-Dominican churches and chapels?

  35. Shane says:

    As Fr.Anselm makes clear above, no priest can be prevented from offering the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

    I am not so sure that this is correct. Article 3 of SP does seem to say that a Superior may prohibit religious priests from celebrating the Extraordinary form “often” or “habitually:”

    “Art. 3: Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

    Now there may be something that I or others are misreading here. I think this is an issue which does seem to require clarification.

    Edward – I really am not interested in discussing my theological opinions of the Extraordinary form versus the Ordinary form, because such conversations tend to lead people into sin, and because by its very nature such a conversation would be getting off topic from this post. I must go do some work now, but I will check back later and will fulfill your request if it does seem warranted based on where the conversation has gone to by that time.

  36. Boko Fittleworth says:

    From Article 5, Section 1 of SP: “… the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962…”

    As I read this, the obligation is put upon PASTORs to (personally) offer the EF (given that the proper conditions obtain, viz-“stable group”, or whatever a better translation is, requesting it).

    Priests who cannot offer the EF should not be pastors, because part of being a pastor is “willingly accepting [a “stable group”‘s request to celebrate” in the EF.

    If OVM priests are impeded from offering Mass according to the EF (which they may be – SP says that religious superiors have a say in whether their brethren can offer Mass according to the EF regularly –

  37. Boko Fittleworth says:

    From Article 5, Section 1 of SP: “… the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962…”

    As I read this, the obligation is put upon PASTORs to (personally) offer the EF (given that the proper conditions obtain, viz-“stable group”, or whatever a better translation is, requesting it). Bishops don’t have to offer the EF for a particular group; they only must see that the group is provided for. But pastors don’t have this option. SP doesn’t tell them to see that the group is provided for. SP tells them to offer the EF. Now if they can’t, they should take steps so that they can. And men who can never offer according to the EF shouldn’t be made pastors. Ever.

    Priests who cannot offer the EF should not be pastors, because one of the duties of a pastor is to “willingly accepting [a “stable group”‘s] request to celebrate” in the EF.

    If OVM priests are impeded from offering Mass according to the EF (which they may be – SP says that religious superiors have a say in whether their brethren can offer Mass according to the EF regularly) then it seems to me that they are impeded from performing one of the responsibilities of pastoring and as such should not be pastors.

    Blame where blame is due: the OVM is saying “Hey, our guys are not fit to be pastors of parishes.”

  38. Matt Q says:

    Fr Renzo wrote:

    “The Holy Father has repeatedly requested our prayers that he may have the strength not to flee from the wolves. So… Ave Maria…”


    Yes, very true. Daily, Father. Daily. At the same time, isn’t there a poignant passage in the Gospel about trees needing to be pruned and “etc.,” in order to grow and flourish so that they may bear Fruit? I don’t see Rome doing any pruning of these bishops and religious superiors. What happens to their souls is one thing and their business, but they are dealing our souls and that’s our business. How dare they deny us the very thing Rome says is permissible. Shame on them!!

  39. Edward says:

    Dear Shane:

    I am not interested in discussing your opinions either. I am just curious as to how a self described orthodox Catholic could have the opinions that you do. Specifically, what in the world could an orthodox Catholic see as theologically “off” or “wanting” in the traditinal Mass. I was just looking for insight, not debate. I have long since made up my mind about the superiority of the ancient Roman Rite and I have long since realized the futility of trying to convince others of its superiority.

  40. ben says:

    This news breaks my heart. The priest who was saying the EF at St. Peter Chanel is one of the most holy people I have ever met. He is a relative newcomer to St. Peter Chanel, and recently left the parish I belong to.

    I suppose I have a definitive answer to the questions of whether or not there will ever be an EF mass celebrated at my parish. It would seem to be a natural fit. We already have the OF in Latin, and we still have our old High Altar.

    Please pray for this priest. He will not disobey the will of Fr. Brown. There is no question of that. Much of his extended family worships at a local FSSP parish. I’m sure this decision is a cross for them all.

  41. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I would like to make a comment, and I hope that Fr. Z. and others are reading this. For a long time now, I have been watching the statistics of regularised Traditional Latin Masses. Currently, I assist Mr. Schwalm and his other helpers to compile and update complete lists of these Masses.

    Over the last week, I would say that coming permissions are (happily) OUT OF CONTROL. What I mean is that there are so many coming 1962 Masses in the U.S.A., France, Germany, New Zealand (oddly), and the U.K. that we can’t keep up with the information. Let me offer bloggers one exammple. The F.S.S.P. offered a training session for priests in North Carolina who were interested in celebrating the old Mass. SEVENTEEN priests participated. Now, gents, N.C. is not exactly grand central station for the Catholic faith; it is in the Baptist Bible Belt. I have just discovered that all ten of the vicariates in the Dicoese of Charlotte will soon have Traditional Latin Masses, and ten priests are starting to say them. Others are already approved at Wake Forest University and several (with more coming) in the Diocese of Raleigh. Imagine what must be happening in more Catholic areas!

    Meanwhile, in Germany, while the bishops defy the Pope in their words, they are quietly giving in to the motu proprio. The number of Masses has trebled since July; the number of dioceses in which they are situated has doubled; and I am hearing that there are 150 petitions to priests being considered at this time. There is similar evidence for France and Italy. Even Spain, where our movement was almost dead, is now finding priests attending training sessions in large numbers. In Peru, there is now an every-Sunday Mass at Lima offered by the Oratorians. I could go on and on and on. There has been a sudden surge from zero in New Zealand. This year, I expect that five of the six dioceses there will have every-Sunday Masses. And there is now a permission for Monterrey, Mexico, in Indult-dead Mexico.

    Is this a groundswell? I’m not sure. But keep in mind the ‘training lag’. It is like the heat lag which makes July much hotter than June, even though there is more light in June. It takes time to train priests. Now, the first batch is finishing its training and the second is in process.

    The Jesuits and others are terrified. They have committed themselves to the failure that is the New Mass. If this is a groundswell, it will make them look very bad indeed. So they must try to nip it in the bud.

    Meanwhile, Msgr. Perl waits, to time his Instruction for the coup de grâce.


  42. tertullian says:

    I find it interesting that Saint Peter Chanel can offer 5 masses each Sunday in Spanish, yet cannot find a way to offer 1 TLM.

  43. John Enright says:

    Maybe the Italian Jesuits would have been better served if their superiors consulted with Fr Fessio, S.J.

  44. MG says:

    Thanks for that PKTP, some very positive news; I think we have to look at the whole picture and realize that interest in the EF is growing and will multiply exponentially. Step by step.

    Art 3
    …”If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.”
    I read this part of article 3 of Summorum Pontificum as relating to the religious communities as a whole (worldwide, provinces, abbeys, etc.), not to individual priests. The MP says any priest religious or secular has the right to say the extraordinary form. They may not permit the use of the EF in their community masses but they can not prevent their priests from saying the EF privately.


  45. Eileen says:


    The real shame of this situation is the lack of obedience on the part of the Rector Major, Patrice Veraquin, OVM, to the Holy Father’s directives.

    Yes, the priests at St. Peter Chanel work very hard to strive for the souls of the faithful, but obedience to disobedient Superiors, creates confusion and division. We all know who the father of confusion is, don’t we? You will know them by their fruits.

    This decision from the Rector Major is a rotten apple that looks bad, smells bad, and tastes bad. Rome has spoken and the faithful are rejecting this rotten fruit. The faithful have been digesting the corruption and scandals in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for many years. The Holy Father has spoken and the Rector Major, Father Patrice Veraquin, OVM, using attempts at word dodge ball, is claiming to be wiser.

    Another sad result from this is the terrible position this Rector Major places on good and obedient priests. I do call that evil. This undermines everything good. Now, when these good priests tell the faithful to be obedient to the Church and the Holy Father, in “all” matters from the pulpit, these good priests realize that those are only words to some people. Trust is an essential building block to reach all souls, not just some souls.

    Forty eight years ago my convert father used the term Cafeteria Catholic. I had never heard that phrase before. My convert father embraced all of the teachings and directives from Rome. This is another Cafeteria selection of pick and choose what I like, leadership.

    I am so grateful for my father’s total obedience because I was number six out of thirteen pregnancies. I guess my father could have claimed that “avoiding contraception” was not his charism. Taking care of the needs of two or three children over the needs of thirteen children with different needs, would fit into the spirit of ease or individual agendas.

    Why would the head of an Order do this to his own? This Rector Major’s actions have spoken so loudly that the faithful don’t need any words. The disobedience is loud and clear. What do you achieve when you place a brick of disobedience next to the many bricks of other disobedient Orders? You build a wall of disobedience towards Rome. With the Grace of God, the simple faithful will always remain faithful and remind Superiors of what their true duties are. Fidelity to the Church, not individualism. This is Cafeteria Catholicism disguised in “slippery terms”!

  46. Tim Ferguson,

    You as a canonist know that practice is the best interpreter of law. Although it could be argued that since Quo Primum all priests could say the Mass of Pius V, that was not how the order or the Sacred Congregation of Rites understood the situation of Dominicans.

