Blogs I look at react to the Washington D.C. Mass – UPDATED


Some reactions from the internet.  My emphases and comments throughout:

Over at DC Catholic there is an entry responding to my own comments here at WDTPRS:

I was in attendance today and found the experience incredibly moving. I would like to caveat my comments by saying I only attend the Extraordinary Form, but I couldn’t stop from weeping tears of Joy. [A "Yes" vote… though not for the music, perhaps.] Was the music what I like? No. Was it a traditional liturgy? No. But the presence of the Holy Father seemed to repair any faults in the Mass. I guess it’s not something that one can appreciate via TV or radio.  [From a personal, experiential view, this is okay, I suppose.  I am very glad it was a great experience!  But the concern so many had for the music choices goes way beyond just how we feel at this great event!  We must avoid reducing the issue of the music to "taste".  There is a great more to this matter than simply what we like and don’t like.]

    Today I reaffirmed my baptismal vows to the Successor of St. Peter. Today, God gave me the grace to see a glimpse of Heaven, where a huge multitude of faithful were adoring God with genuine outpourings of faith and fidelity.

    I was sitting with a group of gentlemen in discernment for the priesthood in the Archdiocese and there were native speakers of every language spoken at the Mass, Vietnamese, Spanish, and even Igbo.

    The Holy Father’s visit to the city where I live provided me with an abundance of grace and I cannot, in good conscience, criticize the liturgy.  [Fair enough.]

Over a Ten Reasons:

"Look how wonderful we are, Your Holiness!"

Whoever wrote Archbishop Wuerl’s welcome for the Papal Mass at Nationals Stadium should resume his career as a diversity consultant.

Ditto for the liturgist. The "multicultural" music (Raymond Arroyo’s description) for the offertory and the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer simply has no place in the Mass. We’ve heard so much about "active participation" by the laity. Explain to me how anyone in attendance can hum these … pop stylings, much less sing them. (Is that a bass guitar and saxophone I hear as Communion is distributed?) Appalling. [A "No" vote?]

"Perhaps those responsible for this are unfamiliar with Pope Benedict’s many writings on the liturgy," Fr. Neuhaus said. [On EWTN] One can hope New York is more faithful to the Spirit of that liturgy.

At Argent by the Tiber

Music at the outdoor Mass

…horrid, horrid….NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! not Marty Haugen….Holy, Holy, Holy

After that horrible psalm then the dreadful offertory salsa music, which Raymond Arroyo called, "Amazon flavor"…then the awful Veni creator with Indian flute to be crowned by Haugen.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrghhhhh!!!!!!!  [I think she didn’t like it.]

Update…yikes with the Christ has died….and then the fanfare with the Great Amen. Horrid, horrid.

So far, they have managed to mangle the Gregorian chants. The Gloria, then Veni, now Ubi…then this communion dreadful meandering stuff….who wrote this? I haven’t looked at the Mass companion booklet.

Oh, and furthermore, this style of music really is ugly for the human voice. Did you hear how the quality of singing degenerated?



Nooooooooo, clapping at Holy Communion. THIS.IS.JUST.DREADFUL. HOW.TOTALLY.EMBARRASSING!!!!!!!!!!!!  [That would be a "No" vote, then.]

The Holy Father is now sitting during Communion…his head is bowed. Please forgive us, Holy Father.

What is this dreadful setting of Pange lingua gloriosi? How hard would it have been for the choir to have learned the chant? No, we have to turn this into an operetta type duet.

Oh, caterwauling now…yes, my new mantra…overweening display of mult-culturalism.

Panis angelicus….stop.the.clapping…Mr. Domingo would prefer you to meditate. Good grief!

Papa…let us pray…

Update…the Mass is ended.

Do you know what is tragic about this mess of music? Those of us working in the parish level who are working hard to bring music back into line will now have another hill to climb. Guess what we’ll hear? "Well, if it’s good enough for a Papal Mass, it’s good enough here."

*bangs head on my desk*

Come Holy Spirit, descend upon us and renew us. Fill us with your power. Inspire us with Truth and Beauty.

And now over the pond we go to my friend Fr. Blake at St. Mary Magdelenen in the UK said:

I made a point of having a late lunchand going to EWTN to watch Mass from Washington, I am not sure I can cope with much more, so far there has been a fat priest in lounge suit waving his arms about, bastardised Missa di Angelis Gloria with chime bar accompanyment, a not very nice responsorial psalm, [you can say that again] more appropriate to a musical on Broadway.  [Or a circus.]

The first and second reader and cantor of the psalm have all been women, and they seem to have been chosen for their overacting ability, rather than any ability to communicate the Word of God prayerfully. There is a distinct absence of a sense of prayer and real spiritual participation here.

How blessed one is being a priest, I would be tempted to lapse inside a year if I had to endure this stuff week after week, how the laity are tortured by the clergy! Shameless self indulgence on behalf of someone, the worst aspects Americanism.  [hrumpf!]

I can’t endure more!

Words like meaningless, culturally bankrupt, saccharine, lack of intellectual conviction, trivial, decadent, debased, rootless, superficial, inauthentic, inconsequential, secular, horizantalist come to mind, none of these words come to mind when [one] thinks of the Pope.

Is this really the image that AmChurch wants to present to itself and the world?

Badly done Archbishop Wuerl, very badly done.

[Another "No" vote.]

The Crescat offers this:

seriously, so how many of you …

… just ended up putting the Papal Mass on mute to escape the music?

[No doubt that was a "No" vote!]

Did the event organizers read anything the Pope has written on sacred music?

A very good question.  I think the answer is "yes", actually.  Bu they had another agenda.

NLM took a wait and see stand (posted before the Mass).

It is perhaps worthwhile to note that people should manage their expectations with regard to these events. If you are expecting liturgies as you might see them at in St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome, or which fully confirm with Pope Benedict’s liturgical vision, that would not be terribly realistic for a variety of pragmatic reasons.

In view of this, the NLM’s own approach and focus for these events will be upon those things which can be understood as helping push forward one or another aspect of Benedict’s programme for liturgical reform in continuity.

Uh huh.

So far they haven’t posted anything else.  Is this an example of "If you don’t have anything nice to say…."… you know the rest?

At Thrown Back Fr. Johansen has some comments.  Here are some excerpts.

I also was struck by the apocalyptic tone of many comments [about the Mass on the blogosphere] as well. Quite a few suggested that the DC Mass indicated that the Reform movement had failed, and that we were henceforth doomed to Haugen, Haas, and the St. Louis Jesuits per omnia saecula saeculorum. [Yes.  That silliness has also been hurled about on WDTPRS.]  Please, people, get a grip. I do believe Jesus had something to say about "the gates of Hell" prevailing, and all that. [I think Father just compared listening to the music of Haugen, et al., to Hell.] Have some faith. Since the liturgy belongs to the Church, and is the "source and summit" of our faith, it seems to me that Our Lord’s promise to the Church extends to the liturgy as well. The Kingdom of God always advances in fits and starts, never in a straight line. One setback is hardly cause to abandon the field. Yes, I’m sure some will be tempted to use the DC Mass as "evidence" to perpetuate the Americanized "Spirit of Vatican II" liturgy. But really, that whole way of thinking is becoming more and more patently dated by the day. It just isn’t flying anymore, because more and more people are becoming aware of what Vatican II really taught about the liturgy, and Pope Benedict’s teaching in this area is having an inexorable effect. The priests ordained in the last 10 years are almost universally tradition-friendly, and that trend is only expanding. The current liturgical disorder wasn’t created overnight, and it won’t be undone overnight.