    Dominicans were obliged to say the Dominican Rite and the Dominican Rite only. It was viewed “as not just a privilege but an obligation.” (M.G. Michael Browne, 1957 (P.N. 5113-57). Even Browne, the master of the order, was not considered to have the power of relieving a friar of the obligation of using the Dominican Mass. And SCR supported that interpretation.

    The first crack came on Feb. 8, 1959, when Michael Browne formally petitioned the SCR for authority to permit Dominican priests living alone and teaching in Missionary seminaries to use the Roman Rite. SCR gave that permission reluctantly, and reminded Browne that it was only for this exceptional case. When such priests left the missions, they were immediately to return to use of the Dominican Rite and no longer had freedom to use the Roman Rite. I treat this extensively in the history of the Dominican liturgy from 1946-1969 over at NLM.

    So no, canonically, Dominicans could not use the Missal of Pius V and the SCR not only agreed with that rule, they were reluctatant to allow the Master General to make an exception for missionary priests. Now in 1969, however, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship seems to have imagined things that the old SCR never did …

  47. Joseph says:

    Time for heads to roll, no more pussy footing. Forty years of suffering at the hands of these disobedient dissidents is ENOUGH!!!

  48. Richard says:

    Dear Mr. Gomes,

    Good points.


  49. Michael says:

    The way I read SP, it does seem to make in context of the right of a Major Superior to withhold the EF for “for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories”. This applies only when the religious celebrate the Liturgy as a community or “convent” together does the decision go to the approval of the Major Superior. Not for masses at perishes. Otherwise the Holy Father has made a huge breech for the application of Art. 3. when applied to the interpretation of some Major Superiors. I don’t think the Holy Father is this dumb.

    Now some have opined one does not like or approve of the EF, or it may not be fruitful. This might be just that, an opinion. But we do have the wish from the Prince of the Apostles himself saying, this is a good! He even invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God! Let us look at: “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
    Must be given due honour, couldn’t make it any clearer for the Supreme Pontiff’s intentions.

    One thing is for sure, this should be top priority for the Ecclesia Dei to handle.

  50. Susan Teissere says:

    Tertullian, St. Peter Channel can and has had every Sunday for the past 3 and half months the Extraordinary Form. There is no problem . The problem seems to be do you believe in the authority of The Vicar Christ, the Papacy. This is were it really comes down too.
    are you a parishioner at St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church in Hawaiian Gardens? I can’t understand any parishioner that attends St. Peter Chanel would find anything theologically wrong with The Extraordinary Form of The Holy Mass. It may not be your “spirituality”. That is fine, no one is forced to participate in this form. The Holy Father has given all priests the choice to offer this Form of the Holy Mass as well as the lay faithful to participate at it at their parish if they so desire. Shane, have you read the Motu Proprio Summorumn Pontificum and the Apostolic Letter that came with it? I think everyone needs to read it and take it into their hearts and accept it. It seems it is like 1968 all over again. Remember Humane Vitae. By the way I don’t think you are evil if you don’t attend the Extraordinary Form of The Holy Mass. I just started participating in this Form since it started at SPC and it has help my husband and I in our prayer life. We want our children to have this rich tradition of the Catholic Church. Both my husband and I were never raised with this and are discovering and experiencing the rich traditions that the Holy Father says we can experiencand have a right to. My question why does this make people so mad that the Holy Father has given us this option? The Holy Father said there shouldn’t be any problems. Another question I have and please some one answer this! When isn’t a charism or an apostolic work for a Roman Catholic priest either relgious or dioceasean not to offer the Holy Sacarfice of the Holy Mass? I always taught that is what a ordained Catholic priest does, that is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Holy Father has stated there are two Forms of The Holy Mass, The Ordinarty and Extra Ordinary in the Latin Rite. I could go on ,but it has just become mind boggling to me! The only thing I can say is what I heard a priest say and that is “Satan doesn’t want this Mass” Even recently Archbishop Raginth who is Secretary for The Congregation of The Liturgy at the Vatican has said something about reactions from prelates. We love all our Oblate priests here at St. Peter Chanel and abroad.

  51. kdpfam says:


    I too am curious as to those parts of the EF where you beleive the theology is a “bit off” or “wanting.” I would assume [and I remember what my dear departed mother used to say about those who assume :)]one of the reasosns Father Z started this blog was to provide a forum not only for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, but also, and maybe more importantly,for the spiritual and intellectual growth of its participants. I am very interested to read your thoughts and reasons regarding the above so that quite possibly I may learn something, if not only from you, but from the resulting discussion. Truely, I make this request with all due respect and charity and would like to thank you in advance for your considering my request.


  52. Shane says:

    I just arrived home and finished eating. I’ve decided to give my thoughts over on my own blog to provide perhaps a forum that can take more in depth discussion. I’m writing them out now and I’ll post them up when I’m one and post the link.

    I’ve prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and any of your prayers that this entire enterprise will be for the benefit of all involved would be great!

  53. Woody Jones says:

    Just a question: anyone know of any Opus Dei, Legionary or IVE priests offering the EF?

  54. Kiran says:

    Woody, you bring up an interesting point. Not only do I know of no such priests, but quite a few of them (Opus Dei and Legionaries) who are otherwise quite good holy priests, seem hostile/ununderstanding of the EF. I heard (and I caution that this is hearsay, but I was told by somebody I think is reliable) that a friend was told that, with the Motu Proprio, you can now go to the EF if you think it is necessary for your salvation. I would love to know of counter-examples. Some of them say their office and Mass in Latin though (Novus Ordo).

  55. Written Under Correction says:


    Your analysis of article 3 is quite good. However, you need to do some research on the term “indefectability”. It would be preferable to do so before you write more about your opinions on the liturgy.

    In His Peace-

  56. Written Under Correction says:

    (Founder of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary)

    O Father, fountain of all life and holiness you gave Fr. Pio Bruno Lanteri great faith in Christ, you Son, a lively hope, and an active love for the salvation of his brethren. You made him a prophet of your Word and a witness to your Mercy. He had a tender love for Mary and by his very life he taught fidelity to the Church. Father, hear the prayer of your family and through the intercession of Fr. Lanteri, grant us the grace for which we now ask…

    (Suggested intention: That through the intercession of Fr. Lanteri, you will cause a miracle to happen, and grant the Rector Major of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, Fr. Patrice Veraquin, OMV, the grace to reverse his decision and allow the Traditional Latin Mass to be offered always and everywhere by the Oblates, in public and in private, and in all their houses, centers, chapels, seminaries, churches, and shrines.)

    May he be glorified on earth that we may give greater praise. We ask this through your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

    Prayer: With ecclesiastical approval, Oblates of the Virgin Mary, 1105 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02215

  57. Bob K. says:

    Maybe Rome should just Excommunicate them. Their outright heretics. They think the Popes wishes are nothing to them. Get rid of them!!!!!!!. We don’t need them anymore. They can join the Lutherans.

  58. Eileen says:

    Dear Shane,

    In charity, it is very unfair to state that the EF is (theologically “a bit off or wanting in certain areas”) and then claim that clarifying your comment might lead to sin. That is called a “drive by” criticism and then playing the “I don’t want to tempt anyone to sin card.” Don’t worry Shane, that statement of the EF being a bit off in theology or wanting was enough of a doozey!

    Are you really prepared to defend such a comment? The whole point Shane is that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We either obey or we don’t. I’m sure that you were not suggesting that the Holy Father was wrong or confused in promoting something that “you” feel is lacking or wanting or a bit off. The only thing lacking is obedience on the part of the Superior who chose to remove what many know as “The Most Beautiful Thing on This Side of Heaven”.

    Please think about the impact of such a statement. For every liturgical abuse imaginable, there has always been someone there to defend it. That is one of the reasons that it continues. As Catholics it is very important to understand what the Church teaches and what the Church allows. Defend the Holy Father’s directives, not your own perceptions. That is the right thing to do.

  59. Shane says:


    One of the main questions under discussion here is whether or not the superiors are being disobedient. I think the general consensus seems to be that, in any case, Rome needs to clarify the matter.

    I think you have really misunderstood me. That’s somewhat what I was referring to when I said that this sort of conversation tempts people to sin. I’m not accusing you of sin, by any means. I am suggesting that you may have been a bit emotionally struck when you read my comments and so failed to read them with a full concentration. In other words, it’s a highly emotional issue. The emotion involved seems to have led you to read into my comments a few things that aren’t there, and it often tempts people into sin.

    Now there isn’t anything in the Holy Father’s teaching anywhere that holds I have to think the rite of Pius V is superior to the rite of Paul VI. That isn’t to say I believe it is inferior, but I have the right to offer some critical thoughts. No rite of Mass is perfect. Only that which comes from God is perfect, and so the Institution Narrative alone is perfect in the Mass. Everything else has been put together by men – even men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. :)

    In any case, I have offered my thoughts on my blog. It will be in the next post.