Which brings me to the larger point. Archbishop Wuerl, in his greeting of the Holy Father at the beginning of the Mass, stressed the different cultures and ethnicities represented at the Mass. Fr. Neuhaus observed that the spirit of "multiculturalism" pervaded the Mass. A different EWTN commentator, after the Mass, gushed about how the Mass represented the "diversity" of the Church in America. Others waxed about how the Mass was an opportunity for the Church in America to show the Holy Father who we are. The problem: That’s. Not. What. Mass. Is. About.

The Mass is not an "opportunity" for me, or we, to "show" anyone anything, let alone "who we are." The Mass is not about "representing" the diversity (or anything else), of those who participate in it. The Mass is about re-presenting the eternal Sacrifice of Christ at the Last Supper and Calvary. It’s about Him, not me, and not even about we.

We live in the age, as Mark Shea has coined the term, of "Generation Narcissus". Our collective motto as a society is "It’s all about me." In liturgical terms, this translates to the "Self-Actualized Community Celebrating Itself in Its Okayness". In our pride and self-centeredness, we want to turn the liturgy around to focus on ourselves. As a priest I have encountered this in many ways. This attitude commonly rears its head in weddings. When, from time to time, I have had to say "no" to the unreasonable liturgical demands of some bride, I have heard the reply "but this is my wedding". To which my response is, "yes, it is, but it’s not about you. At confirmation, graduation, and other special Masses, frequently the organizers try, in ways verging upon the silly, to concoct ways to "involve" all the confirmands or graduates, to give them all something to "do" in the liturgy, because it’s "about" them.

This kind of thinking was evident in the DC Mass. There was a seemingly never-ending parade of cantors, musicians, and pieces of a dizzying variety of styles and ethnic origins, all aimed at trying to "include" every possible different ethnic and racial group. This process had what Amy Welborn aptly called a "frenzied" quality. It seemed frenzied because it was so obviously labored, and so obviously detracted from experiencing the liturgy as any kind of unified whole. This "multicultural" approach failed liturgically, and it also failed in it’s own putative aim: rather than celebrating unity in diversity, or some such thing, it ended up exaggerating the ethnic differences and working against the communio that the liturgy is intended to bring about.

No, the problem, as I heard another priest once say, is that most Catholics "don’t know anymore what the Mass is for. " And not knowing what something is for, we will tend to make it for ourselves. Part of the cause for this state of affairs is the collapse of catechesis in the 70’s and 80’s. …

The liturgy, as Pope Benedict has written, should form our culture. But for the last thirty years the prevailing culture, and it’s winds of trend and fashion, has been allowed to to de-form the liturgy. This is the lesson that our bishops and priests must learn. Once again, the evidence of this tendency was glaring in the music at yesterday’s Mass. This process has both damaged the liturgical life of the Church, and weakened Catholic culture. The reversal of the process cannot begin with the prevailing culture that surrounds us – it contains much that is simply antithetical to the Faith. We must begin with the liturgy – as it is understood and lived in the continuity of the Church’s Tradition. We must allow ourselves to be formed by the liturgy, so that we can be conformed to the Something that the liturgy is about. Then we will, almost without consciously trying, begin to rebuild and reform the culture of the Faith and of the world.

Shouts In The Piazza has some observations.

Was the music really that bad?

YES!  [That sure is a "No" vote!]
Was the rest of the liturgical arrangements really that bad?
NO (except for the histrionic women doing the readings.)
Was it sort of typical of the crap many American Catholics suffer through each week?
Was it a good thing that the Pope got to see first hand how out of sync a liturgy organized by the USCCB is with what he himself has written and preached about concerning good liturgy?
Is this going to change the state of the liturgical life of the Church in America?

But…Donald Wuerl should probably stop having himself measured for scarlet robes, at least for the time being.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. TNCath says:

    I respectfully posted a comment on the USCCB blog that I was disappointed with the Mass, –its choices of music and “hit parade” feel–especially in light of everything the Holy Father had written about the liturgy and has tried to teach us about the continuity between the past and present. It was removed within minutes.

  2. Paul Priest says:

    It’s that agenda which is at the heart of it – how many of the senior clergy in the US loathed Ratzinger for decades and their relativist secularist pragmatist world caved in about their heads when The Holy Spirit made him Pope ?
    This was a childish form of payback – they knew he was there to remonstrate with them [however benevolently, charitably and helpfully] and they wanted to let His Holiness know this was their patch !
    Shame on them !
    He’s offering them a lifeline and they are basically spitting in his face.

  3. Antiquarian says:

    I find myself wondering what the organizers’ agenda really could have been? Is it possible that this was supposed to be a “we’ll show the Holy Father and the world why he’s wrong about the liturgy” event that went horribly, horribly wrong for those in charge?

    Because no matter what the agenda was– and I agree that there was one– I think it has backfired in a way no one involved could have imagined.

  4. avecrux says:

    Honestly – I had to turn it off because it was so,so very bad. The responsorial psalm completely did me in completely. My daugther said I turned red – yes, I was totally embarrassed.
    I’m glad I turned it off – sounds like it got worse.

  5. we love being married says:

    After months of lurking, I have to register just to add my voice to the chorus of those who were appalled by the Washington DC Mass. Once again we faithful Catholics attempt to watch Mass and see a circus. Oh well, I liked the Consecration.

  6. JML says:

    As a parishoner in the ADW and having read pre-Mass coverage in The Standard, I can only say that I was not surprised. I will wait for the replay on EWTN (on an audit and could not watch the Mass live) to confirm the horror stories.

  7. Father Z: I’m not sure the good folks at the USCCB have yet gotten your “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” message. Perhaps, just to be on the safe side, you ought to re-send it.

  8. Lee says:

    Fr. Neuhaus on EWTN indicated he thought the music choices indicated ignorance of what the pope has written about the liturgy. Rightly or wrongly, it seemed like rebellion to me.

    Also, I appreciate that we are catholic, but this is a visit to the church in the United States. So why the filipino, chinese, african and japanese intercessory prayers? It was maddening.

  9. On the positive side – we have the Holy Father in our midst as Catholic Christians. That’s pretty traditional.

    And Msgr Guido Marini was there actively directing the acolytes and others before the Mass. The fan club was happy about that.

    And the altar had seven candlesticks and the crucifix in the middle.

    I guess I don’t always belong in this crowd because sometimes I do not look for things to complain about.

    I have lived as a layman and priest in DC for 45 years and I haven’t seen this much Latin in a Mass ever. There’s something else positive…

    The Church moves slowly over here sometimes too.

  10. Henry: All they need to do is hit the F5 on their keyboards.

  11. Renee says:

    I am ashamed that the Holy Father had to witness this horrid spectacle. The organizers should be embarrassed but no chance of that, I’m sure.

  12. Paul Priest says:

    well I wrote this on the USCCB website [see how long it lasts ?] :

    Since when has John Paul II been accredited with the title “The Great” by the Vatican ?
    I’m not suggesting he doesn’t deserve such an accolade but isn’t this rather hastily inappropriate ?

    The Mass was far from a success – it seems that the liturgical organizers were devoid of understanding that the sacrifice of the mass is a return to calvary and as such the music is intended to promote this and inspire the faithful towards prayerful devotion – after a more traditional beginning the subsequent inappropriate caterwauling cacophony was more redolent of a Frisco hippy mass circa 1972 than a Papal Mass.

    It seemed that the organizers had spent a great deal of time researching and studying His Holiness’s excellent book ; The Spirit of the Liturgy ; and decided to enact the diammetrical opposite in his presence – perhaps this was less of a liturgy and more a means of provoking confrontational hostility to His Holiness’ agenda in the U.S. ?
    Just a thought ?

  13. vox borealis says:

    I was very disappointed that there were no Latin prayers. This is something that the Holy Father surely had control over. Perhaps expecting people in attendance to respond in Latin would have been too much, but saying the Eucharistic prayer (e.g.) in Latin would have exposed the tens of thousands present and possibly millions of viewers just what is possible.

  14. Jeanne Hunter says:

    Disappointment, sadness, humiliation, embarassment, … what can we do….they have torn down what was slowly beginning to be built up……. good music for the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass…..we have been set back and we are in trouble….is there any hope….I’m feelin’ mighty low…can anyone shine a light in this.

  15. Hoka2_99 says:

    Phew! I am not alone! It was absolutely diabolical! I didn’t feel I’d been watching a Mass at all. Was it a variety show or a Billy Graham rally or a bit of both? Dreadful, dreadful cacophonous music – and, as someone above pointed out, Pange Lingua but what a “tune”!
    Waving of arms, warming everyone up! And then Panis Angelicus sung by a man I didn’t recognise [later identified as Placido Domingo], applauded !!!!!!! because it’s true, it did sound more like a variety act……but before the end of Mass!!!! Our beloved Holy Father was sitting there in the midst of all this and I suppose he felt obliged to clap too and acknowledge the man.
    Now I hardly dare wonder what the Mass at Yankee Stadium is going to be like.
    I must watch again my tape of the Marienfeld Mass from WYD Cologne, because I remember that as a rather uplifting experience.
    I was afraid to comment on an American forum in case this was simply an American “experience” and I’m so used to European Masses in Saint Peter’s basilica and various beautiful baroque cathedrals………
    but, evidently, this was not the case.

  16. On the other hand, I am increasingy convinced by the arguments of those who say the ordinary form is not fixable…

  17. Katherine says:

    I hope Archbishop Wuerl didn’t expect the Holy Father to come back anytime soon.

  18. Tom says:

    Do we have any reason to believe that Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Marini were displeased with today’s Papal Mass?

  19. Ed says:

    I, too, was horrified by the choices for music. It was awful. Perhaps this is shallow of me, but I was also shocked by the female cantor’s apparal. It didn’t look like she woke up thinking, “Gosh, I’m going to be cantoring at a Papal Mass today. Perhaps I should put on something nice.” I’m just saying, if we don’t think something’s a big deal, we dress as though it’s not important.

    As for the issue with calling John Paul “the Great,” we should remember that such honorifics belong not to the auspices of the Vatican, the Roman Curia, or any nation. If that were so, do you think that William the Conqueror would have needed to conquer England so that he could get a new nickname? Such titles are bestowed by the people, and if they stick, they stick. It was the people who so-titled Gregory and Leo, not a Vatican summit. Besides, indications are that Benedict agrees: recall his words about our “great, late pope, John Paul.”

    Here’s praying that the Mass in NYC is a more solemn celebration and not something akin to Mahoney-fest East Coast!

    May God be praised, now, and forever, and forever!

  20. Gerry says:

    “No Comments” on the USCCB blog post.

    Could the fix be in?

    Eh … could be!

  21. Tom says:

    Why are so many people surprised at the poor quality of liturgy that transpired today at Nationals Stadium?

    1. This is the United States (the so-called “American Church”).
    2. We are dealing with a stadium Mass.
    3. We are dealing with the Novus Ordo.

    Did anybody actually expect quality liturgy to transpire today at Nationals Stadium?

    Today’s Mass in question demonstrated again as to why the Traditional latin Mass, compared to the Novus Ordo, is the superior Mass.

    The Novus Ordo, even during Papal Masses, can devolve easily into man-centered liturgy.

    The Traditional Latin Mass is immune to such nonsense.

    Pray that Pope Benedict XVI returns to the Traditional Latin Mass — the Mass that he was ordained to offer.


  22. R.French says:

    My 2 cents to the USCCB blog on what in my mind is as big a travesty as the showcase of “how great we art” that went on earlier today.
    To the moderator,
    I won’t even comment on the events at the park. I address this to you, or all of you. The blogosphere is afire with the spirit of indignation over your censorship of comments. The catholic faithful who care are incensed and, surprise, you are not operating in a vacuum. It is common knowledge that more than 300 people have commented here and you have made the decision to try and silence them. As I write this there are 0 comments in the public space on this blog. Did you think you would get away with this little manipulation ? The time of people controlling the flow of information and ideas is long gone. Those who care about our church are engaged and active, those who don’t care can’t be bothered. Which of these groups is in ascendancy do you think ?
    I believe that the USCCB and it’s minions will be called to task for this little charade.

    Don’t expect it to be posted but hope I tweaked someone.

  23. Miguel says:

    I went to the USCCB site and posted this simple, unoffensive comment and it didn’t make it past “The Party’s Censor”:

    “The Mass was wonderful.

    And such lively music.”


  24. My comment at the USCCB website was not a glowing review either. And was poop-canned. Based on how many postings made it through, it would seem more people are like us than are like them.

  25. sacredosinaeternum says:

    Sorry Tom,

    You are indeed wrong. There is great surprise because this spectacle put on even in the presence of the Holy Father is NOT because of the Novus Ordo. I celebrate both the Novus Ordo and Ancient Use, and I can assure you nothing close to that garbage is found in either. Incredible that it took place, and also incredible that you disparage the Sacred Liturgy of the Church in either form simply because it’s terribly celebrated. Kyrie, eleison!

  26. NLM had to close it’s comment box because the rage was boiling!

  27. Will says:

    At the risk of defending the USCCB blog, I’ve noticed that many blogs are directing people to that post. At this point, even a glowing review praising the music to the skies is likely to be held for quite some while in the moderation queue.

  28. Tom says:

    Just returned from the papal mass in DC with my stomach in knots. The worst part was after the mass the jumbotron broadcast began interviewing diocesan officials who went into full spin mode. First comment was “Archbishop Wuerl truly gave the world a great gift today.” Unbelievable! They went on in praise of the “multicultural” music that created an “atmosphere of unity” in a “sea of diversity” and was a “celebration of multiculturalism in the Church.” I couldn’t believe the arrogance of the Archdiocese! What about the gift the Holy Father gave us with his presence?! Or the presence of our Lord?! Instead they just filled us with propaganda as we exited on what a great celebration of diversity we just experienced thanks to Archbishop Wuerl.

    Despite all this I was truly blessed by the Holy Father and his words today. I pray he won’t have to endure such a spectacle again.

  29. RBrown says:

    Why do assume that the Novus Ordo always means “in the vernacular”?

  30. avecrux says:

    Tom – the tragedy is that “quality” – and by this, I mean sacred and beautiful – liturgy most definitely could have been celebrated today. Without a doubt.
    What happened was by choice. It was not necessary.
    Please do not use this event as a straw man argument against the Novus Ordo.
    Rather – it shows the desperate need to end liturgical abuse.

  31. Tom says:

    Not everybody is displeased with today’s Papal Mass.

    Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Marini knew what to expect.

    The Chicago Tribune just posted a article regarding today’s Mass.

    “Rev. Jeremiah Boland, pastor of Holy Family Catholic Church on Chicago’s near West Side, thought the mass was a vibrant reflection of American culture.