  60. Shane says:

    For all interested parties, my thoughts may be found at

  61. Susan Teissere says:

    Iam very confused with some peoples interpretation of Article 3. Shane, I have been a parishioner of St. Peter Chanel for nearly ten years. The only “community” Mass Iam aware of is on Wednesday mornings at 8am that is when all or almost all the priests stationed at SPC celebrate together as a “community”. Iam sure there are other occasions as well. This is a public Mass in which the lay faithful attend . All the other Masses on Sundays or during the week are celebrated publically individually by OMV priests, attended by the laity. My father and daughter attended today in fact the”community” Mass. This is what Article 3 is stating because to suggest otherwise would be misinterrepation of Article 3. Many of the parishioners who participated in the Extraordinary Form at SPC are in the process of taking this up with the local ordinary and also with Ecclesia Dei. This is all with in our rights stated in Motu Proprio. Fr.Larry Darnell has acknowledge that personally with me as well as Fr. Brown the Provincial of The OMV. I still have not heard from Fr.Patrice Veraquin the Rector Major. Several people I know have emailed him and they haven’t received an official response from him. All we have received was Fr.Larry’s announcement on that Sunday and emails from Fr. Brown. In fact I asked Fr. Brown for an official letter and he emailed me that it is “internal” document for the Oblates only. Which I find strange if what Fr. Patrice is ordering isn’t against the Motu Proprio. Full public disclosure to the parishioners of St.Peter Chanel should be the case here. I have forward these emails to Fr. Z. so he is aware of the situation. Again we are not doing this in any way as disrespect to The Oblates. We love all of our priests and pray for them daily. There was no problem at St. Peter Chanel over the Extraordinay Form being celebrated. Three of the six priests offered this Form of The Holy Mass. Several altar boys from the parish trained in the EF. “Confusion” however came in when Fr. Patrice gave this order, with really no explanation except that he didn’t like it being celebrated at SPC. The article 3 “reason” didn’t show up to us parishioners until a week latter after Fr.Larry’s announcement. Also statements were made about low #’s like 170-300 were not high enough to validate giving “special” privileges to “special” intrest groups. Even though this wasn’t the “reason” behind Fr. Patrices decision. Fr. Larry also said it wasn’t coming from the diocese. Also statements as “you can go somewhere else” for this Form. Statements such as it was only experiment for 3 months. Statements as you are not in the “territorial” boundaries of the parish so basically you are not a “parshioner” of St.Peter Chanel. That was the most hurtful and divisive statement of them all. Many parishioners have gone there for years and have made SPC their parish because the priests of SPC have individually brought these so called “outside” Hawaiiam Gardens people to SPC. That would apply to my husband and I. Our children have only known SPC to be their parish. In fact if we wanted to go to an “outside” parish to have any “sacraments” Fr. Larry says he is our pastor and would have to give permission and he always did and had no problem with doing in our case. We have “private” baptisms for our children. SPC dosen’t have “private” baptims is what Fr.Larry has said in the past. Anyways, SPC is our parish and we are not leaving. Many of us not only support SPC financially but through different “ministries” like teaching CCD or working in the offices. It would hurt and has hurt them to be told they’re not “really” parishioners because they find the EF to be their form of “spirituality”. We love our priests, just as much as those who attend only the Ordinary Form. So please don’t be looking for “division” where there is none. Iam saying this because your comments about being called “evil”. I have never heard anyone who participates in the EF at SPC call anyone “evil” if they don’t find the EF their form of “spirituality” or even don’t want to attend the EF. And If this is the case , it still doesn’t make the Motu Proprio null and void. I just don’t understand your thinking on this. It is the first I heard of at SPC ,if in fact you are a parishioner “territorially” or not. People, need to re read the Holy Father’s Apostolic letter with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, The Holy Father states it all there. Iam saying this in all charity. God Bless.

  62. T. Shane,

    Exactly! In my youth the Jesuits wore a black Jesuit style cassock, with a faschia. Their biretta was with a spear head rather than a pompom. In cold weather many wore a cappa nigra. Today the only Jesuits that I see wearing anything that resembles a robe are those serving in an Eastern Rite. All of this happened post Vatican II. ot a one of them were formally clothed for their recent meeting with the pope which I find rather odd.

  63. John Thomas says:

    Expectations of Our Lady (Oliver Hayes)

    Just a point of factual correction – Blackrock College is/was run by the Holy Ghost Fathers (C.S.Sp) / Spiritans – not the Jesuits.

    Unfortunately they have gone the same way as the Jesuitsm in Ireland, and will be virtually extinct in Ireland in 10 years time.

    from a figure of 5000 plus worldwide and 900 in Ireland at the time of Vatican II, they are now 3000 worldwide and 300 in Ireland ( of which 100 are in their retirement home,and the remainder have an aged profile. Up until 1970 they were ordaining in Ireland circa 25 priests a year, and their seminary had abou 175 seminarians… now they do not have even 1 ordination a year..and maybe none for a number of years. It is all very sad, but inevitable when one sees how secularised they have become as a corporate body

    Of course they no longer wear a habit

    From this

    to this:

    They are stick in a 1970 timewarp, and short of a miracle, will be unable to reform themselves after setting out on the path of discontinuity in the 1970’s

    Woody Jones -with regard to the IVE, their website says that they are open to celebrating the Tridentine Mass, whether they do in fact, and wher, I do not know…if you are near them you might contact them to find out

  64. Edward says:

    Shane –

    I agree with Eileen’s comments to you above. Maybe in the future you can be a little more conscious of the words you choose to use.

    I have read your comments on your blog and have of course heard them all before, except the novel argument regarding the Eucharistic prayers during the Canon. That was a new one for me. I of course always find it sad when a self-described orthodox Catholic can delude themselves into holding the opinions you expressed on your blog.

  65. Shane says:


    I believe its crossing quite a line to declare that I am “deluding myself.” I would never make such a statement about you or anyone else – it’s not in keeping with Christian charity because it makes judgments of a person’s motivations, which we are not generally qualified to do.

    I do invite you to post on my blog and help me to understand why my thoughts regarding to offertory are not valid, but if you don’t want to, at least try to understand one thing:

    The rite of Paul VI has given me something the rite of Pius V could only have ever denied me: salvation.

    If there were no Pauline rite today, I would still be mucking around in God knows what Church. I’d never have spent 5 minutes looking into the Catholic Church if my only experience with it was the Extraordinary form. Now certainly this would be a flaw on my part. Truth should transcend my perceptions.

    But all of our damnation is a flaw on our own parts. God doesn’t take that into account: He does whatever is necessary too overcome our own selfish flaws. he didn’t permit the reform of the Liturgy for no reason, it had a purpose, and the overwhelming number of converts the Church is receiving today is evidence of this.

  66. Edward says:

    Shane –

    Yes, the fact that you have the barrier you do to the traditional form of the Mass is a weakness on your part. That much you and I can agree on. Saying you are deluding yourself with your misguided opinions, is neither crossing the line nor being uncharitable. You hold certain opinions which are untrue and which lead you to believe certain untrue things. Hence, you are deluding yourself. For instance, the belief that the new mass is converting overwhelming numbers to the Catholic faith as compared to the old mass is simply untrue. Additionally, the belief that the new mass includes more scripture is untrue.

    I suggest that if you throw out bombs like the traditional form of the Roman Rite is theologically “off,” you had better grow some thicker skin.

  67. Shane says:


    My skin is not at issue. I don’t mind too much what anyone has to say to me. I do care very deeply for other people, and I recognize that the single most lacking thing in most Christians is a charitable way of handling people. To vehemently oppose a heresy is virtuous, but to make rash judgments about an individual promoting a heresy is sinful, sometimes gravely so.

    I don’t claim that the Pauline rite is converting anybody. I do claim that it is far less of an obstacle than the rite of Pius V. Our God is a God who chooses to overcome obstacles Himself, and so yes I do believe that He inspired the production of the Pauline rite so as to eliminate some of the obstacles that would have prevented folks like myself and Dr. Hahn from finding His Church.

    I am not really sure what you mean when you say that the Pauline rite does not have more Scripture. I don’t know of anyone who would suggest such a thing, from the most gushy liberal to Archbishop Lefebvre.

    Peace and God bless

  68. Edward says:

    Shane –

    You are quite annoying to discuss this with, as you come accross as a person attempting to be overly pious and holier than thou. And unless you are a priest, please stop attempting to give others unrequested spiritual guidance.

    I will just say that it is amazing to me how a liturgy so sublime and beautiful as the traditional form of the Roman Rite could throughout history convert millions of the most indigant and ignorant people, yet people like yourself and Scott Hahn could see it as such a hurdle to jump. It really is interesting.

    I will leave you to your opinions of the Pauline Rite. If it really helped you to convert to the Church, then I am truly happy for that blessing. However, I could also say the exact opposite thing in regards to myself. So getting away from the relativistic anecdotes, the real question is which one will overtime lead to the restoration of the Church and ensure its expansion. As evidenced by the bad fruits of the last forty years, I think it is really hard to objectively argue that the future of the Church lies with the Novus Ordo. I believe the future of the Church lies with Her traditions, as it always has.