    “I think this being the capital of the country and this being the national mass by its nature, it wanted to reflect the cultural diversity of the United States,” Boland told me by phone as he waited inside the stadium after helping to celebrate mass with the pope. “The mass … was one of the most beautiful I’ve ever been at.”

    “The pope is such a prayerful person,” Boland said. “You have a 46,000 people in the stadium. I can’t imagine maintaining a sense of solemnity. He really led the prayer so beautifully … He spoke so much from the heart and directly about things.”

  32. RBrown says:

    Should be: Why do you assume that the Novus Ordo always means “in the vernacular”?

  33. Michael Garner says:

    This is no joke. I was just watching the Papal Mass pre-recorded on the EWTN website. A coworker behind me (who is not Catholic nor had any idea of what I was watching) asked me if I was watching a sitcom from the 80s. I think that this says it all.

  34. Mike W. says:

    This whole spectacle of musical rubbish came with an agenda, and that agenda was to tell the Holy Father that the USSCB is not going to obey him or the Moto Propio, this was totally embarrsing and by the way I cannot get on to the website of the USSCB, does anyone know whats going on there?? Wuerl should be ashamed of himself but of course he is not. And you wonder why the S.S.P.X. and others have a gripe? This time they have a point more than ever it was a disaster, I thought we had gotten over the Broadway shows????? Ave Maria gratia plena

  35. RBrown says:

    From the little I saw of the mass on TV and some of the comments here, I have to wonder whether Abp Wuerl read The Spirit of the Liturgy.

  36. Mike W. says:

    Sheer and utter horror, this was complete and totally planned with an agenda by Wuerl and Co. it’s saying to our Holy Father we don’t give a ” ” about the Moto Propio and your authority. The “music” if one can call it that was truly ghastly and very, very sad. Ave Maria gratia plena

  37. Calleva says:

    I have just watched the recording of today’s Mass on EWTN’s website. Like everyone here, I thought the music was awful. Jan Lewis in the crowd spoke of a feeling of reverence and joy in the presence of the Holy Father so maybe there is something to be said for being there.

    No one has commented on the quality of the actual singing. I’ve heard some wonderful music in DC at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. But this wasn’t it. The cantor had a vibrato that went way out of tune, I don’t want to be unkind, but why was he picked? Unlike some people here, I don’t decry all recent church music; I’ve been edified by charismatic worship as well as plainchant. But the music at today’s mass was just awful – some of it awful because badly sung, some of it awful because it was, er, awful.

    Whoever was responsible for the music at this liturgy has preferred to remain anonymous. I wonder why?

  38. Lee says:


    Placido Domingo’s Panis angelicus was good, but sort of a bone tossed to shut the critics up, I fear.

  39. Calleva says:

    I have had another thought – maybe today’s liturgy will be an ‘own goal’ for the modernists who thought to inflict it on Our Holy Father. If they thought to get some kind of bitter revenge on him for the motu proprio, etc, it won’t work. Benedict will now see firsthand what the laity have inflicted on them (as RJ Neuhaus said) and it will concentrate his mind wonderfully on what needs to be done to revive the Church in the USA (and the West, it has to be said). Surely the appointment of orthodox bishops will become a matter of urgency.

    I agree with Hoka2_99 above – applauding Placido Domingo turned the Sacrifice of the Mass into a show. There were people taking photos of Domingo as he sang – how can this be reverent and prayerful?

    I note from ‘Spirit Daily’ that several prominent ‘pro-life Catholics’ (non sequitur) were planning to line up for communion among the huge crowds, in deliberate disobedience to the Holy Father’s ruling on this.

  40. Tom: The Traditional Latin Mass is immune to such nonsense.

    Noooooo…. it is not at all immune to nonsense.

    There can be bad music at celebrations of the TLM as well, music so bad it would make the angels flee.

  41. TNCath says:

    Fr. Z wrote: “There can be bad music at celebrations of the TLM as well, music so bad it would make the angels flee.”

    Amen to that! A rather colorful monsignor in our diocese would insist that Rubenstein’s “Melody in F,” commonly known as “Welcome sweet springtime, we greet thee in song!” be played at his Sunday Masses. He would also conclude each Tuesday night Novena with “Good Night, Sweet Jesus” at the end of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. While this ditty was being sung, Monsignor would personally lay a blue baby blanket over the tabernacle. So, yes, things weren’t always wonderful liturgically in the “good old days.”

  42. peretti says:

    Standing beside Archbishop Wuerl’s grave after the funeral service, some of his supporters wondered aloud why the archbishop was never elevated to cardinal. In other news…

  43. A most unfortunate Mass presentation! However, I’m sure it didn’t offend any of our non-Catholic brethearn, as they helped devise it in the first place. It was particularly suprising to hear even Pope Benedict use the words “for all” at the consecrtion of the wine, instead of “for many”, which last year he recommended be used. Well, maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised and see the extraordinary form of the Mass, repleat with Gregorian Chant, tomorrow when Pope benedict says a mass in New York. But, I won’t hold my breath!

  44. LeonG says:

    So much for the thus vaunted “Marshall Plan” for the church – this does not really exist. It is business as usual. It is about time people put the blame for shoddy un-Catholic liturgy where it belongs – indeed, with the hierarchy and their hand-picked liturgical organisers. It beggars belief that anyone can believe otherwise. To celebrate it is to consent to it. It is time for large dose of reality. The Neo-Cats are being courted into the church as well: their liturgy or their liturgy, that is the choice they give the church. There needs to be more than just a change of processional cross and a few dalmatics to restore Catholicism to the modern church and The Holy Mass in Latin.

    A winner of the Sour Grapes Award

  45. shana sfo says:

    Re: “Marshal Plan” for the liturgy

    It really comes down to the logistics.

    How to get all those ‘trained liturgists’ and ‘music ministers’ (with signed certificates!) to give up their OCP hymnals without arming the Swiss Guard and preparing the racks and thumbscrews from the Spanish Inquisition?

  46. Coletta says:

    This is what I wrote on the USCCB blog:

    The music was truly awful, insulting to the Holy Father and embarassing to Catholics who actually come to pray at Holy Mass.

    If anyone was seeking to prove how spiritually empty such “performances” are, to illustrate how devoid of awe, reverence, and true adoration of God these “pieces” are, and how people of faith are truly discouraged to actually pray during this type of discordant circus…(as we have all tried to manage for years)…. well done.

    If anyone was hoping to illustrate to the Holy Father and the world what we have been suffering these past years from the liturgists from hell…. well done.

    These points were clearly illustrated as will be the response of those of us who have barely survived the devastion of the liturgy and vote “NO” to this “expression of our cultural diversity.”
    I believe we express our unity in diversity quite clearly with the universal language of prayer in Latin.

    By the way, I am not a pre-Vatican II Catholic. I have been Catholic for 20 years this May. I will now seek to attend TLM. I hope to learn the Divine Office in Latin. I am not the only one.

    Enough of this nonsense.

  47. Theodorus says:

    Our Holy Father came with the message of hope, and yet “hopeless” is all I can say about the music employed in the papal mass. If they can do this without any shame in front of our Holy Father whom they know very clearly is no friend of this senseless novelty, then is there anything or anyone who can stop them? No, I see no hope.

  48. If we need to do the Inqusition in order to get rid of this mess, I’m on board for being lead prosecutor…

    The Holy Father knows what we go trough on a weekly basis…maybe in a surprize anouncement he’s going to ban OCP and all this mess. Ave Maria gratia plena, ora pro nobis.

  49. Gregory the OK says:

    Can I be considered for turning the thumbscrews please? It would help me with my anger management.

    I am also a good carpenter and could build a rack if required.

  50. RC says:

    Apparently the music planners thought they could justify any piece of trashy music by slapping a few words of Latin on it.

    It’s like the pretense of heretical theologians who think they can fool simple people by dropping a few Latin phrases.

    The problem with today’s Mass music is not the lack of Latin, but the lack of beauty and dignity. If the whole thing had been in English and Spanish, but with decent music, I’d be perfectly willing to give credit where it’s due.

  51. Maureen says:

    The good thing is that the Sunday Mass at Yankee Stadium will be a huge contrast, and that it’s the Mass most working people are likely to watch.

  52. rr says:

    I was banging nails. Thank GOD-JESUS CHRIST-Scrapped my hands, and blistered them abit. Comes with the craft of wood, and mortar. That’s the music I enjoy. At Sacrifice of the Mass-Latin-Gregorian, its Sacred, and of JESUS CHRIST!

  53. I had to turn the music off. Compared to the beautiful celebration of vespers in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was unrecognisable. However I do feel we need to bear in mind it was still the mass and it was still the pope celebrating it.

    I felt that the Archbishop was trying to give glory to America rather than to God… Another thing that seems to have been forgotten.

    The Sky News correspondent asked a priest in the UK, how come so many people have to be involved… The priest replied, ‘they don’t, they just want to say I did a reading at the Papal Mass’. It should be us saying, I wanted to be and pray with the Pope in his mass.

  54. Coreen Herrick says:

    The Bishops’ news site is so unbelievably slanted. I had read many of the websites about the Pope’s visit. Many of them include his messages. Read the CNS(Catholic News Service) and see if you notice a different message. Especially what they say the Pope is saying(not true) to Catholic college educators/theologians etc. regarding truth and reason. (They say it backwards.)

  55. We can only “hope” and pray that this gives the Holy Father renewed enthusiasm and desire for the reform of the Sacred Liturgy!

  56. Emil Berbakov says:

    Hi Father. Love the blog. Just had to add my two cents.

    Very disappointed in the Mass. Terrible music. I also really don’t like it when languages other than English
    are used in American N.O. liturgy. Spanish is dominant now, but it won’t be forever. Soon it will be Tagalog,
    Creole, Hindi…How many differnet languages do we have to know in order to attend Mass? And the folks that come
    up with theses ideas get their pants in a bunch about Latin!

  57. RMarr says:

    I was disappointed in what transpired yesterday, but not really all that surprised. After living in Durham, NC, for a few years, I’ve become so accustomed to liturgical aberrations and defective music that almost nothing shocks me anymore. I hope beyond hope that the NLM is correct in prophesying that yesterday signals the end of an era, but I certainly wouldn’t wager money on that possibility. We have to remember that an entire generation of Catholics has been formed within this liturgical context, to say nothing of the kind of catechesis they have had to endure. Although there is a resurgence of interest in tradition among younger Catholics, the vast majority don’t even seem to recognize that there’s a problem. Many of the faithful interviewed after yesterday’s Mass spoke glowingly of the beauty and cultural richness of what took place. And, most of the music directors that I’ve interacted with actually want to push for more liturgical experimentation, not less. Let’s be honest: the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago, and it’s going to be a long time coming before we see significant, widespread changes on this front.

    Pope Benedict has given us reason to hope, but it doesn’t seem like he’s ready to adopt a heavy handed approach on the matter. In fact, it seems to me like the ball is in our court now. The hierarchy has released a whole slew of documents on sacred liturgy and sacred music. We’ve all read Tra le Sollecitudini and Musicae Sacrae. We’re all familiar with Ratzinger’s many thoughts on the subject. Sacramentum Caritatis… Redemptionis Sacramentum… the list goes on and on. The problem is not with magisterial teaching; it’s with the way so many priests and lay faithful interpret it, ignore it, or outright defy it. For this reason, I’ve started to see why there’s a group of traditionalists who refer to themselves as “the remnant.” We are the remnant. I’m not ready to give up on the Novus Ordo, or anything extreme like that, but much of what goes on in American parishes today is simply not authentically Catholic. Therefore, it’s up to us, who realize what’s at stake, to do all that we can to preserve the faith, to fight for tradition, and to pass it on to the next generation. Thankfully, our Holy Father has empowered us to do so. We can’t stop modernists and revisionists from perpetuating spectacles like we witnessed yesterday, but we can make a difference on the ground wherever we might find ourselves, asking God to multiply the fruits of our humble work, and asking for the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother and Queen, to intercede on our behalf. But, this is a long battle ahead of us, and one not likely to be resolved in our lifetime.

    On a different note, I think we have to stop worrying about what the SSPX crowd is doing and saying. I long for the day when we are reunited in full communion with these traditionalists, but the fact of the matter is that they have broken communion with the Holy See. For those of us who truly care about the Catholic Church, this path is simply not available to us. Total fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is not something tangential, but at the very heart of the Catholic faith. While observing the fallout from yesterday’s Mass, I couldn’t help but think that the SSPX is indirectly responsible for the mess that we’re in. Certainly, I understand their disgust at certain post-conciliar developments, but when they took the schismatic route their all-important witness to the Church was lost. Over the last few decades, we absolutely needed these traditionalists in the fold to serve as a counter-balance the “progressive” wing of the Catholic Church. When Lefebvre and his followers left, they gave the impression that the Catholic life can be lived outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome. What is needed in our historical moment, however, is not a weakening or questioning of the Petrine ministry, but a full-flowering of this ministry. God, in his providence, has gifted us with a Pontiff who is empowering faithful Catholics everywhere to restore the Divine Liturgy to its full glory and prominence, and yet the SSPXers can’t take full part in this restoration b/c they have chosen schism over reform. Let’s stop wringing our hands over what SSPXers may be thinking or saying about us. We have been called to something much higher. We have been called to preach the Gospel in its totality to all peoples through total obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, Christ’s Vicar on earth.

  58. mike c says:

    Fr. Blake – just one word comes to mind. “stupid.”

    Mark shea? A blithering idiot.

    I had expected a “Holy Show” from Bp. Donna Girl. He never disappoints.

  59. RBrown says:

    The Marshall Plan in not merely liturgical. It is based on the principle that Christian Revelation is unique (cf the next Syndod of Bishops). As that principle begins to be re-established, multi-culturalism will begin to wither. As multi-culturalism begins to decrease, the inclination to Latin liturgy and Gregorian Chant will begin to increase (He must increase, but I must decrease).

  60. phatcatholic says:

    I’ve read several people on the blogosphere say that they hope that New York learns its lesson from the spectacle in DC. But, the odds are that a whole lot can’t be done to change it at this point. So, I anticipate more of the same.

    Let’s hope I’m wrong.

  61. Beth says:

    I was struck with how self-effacing the pope was yesterday: All the applause, cameras, big altar–and there was Pope Benedict, his face absorbed in reflective prayer… It was obviously not “about him” in his mind, judging from his whole comportment. On the other hand, one did get the feeling of swagger and working the crowd from those (bishops and otherwise) around the pope and involved in reading, singing, welcoming… I think the note the Pope struck was true, and will sound out longer than the others ultimately. He is a beautiful person.

  62. phatcatholic says:

    Great point, Beth!