    Finally, the non-variable parts of the traditional form of the Mass include far more scripture than the non-variable parts of the Novus Ordo. Just compare the two missals to find this out.

    As for the variable parts of the Mass, the traditional form is based on a one year cycle. The Novus Ordo is a three year cycle. Thus, in one year’s time of attending the traditional Mass one hears three times as much scripture.

    Also, the traditional calendar is much better at actually organizing the variable parts of the Mass such that they are relevant to the particular day’s feast day. The new calendar hardly does this at all.

    About the only thing you can say about the New Mass is that it added a second reading. However, more often than not, the traditional Mass has what is called a tract between the Epistle and the Gospel. Which in effect is the same as a second reading. So even if you were ignorant of everything else, I don’t think that the mere addition of the second reading justifies saying that a benefit of the Novus Ordo is the inclusion of more scripture.

  69. Shane says:


    I’m not trying to be holier than anybody. My only desire is to Love Jesus Christ. That’s all I can even think of in any given situation. How I appear to others, how others make me feel, or anything else is all so secondary to the point that I can’t really even think about it most of the time. My brain just doesn’t work that way. If Christ said it, I’m gonna do it. If Christ made it, I’m going to Love it. I’m sorry if I come across as overly pious to you, it’s absolutely not my intention… Is it even possible to be overly pious? I’d think all anybody could ever be would be not pious enough.

    I also don’t quite understand you statement about unrequested spiritual guidance. We’re not called to admonish the sinner only when he asks us to. That’s all I’m trying to do, and it’s something we’re all called to do constantly.

    As for the Liturgy, the issue isn’t really about the beauty of the Mass. That’s important, certainly, but it’s all really secondary to the nature of the Mass. In reality, a profoundly beautiful Protestant celebration is utterly worthless, while a bland and unappealing Mass is of infinite value by virtue of what goes on there. So I love the profound beauty of the Tridentine rite of Mass. I just have to look at it objectively and say that beyond that beauty, there are some things that I like about the Pauline rite better – not all things, but some things. I don’t understand why that’s such a problem.

    I also don’t think the fruits of the last 40 years have very much to do with the Liturgy. Anyone who takes a cursory look at Church history will see the seeds of the past 40 years present years before the Second Vatican Council had even been called. We would have seen much of what happened in the past 40 years anyways. The Pauline rite and other parts of that Council were the antidote for these things, and we are just now beginning to see the effects. I believe that is why God gave us the Council and the Pauline Liturgy at the time that He did.

    I also disagree with you regarding conversions. The obstacle is not in the beauty of the Mass. The obstacle is in the difficulty for a person to understand it unless he really wants to. I’m not only referring to the language, but to other aspects as well. Folks like myself and Dr. Hahn were converted by understanding the Mass when we didn’t necessarily want to.

    That’s how Christ handled things. He didn’t just come on down and proclaim Himself as God. Had He done that, nobody would have listened to Him. It was a beautiful truth, but it was one that was not understandable without first being open to what He had to say. Rather, He spent two and a half years with the apostles, performing miracles and acting as an out of the ordinary rabbi before the truth about Him was finally revealed and proclaimed by Peter at Caeserea Phillipi.

    Likewise, you don’t help a Protestant convert by asking her to pray the Rosary or to kneel before a statue of Mary and ask Mary to show her the truth about the Church. You bring them to the Church through what they know. You show them the Church in their Bibles and ask them to pray to Christ about it.

    Likewise, the Jesuits converted the Americas not by setting foot and preaching about Christ or inviting the natives to Mass. They learned to communicate with them about the things that they understood.

    The same goes for the examples of the saints. They didn’t convert anybody by practicing the idea of “this is the truth, it’s your fault if you don’t want to learn about it.”

    It’s completely in line with the Church’s evangelistic tradition to have a Mass that is understood not only by those trying to understand it, but also by those who may not even know why they’ve set foot in the church that day. To Protestants like myself and Dr. Hahn, there was just far too much about the Tridentine rite of Mass that made it seem so unChristian. We were extremely wrong, but the point is that it is the meaning and purpose of the very Incarnation itself that God removes the obstacles and puts His beloved sheep into the best position they can be to accept His truth and thus be brought into the fold.

    As far as the Scripture readinds go, you’re mistaken. The one year cycle does not fit the same amount of Scripture into one third the time. It leaves out huge portions that the three year cycle includes.

    I really think you’re misunderstanding me quite a bit here. As I’ve tried to say over and over, there are all sorts of things I really like about the Tridentine rite of Mass. It just happens that there are some things I don’t. Are you trying to say that the Tridentine rite is perfect and has no problems at all – nothing at all in need of improvement? I don’t imagine that Pius V, Benedict XVI, Abp. Lefebvre, or any great proponent of the Tridentine rite would suggest that. It is, after all, only a human work. It also seems like you are questioning my orthodoxy beause I think the Pauline rite has some benefits over the Tridentine rite. I apologize greatly if I’m mistaken. On the other hand, if I’m not, does that mean that there’s something unorthodox about the Pauline rite?

    I hope this conversation can be constructive for us both, building us up in the Spirit of God.

    Peace and God bless

  70. Edward says:

    Shane –

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, the so called “Tridentine” Mass is perfect in and of itself. There was never any need for any type of so called reform.

    It is those who feel the need for such reforms who are lacking, not the Mass of the Ages. And it is a shame that the rest of us have had to suffer through what has been a dry desert of spiritual darkness just so that a relatively small group of protestant converts such as yourself and Scott Hahn could see the light of day.

    I have found this conversation to not be constructive in the least or building me up in the Spirit of God. My time would have been much better spent praying the Rosary. So with that in mind, I end this conversation.

  71. Kiran says:

    On the other hand, I believe I was always looking for the EF, even though I only started regularly attending it 3 years after conversion. Also, whatever the merits of the NO, a number of things need to be taken into account (which I offer in an irenic spirit):

    1) the rapidity of the introduction of change, which was in fact and in theory disconcerting and disturbing

    2) Liturgy is not about personal preference, or what I myself can or cannot see, but about what is owed to God (Evelyn Waugh, for instance, who found the NO very disconcerting, was tone deaf, and preferred attending low masses)

    3)the virtual suppression overnight of a continuously living tradition and its replacement by something constructed by “intellectuals” was both impious and resulted in a loss of identity.

    4)How one would be converted is a matter of Grace. It might happen to be true that one could not see how one could be converted without some of our mistakes we have made (Augustine repeatedly asks why it was that God did not will for him to get married, but the answer lay in the later part of his life), but that does not mean that they are necessary. If not for the NO, I would have been converted differently. Just because I cannot see it, that doesn’t make it impossible.

    5)The EF is not advanced by name-calling or argumentation. People who find the NO ordo more instructive are not stupid or blind. It takes time and experience and growth. I hope this does not sound belittling. Things would be good if we kept intellectual arguments purely intellectual.

  72. Shane says:


    I agree by and large with your statements. God could have converted me with a ham sandwhich if He’d wanted to. My point was simply that God did indeed use the Pauline rite, in part, to convert me and in a larger part to convert Dr. Hahn. Now the question is, why did He do that? If the Pauline rite is indeed so terrible as some would make it out to be, why not simply forego that and use the ham sandwhich? In other words, it seems to me that some of what I have cited as obstacles in the riet of Pius V were indeed obstacles, and the means God used to convert me was to remove those obstacles.

    My question for those who favor the rite of pius V so highly is really about the emphasis I see placed on it by so many of its proponents. I have met plenty of perfectly wonderful Traditionalist Catholics. Traditionalism is not evil, nor are Traditionalists. I’ve met plenty of perfectly nasty non-Traditionalists. Yet in all my experience, a greater percentage of Tradtionalists seem to offer invective and simply fail to show the presence of the Holy Spirit. This is coupled with the tendency to seemingly place the Liturgy over Christ, rather than in service to Him. Look, there are folks doing this on the other side of the coin, too. Clown Masses and some other simply appalling Liturgical abuses are examples of this.

    My point is simply that the entire purpose of the Mass is to give honor to God and to save and sanctify His people. If a Mass isn’t accomplishing this, it’s meaningless. Now the value of the Mass is in its nature, not its accidents. Whether its a beautiful Solemn High Mass or a bland 20 minute Pauline rite offering, it’s still the infinitely valued Sacrifice of Christ. Yet all those accidents – the beauty, the language, the music, etc. – clearly matter in some way, as they help the faithful to receive the Grace by removing obstacles to it. If this weren’t the case, nobody would have been clamoring for the Motu Proprio and we wouldn’t have a Society of St. Pius X; everybody would be perfectly happy with the Pauline rite. Thus I return to the point: the most beautiful Missal in the world is utterly meaningless unless it’s fruit is to bring people to Love God and neighbor more perfectly.

    And so when I try to look past all the beauty, choreography, and the wonderful prayers – all of which I love – and evaluate the “Mass of the Ages” on its fruits, what am I supposed to think when these fruits include a fellow seemingly implying that it would have been better that I and a bunch of other folks go to hell so long as the Liturgy never changed?