  63. James DePrisco says:

    No matter how you slice it, this is a big win for the Traditional Latin Mass. More people will become frustrated with the Novus Ordo, and perhaps give up on it, and perhaps it will motivate the Holy Father to support it more.

  64. Janice says:

    Mark Shea is part of “Generation Narcissus.” He’s said on his blog that he doesn’t care for liturgical tradition. He just wants his “blocking.” Others affiliated with him are celebrating the “joy” of the Mass at Nationals Stadium, the “first encounter” many with have with Catholicism. Now that’s a damn shame (to quote Harry Truman). Not dignity, not contemplation, but the worst of the contemporary world. That’s what the Archdiocese of Washington is offering those who might want to become Catholics.

  65. Nancv says:

    I have been watching “The Tudors” on Showtime. I was forcibly struck both watching that horrible display in Washington, but even more so learning that Nancy Pelosi intended to present themselves for Communion, that we are in fact living a situation similar to that in Tudor England when Henry demanded fealty from the English clergy – and got it. He defied Rome; he won. We “American Catholics” appear to be doing something very similar. It’s horrible, and demoralizing.

    When I confess and promise to “avoid the near occasion of sin,” what if the “near occasion of sin” is Sunday at my N.O. church, with its preening, self-congratulatory, anything-goes approach to the Mass?

  66. dcs says:

    Criticism is one thing, but uncharity is quite another. The only thing that calling Fr. Blake “stupid” or Mark Shea an “idiot” does is make enemies of those who would otherwise be your allies.

  67. JP says:

    Michael Christensen said: It was particularly suprising to hear even Pope Benedict use the words “for all” at the consecrtion of the wine, instead of “for many”, which last year he recommended be used.

    You’re quite mistaken. Pope Benedict did not recommend that “for many” be used instead of “for all.” Rather, he has directed that in the new English translation now being prepared, “pro multis” should be correctly translated as “for many.” But he has issued no directive or even recommendation that the currently-approved English mistranslation “for all” be replaced with “for many” in the English Mass texts now in use. If he had taken it upon himself to substitute “for all” with “for many” yesterday, he’d have given the ad-libbers and creative liturgy rewriters aid and comfort.

  68. Eileen says:

    This morning at Mass, one of our priests described the experience of hearing confessions at the stadium before the Papal Mass. He said that many of the penitents were making their first confessions in 20 or 30 years, and that the look of joy on their faces as they left the makeshift confessionals was very moving, and probably led more individuals back to the sacrament. My son attended the Mass along with other young men from their school, and described the atmosphere as very reverent and quiet once the Mass began. He and his classmates had shed their jackets, loosened their ties, and rolled up their shirt sleeves upon arrival, but all of them instinctively put their jackets back on when Mass began. Like most commenters here, they didn’t care much for the music, but still had a prayerful experience that they will never forget.

  69. trp says:

    The cultural populism behind the selection of music for yesterday\’s Mass is just one example of the bigger problem: the fear that many Catholics have of offending and alienating people with the teachings and traditions of the Church. You think that Gregorian Chant is strange? Well, guess what, it was always strange. As Martin Mosebach has noted, it was strange even to Charlemagne and Aquinas. The Gospel is strange, and Christianity is strange.

    The issue is not the strangeness of the Church\’s musical tradition but whether this strangeness is worth it. Does it compel us to change ourselves in ways that are appropriate to the liturgy? Some of the greatest minds of the Church, including the Holy Father, have answered this question in the affirmative. When will the people with the power to change things start taking their arguments seriously?

    17th century Jesuits were very much aware of the link between the Gospel message and a musical culture that challenges and uplifts. Just look at their impact on the Chiquitano Indians:

  70. Geometricus says:

    As an official member of an “oppressed minority” (American Indian) I must say that I was offended by the use of the drum and flute to accompany the Latin hymn at the preparation of the gifts.

    I say this fully aware that many people who use the phrase “as a minority I am offended” aren’t really, well, offended, they are just using the term because it highlights their victim status, which is all the politcal clout they can muster because they don’t know how to make a reasoned argument that is convincing.

    The reason I was offended is not because the music was “trashy” as some have posted on this blog. On the contrary, as a musician I thought most (not all) the music was very professionally executed in their various styles and idioms. Unlike the poor quality of the choir at many a Vatican mass, the choirs at Nationals Park were in tune, sang crisp rhythms and generally had a fine sound as far as I could tell from the webcast. The orchestra sounded wonderfully professional.

    The problem was that the music was the WRONG music for mass. Anyone with a sense of the sacred would recognize what didn’t belong and what did.

    At a grand papal mass like this, the music should be solemn and grand, as some of it was, but not nearly enough.

    If the Holy Father were celebrating a mass in a more humble setting for Native Americans, say visiting a reservation in the midwest or southwestern U.S., the flute and drum piece might have been appropriate or even moving. In this context it just looked silly.

    It made us as a people look silly, as if we were naively “contributing” to this mass. As if we were supposed to think “Oh, isn’t that nice that those poor humble Indians can contribute something in some small way to the Papal Mass.” As if we were children who didn’t know what was appropriate for the setting and the context.

    Multiculturalism of the type we saw attempted by the music choices at this mass is, in my opinion, the most damaging to the very people it purports to be supporting or boosting: minorities who have already suffered enough injustice at the hands of the majority.

  71. Adrienne says:

    Comment by RMarr at 8:55 am —

    Very well said and dead on. My husband and I just said exactly the same thing this morning over breakfast.

  72. Jan B. says:

    I also posted at the UCCB and it was ‘up’ for about fifteen minutes. I’m not sure that it shows as ‘up’ to other computers signing into the site. It might have only appeared on my machine. I like Miguel’s comment the best, by the way: Gangsters…

    Was Marini the salt-and-pepper guy to the right of the Holy Father? That priest shot a sudden side-ways look at the Holy Father as the strange Kyrie began, and the Holy Father returned the look. This same priest kept his hands almost over his face during much of the subsequent liturgy, like someone deeply embarrassed, or afraid.

    Even though I really agonized for the Holy Father during the mass (and it his birthday, too!), I hope it really hurt. I hope it hurt enough that he will stop the litany that ‘all the abuses have been remedied in the Novus Ordo’ (Arinze et al) and we can go on with business as usual from now on.

    I saw a report today of Pelosi bragging that she did indeed recive communion yesterday at the mass.

  73. trp says:


    You said it well. The problem isn’t the music or its execution but the context of its use. There is much wonderful music of the broadway, jazz, ethno and other genres, but its place is not the mass. Let’s remember that the early 20th century revival of chant was motivated by the spread, in Europe and the US, of operatic masses, which led Pope Pius X to issue his own Motu Proprio–Tra le Sollecitudini. (

  74. Daniel Guenzel says:

    While trying to be as charitable as possible about this whole affair one cannot escape the conclusion that the Pope had the simple power to COMMAND a proper, dignified liturgy, and apparently decided not to use that authority. Someone used the word “hijacked” when it came to this fiasco. Well, there is such a thing as walking out. If a mere layman like myself can walk out of an imbecilic “mass” then surely the Holy Father can. And, no, this is not a naive observation.

    I love and admire and pray for Benedict, but until he puts his foot down forcefully and finally he has only himself to blame for these horrendous public displays.