    I’m going to be honest: for that entire article I wrote – which are indeed important – this has been and still is my greatest problem with the Missal of Pius V.

  73. kdpfam says:


    Thank for your response and I will check out your posting on your blog. Peace. Kim

  74. Antiquarian says:

    Edward said– “Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, the so called “Tridentine” Mass is perfect in and of itself.”

    In another thread it was suggested that some make an idol of the Missal of Pius V, a golden calf to which even the Pope must bow.This was hotly denied, but…


  75. Shane says:


    Your point is a good one, on a few levels.

    First of all, the only thing perfect in and of itself is God Himself. Now I don’t think Edward intended to use the phrase in that way.

    On another level, if the Missal of Pius V is perfect, the question remains as to which one. Is it the one originally promulgated by Pius V? The one revised by Clement VIII? The one revised by Leo XIII, or by Pius XII, or by John XXIII? My point is just a repetition of what I already said: not even Abp. Lefebvre would consider the “Mass of the Ages” to be perfect. It was put together by men. It was revised over and over. If it were perfect, that wouldn’t be necessary.

    Peace and God bless

  76. Kiran says:

    Why then did God use Manicheanism, and after that, a strange kind of neoplatonism to convert Augustine? I am not comparing the NO to either, but merely pointing out that the point you make is inconclusive. My earlier point, your conclusion that you would have gone to hell, had not been a Pauline Missal is illogical, and borders on – for many people – the blasphemous. You have qualified it, but the original offense remains.

    Oh, I agree entirely that many traditionalists are full of invective, but (a) that can well be said of Catholics by Protestants and has been. (b)Some of those things that you point out are naturally the result of having a small persecuted community among a larger one. The best analogy I can think of is the behaviour of certain members of the Oxford movement in the 19th century.

    I agree too that some people make an idol of the EF. But that does not mean that the EF in and of itself is an idol. I agree too that the Mass has to bring people to God, but then again, there are two other points to be remembered, and once again, I offer this as an intellectual argument without intention to belittle:

    1)Mass is Sacrifice, and hence an exclusive focus on the human/catechetical dimension is harmful. Further, in the Mass, Jesus – the perfect Sacrifice – is being offered. Any particular Mass has to recognize this. Quite a lot of people feel – and I tend to agree – that the EF is objectively better at honouring God than the NO. And a second connected point

    2) One could say in a sense that the point of the Mass is the Consecration. BUT and while this is true, it is only to a certain extent that you can separate the substance and the accident. It is a bit like the proverbial onion. There are flow-on effects. The externals are not solely external. Jettisoning a major part of our heritage was neither a good thing nor necessary for your conversion. Indeed, it can be blamed for exactly the opposite – the loss of faith in so many people over the past forty years.

    I don’t believe the form of the Mass is unchanging. Indeed, I rejoice that the Pope has demonstrated that he can and will change certain aspects of the Mass, and that he has promised further changes. But the Mass of Paul VI is seriously deficient.

    God bless.

  77. Shane says:


    I have to disagree with your use of Manicheanism as an example. There’s a very wide gap in the manner in which He used the Mass of Paul VI and the manner He used Manicheanism. Manicheanism is something that was not inspired by God in any way. It was a heresy divised altogether by man. God allowed Augustine to pass through a Manichean phase, but Manicheanism didn’t contribute to Augustine’s conversion. It was the emptiness and the flaws of Manicheanism that Augustine fled from to find the Church.

    The Pauline Liturgy, on the other hand, served to directly bring me to God. There was not something lacking in it which caused me to search for fullness. Rather, the Pauline Liturgy itself taught me about God. The Pauline Liturgy allowed me to hear the Sacrifice of Christ proclaimed, and it’s existence prevented me from being forced to consider a ritual which seemed altogether uninviting to me.

    I know you weren’t equating the Mass of Paul VI with Manicheanism, but it’s simply a bad argument. Augustine found God missing from Manicheanism – but it could have been Arianism or Paganism or anything else – and so sought the truth elsewhere. I found God present in the Pauline Mass and so sought the truth there.

    Now as to what you said about not focusing exclusively on the human or catechetical side of the Mass, well, I said that myself :). The Mass is of infinite value because it is the Sacrifice of Christ. Any look at the particulars of a given Missal has to start with this recognition. My point wasn’t that we ought to pay attention to the human side exclusively, but rather that we ought not ignore it.

    In other words, I was trying to ask how I was to judge the Tridentine Mass positively when so many of those it has nourished produce such nasty fruit, but I anticipated some saying that the Mass is perfect by virtue of the infinite Sacrifice of Christ, and so I was pointing out that in some lesser way the various particulars of a Missal do come in to play.

    I don’t think we disagree here. You made the same point in #2 when you spoke about flow on effects. The Sacrifice of Christ makes the Mass infinitely valuable, but in some way, the other stuff does effect what people get out of the Mass.

    Let me rephrase my question in perhaps a more clear way:

    The purpose of the Mass is to glorify God and to sanctify and perfect His people. No Mass is going to produce only saints, as the individual wills of the people involved can get in the way. Yet if I find that 70% of those who prefer and attend the Pauline Mass can carry on charitably, whereas only 50% of those who prefer and attend the Tridentine Mass can carry on charitably, what am I then to make of the situation?

  78. Mike says:

    Shane why do you give people who prefer and attend the Pauline Mass a 70% approval rating and those who prefer the Triditine Mass only a 50% approval rating? Do you go around the country conducting surveys? Are you in the seminary for The Oblates of The Blessed Virgin Mary? What exactly is the problem you have with the Pope’s Summorum Pontificum? Because that is what this post is about “OMV and SJ Superiors line up against Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum.” You go on and on about your opinions about the two forms of the Mass and take little jabs here and there about people who like the Triditine Mass, it is not as if these people are in disobedience to the Holy Father and The Church. For crying out loud. The Pope has given the laity and priests choices. Too bad these two superiors let their own pride get in the way and hold many laity and priests liturgically hostage in their parishes. Please don’t take the liturgically hostage comment out of context, I attend the Pauline Mass. I am sure Ecclesia Dei will be setting things straight soon.

  79. Shane says:


    You misunderstand me. I apologize, because it’s probably my fault. I was just making up numbers with the percentages in order to help explain what I was saying. All I was saying is this:

    In my somewhat considerate (but by no means uneclipsed) experience encountering, reading, or listening to Catholics of different stripes, I have come across some folks who present their conversations and defend their viewpoints charitably and others who do so with tremendous invective. I have encountered charitable Traditionalists and charitable non-Traditionalists, and I have also encountered very nasty Traditionalists and very nasty non-Traditionalists. Now for some reason most of the Traditionalists I have encountered have used a great deal of invective, name calling, and other nastiness. Now this might simply be a coincidence. However, a very healthy majority of Catholics are non-Traditionalist, while a minority of them are Traditionalist. Given that there are far fewer Traditionalists, and yet the majority of them I have come across have been rather nasty, this seems to indicate that most Traditionalists are nasty.

    I’ve never said that those who like the Mass of Pius V are disobedient, and I certainly am not taking jabs at them. If you knew me or had spent any substantial amount of time reading posts I’ve written on other blogs, Catholic Answers Forums, or my own blog, you’d know that taking jabs is one of the last things I’d ever, ever do. My modus operandi, for lack of a better term, is to treat everyone with Love, respect, and to give a very healthy benefit of the doubt. In fact, I have lost several close friends for the sheer reason that when they complain about others who they are having issues with, my first instinct is to give such persons the benefit of the doubt and to try to suggest what they might be thinking from their point of view.

    What I was saying is that there is this seeming trend of Tridentine Mass supporters having a touch of nastiness. Now again not all Tridentine Mass supporters are nasty, but more of them seem to be so than non-Traditionalists. In fact unless I’m misunderstanding, one seems to have said on this page that it would be better for myself and other converts to have gone to Hell than to have had the Pauline rite instituted. I’m not alone in noticing this, by the way; Fr. Groeschel has pointed it out on his program on EWTN.

    Now I said all this not just to get it off my chest or any such silly thing as that, but to ask a question, my question being, if this tendency is found in people who attend the Mass of Pius V moreso than those who attend the Pauline Mass, then how am I to judge the former to be superior? There are many things I really like about the Tridentine Mass. I really do! But I have a problem when I look at the fruits, and I was asking for someone to, well, explain it away, I suppose. :)

    Peace and God bless.