  75. avecrux says:

    phatcatholic –
    I was worried about New York, too – but I am really happy to say that the music looks MUCH BETTER. Mozart, Palestrina, Victoria – wonderful. I got the following list from

    Entrance of concelebrants

    Symphony No. 9 in D minor – Ludwig van Beethoven
    I. Allegro ma non troppo, un poco maestoso
    II. Molto vivace

    Entrance of the Holy Father

    Hymnus Pontificius – Charles Gounod, arr. Alberico Vitalini

    Dixit from Vesperae Solennes de Confessore – Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

    Music for Mass

    Jesus is Risen/ Cristo Jesús Resucitó – arr. John Rutter

    Tu es Petrus – Dom Lorenzo Perosi

    Kyrie, from Litany of the Saints – adapt. Richard Proulx

    Gloria, from Missa O Magnum Mysterium – Tomás Luis da Victoria

    Psalm – Dr. Jennifer Pascual

    Alleluia (VICTORY) – arr. Wm. Glenn Osborne

    Credo III

    Trilingual Intercessions – Michael Hay, orch. Wm. Glenn Osborne

    How Lovely is thy Dwelling Place – Johannes Brahms

    Sanctus from German Mass – Franz Schubert, adapt. Richard Proulx

    Christ Has Died/ Amen – Franz Schubert, adapt. Richard Proulx

    Agnus Dei from Missa O Magnum Mysterium – Tomás Luis da Victoria

    Panis Angelicus – Cesár Franck, Marcello Giordani, Tenor, Metropolitan Opera

    Sicut Cervus – Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina

    Ave Verum – Alexandre Guilmant, orch. Deborah Jamini

    Amén. El Cuerpo de Cristo – John Schiavonne, orch. Carl Maultsby

    Let Us Break Bread Together – arr. Carl MaultsBy

    This is the Feast – Richard Hillert, arr. Richard Kidd

    Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee/ Jubilosos te Adoramos – from Hymn to Joy Fantasy – Bruce Saylor

    Symphony No. 9 in D minor – Ludwig van Beethoven
    IV. Presto

  76. TNCath says:

    Last year, the USCCB issued the following:

    “U.S. bishops issue Vatican-approved norms for Catholic fundraising
    By Jerry Filteau

    Catholic News Service

    WASHINGTON (CNS) – With Vatican approval, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued national norms governing all church-related fundraising appeals.

    ‘Fundraising appeals are to be truthful and forthright,’ says the opening line of the norms.

    The norms spell out rules of transparency, accountability, procedures to be followed and oversight over fundraising campaigns by appropriate church authorities.”

    Apparently these principles do not always apply to the liturgy, the concerns of Catholics who wish the liturgy to be celebrated correcly, and certainly not the USCCB blog!

  77. Nuggen says:

    With respect to RMarr’s comments about the SSPX and traditionalists: I predict that the people who are doing whatever they must do to protect their children from the train wreck that we saw yesterday (and the bad theology and religious education that goes with it) will be the ones left standing to rebuild when things finally collapse.

    I have been to too many funerals where the adult children, who were the first subjects of this experiment, have left the Church. They are not sorry about it, either.

    The truth can hurt. The truth is that we are in a state of emergency. Those of you who have grown children or no children have the freedom to stay in the trenches and fight. I support you in your battle. But those of us with children must do what we must to give them a fighting chance to get to heaven.

    I am not a member of an SSPX parish, but I sympathize with them. I’ll bet aside from the fringe, they are all a bunch of families trying to hang on until the “All Clear” is sounded.

    As to this “Marshall Plan” I’m reading about? It would take much longer for us to take back over. Sadly, I think we will have to wait for the hippie generation to thin out a bit before we can do it. Then we can do it overnight, just like they did. As I stated above, though, I don’t have the time to wait.

    The next generation is here, now, in their formative years. Do we want them happy-clappying to wind machines and pan flutes and liturgical dance – spinning off into new agism never to return?

  78. ordinary catholic says:

    I posted a negative comment on the USCCB website yesterday, and it was deleted within an hour.

  79. Lisa says:

    I spent 10 years in the NO never having known the TLM, and not understanding my constant feelings of repugnance. I know it can be said reverently, but the fact is, that is very rare. Why? I believe it is because of where the focus is, on us. The NO was created for a purpose and it has succeeded in desacralizing the Mass most places where it was embraced. Let’s be honest, the emphasis in the NO is meal as Cramner, Bugnini & others believed it was, and we pray as we believe, and they knew it. This phenomenon has influenced not just a few people both clergy and laity. All I can say about the Holy Father is that he is extremely patient.

  80. Dan says:

    Did anyone have an urge to break out the castinets when the offertory ahem, “hymn” was sung? All joking aside, this was a clear message to the Pope from the American Bishops that it will be their way and ONLY their way. What a shame.

  81. magdalen says:

    As someone wrote: When I confess and promise to “avoid the near occasion of sin,” what if the “near occasion of sin” is Sunday at my N.O. church, with its preening, self-congratulatory, anything-goes approach to the Mass

    I have been there too and had to leave my parish of over 20 years. I knew too
    much and simply could not live with what was happening there after the new
    present pastor came aboard. But the only option in town is not better; it has
    had 3 pastors in three years and the present one has a protestant coming
    next week to give our parish mission. And he has mental issues (seriously). I
    have once again been leaving mass ANGRY. Angry at the heretical songs and the
    homily about father himself and his deal. Our Lord is not mentioned. But I
    know He is present and that brings there. But others have left the Church,
    some others are about to. One can love the faith and NOT find it in the
    ‘american catholic’ church.

    I have complained too much and action is needed: we are going to uproot
    our family and go where there is some Roman Catholicism and where the FSSP
    is planning to build a TLM community. I am ready to embrace tradition!
    I wish it could be NOW; I wish it could have been years ago but our
    diocese never even had an indult.

    Yes, I feel the only option for the sake of my soul and the faith of
    my family is to move away.

    Pax Vobiscum

  82. An American Mother says:

    avecrux at 11:18:

    You are absolutely right – that is an excellent lineup. Our choirmaster is a brilliant musician and a traditionalist, and we have sung almost everything on the list (“How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling Place” just a few Sundays ago). You cannot go wrong with Proulx, he is heavily represented in the 1982 Hymnal (Episcopal) and served on that hymnal committee – whatever you may say about the Episcopalians (I used to be one), they have exquisite taste in music and preserved many Catholic masterworks during the drought of the 70s and 80s. Excellent representation of first class polyphony and the best classical composers. I’m not familiar with some of the moderns outside of Rutter (you could do a lot worse).

    Good, solid, reverent, appropriate music. I’m sure it will be a great relief to His Holiness after the debacle he just attended . . . .

  83. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    All this noise, however bad, is nothing compared to what is coming. I have heard that there will be a final papal shinbang with rock noise. Rock noise is disordered aural trash; it is not music. Music is art, art is a creative act ordered to an end: it points to God the Creator of an ordered universe, one marred only by sin. Art must be beautiful in some way; there must be balance and proportion and the harmony of parts in it. Beauty is a quality which inheres in objects or sounds; beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. It is something which connects us to God, and its limits are set by Him.

    Rock noise is morally evil. It is evil not because of its messages but I mean that it is formally evil: it points to the other guy, the one with the horns, the master of disaster, of disorder. The messages in the libretto need not be evil (as they are not in ‘Christian rock’) but the form of its sound serves the angel who fell from the heavens because it breaks down order and sense.

    As for me, I won’t listen to jazz either. Art did not stop short at Queen Anne’s court, no, but it did mostly fade from view in about 1905 (although there is an argument to be made in favour of atonalism as art). There is some real music written after that year, such as the œuvre of Richard Strauss. So, to have any of this contemporary aural sewage at Mass is a disservice to God.