  80. Mike says:

    Shane, Where do you find these so called “traditionalists”? If your searching out websites that don’t like The Holy Father or is that these people comment on sites you’re on? Then I would just leave them alone and pray for them. The Holy father in the Apostolic Letter talks about the wounds of people who attend SSPX chapels . I think we should let the Holy Father handle the situation and keep him and them in our prayers. Shane, I don’t even like that term “traditionalists”. All Catholics should love the Church’s traditions. They may not all have experienced it or had a chance to experience it but never the less once exposed to it, it touches deep into your soul. That is if you haven’t been brainwashed by heretical teachings. I am talking about cradle Catholics here not converts from other religions. I am a cradle Catholic who was deprived of many of the traditions of the Church sometimes at my own fault but most of it was because of the “crisis in the liturgy and catechesis in the Church” I don’t know when you converted but I have been experiencing this “crisis” for practically all my life. If it wasn’t for a few good solid loyal to the Church and The Holy Father priests who exposed me to the Pauline Mass in Latin , books by Ignatius Press and other printing companies. I surely can’t leave out Mother Angelica and EWTN. They are a source of inspiration and good TV entertainment. I don’t know where I would be today without all these loyal faithful Catholics and organizations whom also happen to welcome the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum with cheer. Shane if I didn’t have all of these sources I would hope, I would be in the Church. Back to what I was saying, if you don’t prefer the Triditine Mass, a Catholic should not have a hostile attitude towards it or towards those fellow Catholics who do prefer it. Shane could you answer my ?’s. Are you in the seminary for The Oblates of The Blessed Virgin Mary? I saw on your blog that you’re from back east and the Seminary for The OMV is back there. Also do you have any criticisms of Summorum Pontificum? I could understand more of where you are coming from, especially if you are tied to the OMV in some way. Peace and God bless to you as well.

  81. Shane says:


    The Traditionalists I’m referring to are ones I’ve run into on various websites and forums, and in some cases face to face. I don’t include the sedevacantist websites, or the other sites run by obviously dissident people. That would be unfair.

    I pray for them all the time, and I try my darndest to be as kind to them as possible. I really don’t like the term “Traditionalist” either, for the very reason you cite. Unfortunately, I really don’t know of a better way to distinguish the group of people and it’s also become the term that people identify the particular groups we’re talking about with.

    Actually, Mike, I agree that a person oughtn’t to have a hostile attitude toward the Tridentine Missal, or any one for that matter. I certainly think people can have preferences and criticisms. If someone doesn’t like the Pauline rite, I don’t have a problem with that so long as they aren’t basing their opinion half-truths and misunderstandings, and the same goes for the Tridentine or any other rite.

    That’s really one of the reasons I’m asking the question I am. I really like many things about the Mass of Pius V. I like a lot about it. In fact, in times past I was quite the enthusiast, always trying to convince friends to attend one with me. I used to pour over the internet in search of photos or videos of indult Masses.

    The problem is that I’ve seen many very negative fruits from this Mass: Tridentine attendees viewing it as an idol (as someone mentioned a few posts ago), putting the particular form of the Mass over Christ Himself in various ways, and having the tendancy to just be plain nasty in coversation. As I said, Fr. Groeschel has mentioned this as well; it’s not just me. So because a part of me wants to really enjoy the “traditional” Mass, I am trying to sort out just why all my experience would present folks that attend it as having a much greater tendancy toward those bad fruits. Understanding all the theology and the infinite value of the Mass whatever Missal it’s celebrated with, there’s what I think is a real practical question of how I can embrace something that seems to produce so little.

    I’m not judging the Mass itself or any individual people or even groups. I’m really asking a sincere questions, about both the “Traditionalist” groups and the Mass itself: what’s the deal with those fruits? I’m looking for someone to try to explain what’s going on, to help bring me closer to the “Traditional” Mass and ultimately to Christ Himself. Unfortunately, all I’ve gotten is a lot of anger and the implication that a particular Missal is worth my going to hell! :)

    As to your questions, no I am not an OMV seminarian. I briefly considered it. I am applying for the diocesan seminary soon. I was involved with some OMV priests and seminarians in the past, and I do count them as one of my more favorite orders. That being said, I really don’t consider that to be any factor in what I’m talking about here. I haven’t said anything in the entire conversation that I wouldn’t have said the very same way before I heard about this story. Finally, I don’t have any criticisms of SP.

    Peace and God bless

  82. David2 says:

    Shane, that is an interesting post. My only experience with “traditionalism” has been through approved “indult” parishes. In that context, I have very rarely come across the “nastiness” of which you seek. I remember a priest from an “Ecclesia Dei” society telling a parishoner who started complaining about the Novus Ordo: “We never preach about the Novus Ordo or condemn how the Council hs been implemented; that’s not what we’re about. We’re about growing in holiness, and fostering the virtues, and that’s all you’ll get here.”. That said, we have an SSPX chapel in my city and I presume they act as a “magnet” for some of the less charitably disposed.

    Be that as it may, I think people have to understand the great pain suffered by many who lived through the 1970s and 1980s; there was a great deal of contempt directed at those who loved the liturgical traditions of the Church, and that was the source of a great deal of spiritual suffering. I’m sure you’ve heard stories; priests banning old ladies from kneeling, priests trying to force Communion in the hand; priests using various forms of ridicule against those who felt uncomfortable with guitar-and-bongo-drums celebrations of the Mass. The Holy Father hints at all of this in the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

    I think that many that you describe as “traditionalists” have been treated very uncharitably (and often with downright derision) by Chanceries and “Liturgists” for the best part of forty years. Are some of them “nasty”? No doubt, but as to how many, I have no idea. I suspect that if you kick even the kindest dog often enough, sooner or later it will bite back.

    But I have great faith in the power of prayer, and that the Holy Spirit is working in this Holy Father to effect a true reconciliation within the Church.

    Just my 2c.

  83. Shane says:


    Those are all good points.

  84. RBrown says:

    Re the attitude of those who want mass with the 1962 Missal:

    We know now–this is NOT a guess–that in the 70’s and 80’s those inclined to Latin (priests and laity) were not treated as well as the priests whom bishops knoew were committing scandalous acts.

  85. RBrown says:

    I also don’t think the fruits of the last 40 years have very much to do with the Liturgy. Anyone who takes a cursory look at Church history will see the seeds of the past 40 years present years before the Second Vatican Council had even been called. We would have seen much of what happened in the past 40 years anyways. The Pauline rite and other parts of that Council were the antidote for these things, and we are just now beginning to see the effects. I believe that is why God gave us the Council and the Pauline Liturgy at the time that He did.
    Comment by Shane

    1. BXVI disagrees with you and as a Cardinal made it clear that he thinks the present crisis in the Church is related to the liturgy:

    “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy. ”

    2. You’re right that the seeds of the problem existed before VatII. But I think those problems went from academic abstraction to concrete expression in the liturgical changes, esp. versus populum and the exclusive use of vernacular liturgy.

  86. Edward says:

    Shane –

    I think one of the problems in general with people who are committed to the “reforms,” whether it is people like yourself, Fr. Groeschel, or Scott Hahn, is that they have a tendency to go out of their way to be insulted. For instance, unless I am just completely blind, no where on this thread have I seen anyone using invective towards you and nowhere have I seen anyone say that it would be better for you to go to Hell than have the Novus Ordo.

    I don’t know whether the over sensitiviy is because Catholics who prefer the reformed liturgy prefer it mainly because they are intimidated by the old liturgy and that feeling of intimidation spills over into being intimidated by those who are attached to the old liturgy, or what. I realize that there are nasty people out there, and even traditional Catholics can be nasty. But, honestly, my experience with nastiness and invective is much different than yours. No where in the Catholic world have I seen more nastiness and unCatholic behavior than in the average Novus Ordo parish. It was not until I found a nice traditional indult parish that I even knew what a true Catholic community was. I think that when it comes to discussions like this, those on your side of the debate often confuse passion and conviction with bad fruits or invective.

    And the bad fruits you speak of I do not see as coming from the Tridentine Mass at all. Those bad fruits you speak of, stem from traditional and orthodox Catholics being repeatedly scandalized over the course of the last 40 years by the actions and behavior of clerics. The Tridentine Mass has provided them a refuge whereas without it they would have lost faith completely and just joined the secular world. So, the invective you may have come accross more often than not problem comes from a person who is very emotional about it and because of that emotion they are unable to talk about it in a rational and curteous manner.

    Lastly, contrary to drive by comment above, traditionalists do not hold the traditional form of the Roman Rite up as a false idol. Such a comment reveals an attempt by a person to completely skew the conversation and shadow what actually occurred in the ’60’s, as if the reform was consistent with how the liturgy had traditionally been allowed to develop and evolve throughout the centuries.

    No one is saying that the traditional Mass can never change. It can change and it has changed many times in slow, methodical, and evolutionary ways. The entire Church would have been much better off had the traditional form of the Mass been allowed to evolve as it always had been allowed to over time, as oppossed to imposing the gutted and deficient Pauline Rite on the entire Church over night.

  87. Edward: the so called “Tridentine” Mass is perfect in and of itself. There was never any need for any type of so called reform.

    An Ecumenical Council disagrees with this statement.

  88. Christopher Sarsfield says:


    I would not drop names of people committed to the reforms (ie Fr. Groeschel, or Scott Hahn). You have obviously never spoken to either man about this topic. I have, and I would say that just because someone does not make an apostolate out of publicly critiquing the current reform, does not mean they are committed to it, and do not see problems with the reform. Perhaps if you took the time to speak with these men and showed a little good will towards them, they might share some of their thoughts with you. Then perhaps you could speak with knowledge on these matters.

    In the Heart of Jesus and Mary,
    Christopher Sarsfield

    PS Reading Catholic Family News, does not qualify as a means of finding out what these men think.

  89. Antiquarian says:

    I was not aware that this was a private conversation and that others who made observations were “drive-bys.” But since that apparently would include Father Z, I’ll assume that it’s still allowed.

    Edward, I said “some” traditionalists are behaving as if the Missal were their object of worship, and I not only stand by that, but you gave me evidence. That’s not “skewing” the debate any more than is Father Z’s pointing out your error.

  90. Edward says:

    Sarsfield –

    This is why I absolutely hate commenting on these forums and I rarely, if ever, engage in internet discussions. From my perspective I fail to see how you could read into any of my above comments bad will towards those people whose names you told me I should not “drop.” It may be my problem, and not yours, but I do not know. And since I apparently cannot determine whether it is your sensitivity or my abrasiveness that is the cause of you seeing any bad will on my part, it is probably a good reason why I should just go back to my own rule of not making internet comments.

    However, did you maybe miss Shane’s comments above where he was the one who first “dropped” these names in support of his position. The only reason I dropped those names is because we were discussing Shane’s opinions and he stated that those men shared his opinions. I do not know much about either man other than a couple of books I have read which Hahn wrote and what I have learned about Fr. Groeschel from his television program.

    I have never read Catholic Family News.

    Antiquarian –

    You have no idea whether “some” traditionalists hold the missal of ’62 up as an idol, because you have no idea what the mindset of any such Catholic would be if the common alternative today was not between the missal of ’62 on the one hand at your nearest indult or SSPX parish, or a Novus Ordo loaded with all the modernist bells and whistles on the other. Those people you are talking about are simply reactionaries, not idolaters. And a lot of the time they react in erratic and irrational ways due to the scandal that is going on in the vast majority of diocesan parishes.

    The statement that I thought the traditional form of the Mass was perfect in and of itself without need for reform may be contrary to Sacrosanctum Concilium, but it is not evidence of idolatry. I love the Mass, I do believe it to be perfect and so beautiful. And the thought of ever losing it tears me apart.

    To the extent that Father pointed out my error, I stand corrected and I will modify my statement to say that “the traditional form of the Mass is perfect in and of itself and certainly did not need the type of reform we got.”

  91. Edward says:

    Correction – so as not to be seen as an idolater, let me revise my statement and use a little different wording.

    “The traditional form of the Roman Rite was wonderful just the way it was and it did not need the type of reform we got.”

    I realize that saying it is “perfect in and of itself” may not necessarily be the best way to express my love and respect for the traditional rite, as people like Antiquarian will see that as evidence of my idolatry.

  92. Eileen says:

    Dear Shane,

    Welcome to the Church! I am always happy to see a bright young convert drawn to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ”.

    You previously responded to Edward by saying, “If Christ said it, I’m going to do it”! “If Christ made it, I’m going to love it”!
    That statement applies to Superiors too! Christ “has spoken” through the Holy Father regarding the EF. Well, as Catholics, our actions have to match our words. The topic here is obedience to Christ. The Vicar of Christ has spoken and the directive regarding the EF should be obeyed. The other thoughts and perspectives on the EF are just that, human thoughts and perspectives.

    I have heard other people also comment on the attitudes or lack of charity on the part of people. Welcome to “Original Sin”! You will always encounter our flawed human nature. Lack of charity can always be an equal opportunity offender in every circumstance. Those thoughts can be a great distraction from hearing or understanding truth.

    Once again the subject here is obedience to Christ’s Church, not preferential discussions. When God asked His only Son to Sacrifice His life on the Cross, Jesus knelt down in the Garden and He asked God to remove this cup, nevertheless let “Your Will Be Done, Not Mine”. That should speak to the heart of every Superior who is choosing his “own” will.

    Jesus never sidetracked God’s request with distractions like….I checked this out with My council and I would really prefer to be stoned, that fits my charism, or the people at the Crucifixion act superior and uncharitable. He simply obeyed! Many of us stumble because we fight accepting the Cross. Keep your eye on the prize and that victory comes through humility and obedience. Welcome again!

  93. Shane says:


    When I said that someone had implied that a Missal is worth my going to hell, I was referring to your statement:

    “It is those who feel the need for such reforms who are lacking, not the Mass of the Ages. And it is a shame that the rest of us have had to suffer through what has been a dry desert of spiritual darkness just so that a relatively small group of protestant converts such as yourself and Scott Hahn could see the light of day.”

    Now as I said when I first commented on this, I may have misunderstood you altogether. However, even if I have, I think you can see how a person would get that out of your statement.

    On the other hand if that isn’t what you meant, the only other interpretation I can see is that you were making an “accusatory” statement of some kind or something like that, as if blame for something or culpability were being assigned to myself, Dr. Hahn, and others for not seeing the truth of the Church readily or for requiring the help of a vernacular Liturgy.

    In other words, it seems nasty one way or the other. Again, it really doesn’t offend me. My only reason for bringing it up was to ask the question… here’s a guy who seems to attend the Extraordinary form – if it is so beautiful a Mass that helps to lift people so high to Christ, why doesn’t it show better in his words?

    Now one example does not a rule make. I was simply offering this example that all reading these comments had seen to point out what I have noticed from almost all – though not all altogether – of the Tridentine proponents I have ever run into.

    Don’t construe this to think I am opposed or don’t enjoy the Extraordinary form. As I’ve said, it’s must more a question to help remove the barriers preventing me from fully embracing it.

    And of course – I may be altogether mistaken about your statement. Now I do believe that it is an objectively nasty statement, whatever your intentions, but certainly I don’t intend to judge what those intentions were. You might have felt all warm and fuzzy about me as you wrote the words for all I know.

    As a point of clarification, I have no idea what Dr. Hahn agrees with me on. I only mentioned him because his conversion story makes it clear that the Pauline Mass was a huge influence in his conversion process. The guy might now attend only the extraordinary form – I don’t know.

    Peace and God bless

  94. Shane says:


    Thank you very much for your kindness!

    I agree with you altogether about obedience, but you seem to be implying that that obedience rerquires we not have or voice preferences regarding the Liturgy.

    There isn’t anything wrong with a person altogether despising the Mass of Paul VI or of Pius V, so long as that person’s criticisms are fair and based on facts. In other words, the Pope said that every priest has the right to celebrate the Extraordinary form, he didn’t say that everyone has to like it.

  95. Edward says:

    Shane –

    I swear, I feel like I am in the twilight zone. I really wish you would not be so eager to infer nasty things out of words and sentences which objectively do not say any such thing at all. Honestly, I do not see how you could infer either of your interpretations out of my comments.

    So as to avoid hard feelings, let me explain my comment a bit. My comment was in response to something you said which reminded me of Alice Von Hildebrand’s comments in the last issue of the Latin Mass Magazine. She noted that one of Paul VI’s driving motivations with his reforms was to solve the problems between the Church and protestants. She goes on to say that this fact is why he had several protestant theologians give their consultation. If we take Ms. Hildebrand to be a credible source, which I do, and if we for the sake of argument assume that Pope Paul VI’s plan has been successful, then I restate my sentiments above, “it is sad that so many cradle Catholics (including myself) have lost their faith due to the imposition of undesired reforms for the sake of the relatively small amount of people who are now good Catholics that otherwise would not have been because they saw the Mass of the Ages as confusing and unChristian.”

    That said, however, an additional explanation needs to be made. I have seen the Novus Ordo done very well. Amazingly enough, it can be done beautifully and reverently giving God his proper due. And if it does in fact make it easier for people to convert to the Church, then it is a good thing and should have its rightful place within the Church.

    However, I do not buy into the argument that the problem is not with Paul VI’s reforms, but rather the liturgical abuse of his reforms. This argument would mean that the vast majority of all priests and bishops in the world are not saying the Novus Ordo as it was intended and as the “reform of the reform” folks would have it. The reality of the situation is that the normative manner in which the Novus Ordo is said, has caused great scandal, confusion, and loss of faith amongst cleric and lay person alike. It is this fact which I find very sad and which led me to make my comment which you found so offensive.

    Now do you deny that spiritual suffering and loss of faith are not sad things? Using your method of interpretation, I could turn this right back on you and say that by your disagreement with me, you believe that it is better that I go to Hell than the Pauline Rite never being established. Now I do not believe that you think that, but if you can read what you read into my comments, then it would certainly be reasonable for me to infer the equal and opposite sentiment from your all of your statements.

  96. Susan Teissere says:

    Eileen, You are so right. If I took seriously the mean things people have said to me, I wouldn’t leave my house. Does it hurt? It sure does. That is why I try to be as charitable as I can be to others, but I know I fail at that at times. Sometimes you can be saying the Truth with all the charity in the world but the receiver just won’t accept what you’re saying and a lot of times will accuse you of being uncharitable, mean spirited or think you are trying to be holier than the Pope.

    Shane, God Bless you in your seminary studies with the diocese. On your comment there is nothing wrong in despising either Form of the Latin Rite. I would take another look at The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. We shouldn’t be despising either Form of The Latin Rite. We should give them due honor and respect. And all priests should be celebrating either Form with reverence and following the rubrics, not making their own personal liturgies. I would say that to those who sing in choirs at either Form, they should be following the documents on liturgical music that the Holy Father has given. So with all that in mind. The Holy Father gives us options to participate in either Form. Some people are drawn to more of a contemplative Form of worship. The Holy Father saw this need in the Church. This is all stated in his Apostolic Letter that accompanied The Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum. Pope BenedictXVI is speaking for Jesus Christ. I claim to love Jesus Christ and I claim to love His Church. So I want to do God’s Will! That means being obedient to His Vicar here on earth. It is quite simple but again pride gets in the way and causes a lot of confusion and hurt to the ones receiving the disobedience decisions of pastors of souls . Like what is taking place in parishes with superiors of the OMV and SJ. This is effecting the church not just in these locations but the entire Body of Christ. Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother can’t be too happy with all of this dissension towards The Holy Father. I know there might be some sort of prejudice that these superiors have based perhaps on their own past personal experiences with wounded people who come off angry because the liturgical abuses they encountered in their lives. Again these superiors and pastors of souls need to take to heart and welcome Summorum Pontifium and show complete fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Vicar. We love all of our priests even when they are not doing what is right because they give us Jesus Christ and absolve us from our sins. Always done with Charity and Love for Jesus Christ and our neighbor. So we will continue on and do what is our rights under the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. If it is not handled first by the local ordinary or the superiors decision to release his priests from being able to celebrate the Extraordinary Form publically in the diocesan parish they serve at. We are most confident that Ecclesia Dei Comission will handle the situation

  97. Amee says:

    Hey, JOE of St. Therese,
    God bless you in your discernment process. You may want to look into a very nice, orthodox order that’s been around for centuries, they are small, but seem to be attracting bright young men, the Marians of the Immaculate Conception (MIC). They have a website,, which will link you to more info.

  98. Joseph says:

    Is the change in the Mass the reason for, as some would see it, the change in the culture of the church and its governance and theological expression, at least on a per locale basis?

    Not to be redundant (echoing some comments of mine on other threads) but having been a fan of much of the NO practice of the last twenty five years or so, and a dedicated choir director, musician, composer, attending may times three liturgies on a given weekend in different parishes and in different parts of the country, with diocesan and order priests, having married a person younger Catholic than myself, and as such, a total product of post VII thinking/practice, I would say, unequivocally yes. The change to the NO brought opended the door to a much more lax morality, lack of preaching of sin, hell, judgement, personal responsibility, personal holiness, reverence for the things of God, and so forth. It also cut off our youth from having a firm understanding of Catholic practice, especially in regards to tradition, emphasized the idea of feeling over thinking, dumb down Liturgical and Scriptural language, denuetered them and gutted their poetic attributes, introduced current politics into the world of liturgical practice and decision making, which created avenues for non Christian based agendas to find expression within Catholic worship.

    So you may dismiss this all, by saying that these are just the misapplications of the NO, and the NO in and of itself is fine. In theory, one may make this argument, and perhaps soundly. But only as long as one stays within the realm of the theoretical; only in so doing can such a proponent remain standing on terra firma. When one considers the actual practice, then the case is very difficult, if nearly impossible, to sustain.

    It is almost like saying you CAN wear what you want to a place of business, and be successful, especially you as the owner. But do not be surprised that if, in so doing, people take you less seriously in your T shirt and jeans as opposed to a proper suit and tie. And, if you, despite the lack of proper business attire, would attain success, would you then recommend the same practice to other owners if you, for example, wished to franchise your business. I am not calling the NO a “jeans and T shirt” Mass, ( ehr, ah, maybe I should!) but the idea is I am putting forth is akin to kind of Murphey’s law, i.e., if it can happen, it will, and the NO leaves open way more possibilities to bad things/expressions taking place and the evidence, on multiple levels, bears this out, with not much upside, or at least the upside is far outweighed by the downside. One upside is that people now, having been deprived the “Mass for the ages” can now appreciated it on deeper levels and for more reasons than they would otherwise.

    I have considered, Shane, your ideas about Protestants maybe not coming over if the Mass had remained the same, and on its face, is a plausible assertion. I think of myself, and am far more comfortable inviting friends now to a Mass that they may not understand as well, but will certainly have more of a sense of the sacred and a real encounter with the a Holy God who wishes to be reverenced the way He was in the days of the Jewish temple, in the Holy of Holies, (this Protestants CAN and DO relate to) and not in the quasi Protestant, grab bag, Father friendly, come as you are, camp meeting way that we have now, which is, so many times, just a poorly executed bad imitation of a Protestant service. A protestant service with a friendly sign of peace and communion service but with bad preaching with poor exegesis, horrible music, and poorly attire folks. What could be better?

  99. Eugene Michael says:

    Not to change the subject, but we of the “stable group” at SPC are still working to get the TLM back: writing letters, praying, networking, etc. Ironically, we now turn to the LA Archdiocese for action in securing our TLM.

    To those who had been attending, we need to avoid two things: (1) don’t officially leave the parish, or we will no longer have a “stable group” requesting the TLM, and (2) don’t settle for a Latin Novus Ordo or being told to go elsewhere as acceptable solutions. If you put a donation/stipend envelope or check in the basket, write “LATIN MASS, PLEASE” or something to that effect on the comment line, reminding them of our rightful aspirations for the TLM. Also, when we do get the TLM back, we’re going to need a choir or schola to back the High Mass, so make contact.

    While the OMV can prevent its priests from celebrating the TLM in its oratories and community celebrations, it cannot prevent our “stable group” from having the TLM at our parish, so another priest–perhaps Norbertine/Praemonstratensian–may have to be brought in. (The Norbertines already celebrate a number of TLMs in LA and OC!) Obviously, Fr Bishop would be welcome, too. (I went to his indult Masses a decade or so ago.)

    Actually, the MP does not seem to prevent even order priests from celebrating the TLM, only in their communal oratory celebrations, which a Sunday archdiocesan parish Mass does not constitute, so our priests at SPC–at least two of whom were excited about celebrating the TLM–are being unfairly prohibited in direct contradiction of Pope Benedict’s explicitly stated wishes.

    Fr Brown of Boston gave this as the address of the Superior who made the prohibition regarding the OMVs and the TLM. The more respectful protests he hears, the better:

    Fr Patrice Veraquin, OMV
    Curia Generalis
    Viale Trenta Aprile 17
    00153 Roma, Italia

    Strength through Tradition.

  100. Teresa P says:

    Eugene Michael,

    I understand your position regarding the “stable” group of parishioners of SPC not leaving the parish. Our family was part of that “stable” group, in fact, my oldest son was the first SPC altar server trained to serve the Low Mass. After much prayer and discussion, we have decided that we will remain registered in the parish as our youngest son is in the first year preparation class for First Communion and another son is scheduled to begin confirmation preparation next year. However, we will no longer be attending Sunday Masses at SPC on a regular basis and will instead be attending the Masses celebrated by Fr. Bishop so that our son(s) can train for and eventually serve High Mass. In the event that the EF returns to SPC, our hope is that our sons will have the privilege of serving the parish as altar servers. This was not an easy decision to make, but please appreciate that our sons are quickly growing up and we feel called as a family to share in the EF of the Mass. We too tried attending some Indult Masses many years ago, but the closest TLM was 45 minutes away and it was very difficult to attend Mass with, at that time, three young boys and expect them to sit quietly. We were very thankful when we discovered SPC, which is only 25 minutes from our home, and we have been attending Mass there for the past eight years.

    As far as continuing financial support for a parish that has basically shown us the door, at least for the time being, I am not sure what the best course of action is. We of course support the religious education program, but my feeling is that we should contribute to the parishes that are providing us with the EF of the Mass and Una Voce LA which arranges for the Masses that Fr. Bishop celebrates.

    We will continue to support the return of the EF of the Mass to SPC and are sending our protests to the appropriate individuals. In the meantime, my husband and I feel called to participate in the EF of the Mass with our sons.

  101. ToThePoint says:

    In the case of the Jesuit superiors, only disloyal lack of docility can explain their puerile tantrums. Like most juveniles, they will grow up, one day, once their brains catch up with the growth of their other parts.

    As for the Oblate superiors, they present a more daunting challenge. They do not seem to be able to read, and the effects of their crash course in theology seem to have, well, crashed.

    Holy Mass is not an “apostolate” like an altruist decision to engage in the part time distribution of slippers to converted overtaxed streetwalkers. The Holy Father has not proposed “apostolate options”. He has redefined the Roman Rite by “complementing” its Ordinary Form with its Extraordinary Form. That presents non-negotiable principles. Since Catholics are required to recognise the validity of the ordinary liturgical form, one is also required to acknowledge the fullness of the Roman Rite only insofar as one accepts the practical legitimacy of its Extraordinary Form.

Comments are closed.