    While I am fairly certain, in this case, that Benedict XVI did not approve of the noise programme to which he is being subjected, he or the curia really does need to take more action. Clearly, the removal of Piero Marini was not enough.


  84. Marc says:

    I just heard Fr. Nuehaus on EWTN, that the music for the Mass at Yankee stadium will be much different and much better. I love how he through in a little subliminal remark about the terrible music at the DC Mass. Raymond got a kick out of that as well!

    Lets pray that NY will do the Holy Mass justice!

  85. An American Mother says:

    Marc, unless the choirs are absolutely awful the music will be excellent.

    See above for the selection, I really can find no fault with it and I have sung in choirs since I was 6.

    A couple of the works demand precision in execution (the Palestrina, the Brahms, and the Victoria (particularly the Mass settings),) but New York is Art and Music Central and I am quite sure they have found competent singers for the choirs. You can’t throw a rock down West 65th without hitting a few of them.

  86. Ioannes says:

    St. Pat’s is on a east-west axis with the altar in the east end. Dare I hope?

  87. David says:

    Fr. Johansen’s remarks really take the cake. Really? “Get a grip” is the best response you can muster from the neo-conservatives in regards to the reasoned analysis on the part of traditional Catholics?

    Get a grip” is not a reasonable argument, but it is amazing how many neo-conservatives are directing this expression to the traditional Catholic observation that the Nationals Stadium papal Mass indicates the dismal failure of the novus ordo Mass. After telling traditional Catholics to get a grip, Fr. Johansen
    goes on to state in so many words the standard canard: “the Mass was hijacked” (by multiculturalism, attempts to show and demonstrate… that’s right, show and demonstrate a given set of ideologies regarding the American Church). That is exactly the point of contention. Yes, it was hijacked, demonstrating yet again that the “hijackableness” of the novus ordo Mass indicates an extremely serious flaw, not in praxis here and there, but a flaw inherent to the novus ordo Mass itself.

    Fr. Z, you have admitted on more than one occasion that the novus ordo Mass is more susceptible to liturgical abuse than the Traditional Latin Mass. What traditional Catholics are now insisting upon is that people like Fr. Z, who are insisting that the novus ordo is flawed only in praxis come to grips (no pun intended) as to the reason the novus ordo is so susceptible to liturgical abuse.

    A brief review of the history of the novus ordo Mass makes clear that the reason it is more susceptible to liturgical abuse is because, from it’s very inception, it was designed to propagate liturgical abuse. When tradition was made an option for the liturgy, it’s antithesis logically becomes the other option, and this is exactly what those who designed the novus ordo Mass intended. They intended the abuse, not the tradition. They wanted the novus ordo Mass to be “hijackable” so they could use it to promote Modernism. Thus, the novus ordo Mass, like the whole liturgical movement after 1909, was the Trojan horse for Modernists forced underground by Pope Saint Pius X. Now, due to the novus ordo Mass, the Modernists certainly are no longer an underground movement. In fact, most Catholics today are, at least materially, Modernists.

    The Nationals Stadium papal Mass, wherein the liturgy was a travesty was also the occasion for pro-abortionists/moral relativists to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament. What more proof do you need of the Modernist plague running amok due to the novus ordo Mass?

    But when presented with the glaringly obvious fact that the emperor is naked, what do the die-hard neo-conservatives offer us? The standard neo-conservative reply: “get a grip”, the novus ordo can be traditional. Well, the standard traditional Catholic counterpoint is: Why should we tolerate a liturgy that can be otherwise?

    Until we get an answer to this question other than “get a grip”… well, we won’t, and nor should we. Someone has to raise this point, and we shouldn’t be frightened off by neo-conservative ridicule, the intent of which is to cover over the fact that they don’t have a good answer to the question.

  88. Ceorbhal says:

    Re: Ed’s comment, charitable analysis is crucial. I suspect that yesterday’s opportunity to lead the psalm was a “big deal” for the cantor and that she dressed her best. Perhaps her attire reflects a personal value for simplicity. She was neatly groomed and wearing business attire. Were you hoping for something that advertised that she spent a cantor’s monthly salary on an outfit to impress the pope? Let’s make sure not to engage in personal attacks that could be uncharitable and hurtful.

  89. Fortradition says:

    After the first reading at the Mass in D.C. I turned it off. The woman rolled her “r”s too many times and I know I would be upset with all the rest. The problem would have been solved if the Holy Mass was in Latin then we wouldn’t need this emphasis on the MULTI-culture and have the UNIversal (Catholic) Mass. At this point, I have just about given up hope that the Reform of the Roman Liturgy will occur in my lifetime. In the neighboring Archdiocese to D.C., we had the installation of our new Archbishop last fall and it was the same multicultural liturgy. I love our Holy Father but I wish he was more forceful in implementing his Apostolic letters. We have over 600 weekend Masses and only one Mass in the inner city is in the Extraordinary Form. Too bad there isn’t an intermediary from the Vatican who can help plan the Papal Liturgy. Obviously the diocese of D.C. hasn’t read “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and perhaps they don’t even know the Holy Father well enough to know his preferences.

  90. David: Fr. Z, you have admitted on more than one occasion that the novus ordo Mass is more susceptible to liturgical abuse than the Traditional Latin Mass. What traditional Catholics are now insisting upon is that people like Fr. Z, who are insisting that the novus ordo is flawed only in praxis come to grips (no pun intended) as to the reason the novus ordo is so susceptible to liturgical abuse.

    I will chalk your comment up to not having read enough around this blog.

    I have not said that the only problem is praxis.

    Just as one example, I have written numerous times about the way ancient prayers have been redacted for content.  I have also mentioned that rubrics are unclear. 

    In any event, what you wrote was inaccurate.

  91. Jordan Potter says:

    I’d be better inclined to take seriously the criticisms of the sort David offered if they weren’t so often accompanied by the sneering, more-Catholic-than-thou “neo-conservative” and “neo-Catholic” labels.

  92. David says:

    Fr. Z,

    Then I apologize for misunderstanding some of your comments on this entry and others. I am aware, however, of your input regarding the content of the novus ordo Mass prayers and the ambiguity of the rubrics. I’m not calling into question your sincerity, as I’m sure you will understand that any misunderstanding of your comments on my part is not born of insincerity either.

    In light of this response, which you were kind to give, I must confess I’m more confused now about your position than ever. Can you please clarify your comment that it was “silliness” for traditional Catholics to see the Nationals Stadium Papal Mass as a demonstration of the failure of the novus ordo Mass? Also, could you explain to me how the novus ordo Mass “requires by its internal logic, the great treasury our Church has produced”?

    Also, when you wrote: “99.9% of those who criticize the Novus Ordo, criticize it on the basis of abuses which really have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo”; it made it appear, at least to me, that you were conveying that the abuses are not intrinsically connected to the novus ordo Mass. In light of the Nationals Stadium Papal Mass it appears that the abuses are possible and permissible even when the priest, even the pope, no less, says the black and does the red.

    It was these comments that made it appear, at least to me, that you think the novus ordo Mass is flawed in praxis only. If you do hold that the novus ordo, in form and formulation is fundamentally flawed, then why do you continue to offer it? You of all priests know you have the option. Why continue to pretend that it can be transformed into something it is not?



  93. David says:

    I can assure you, Mr. Potter, that I’m not sneering by using the term “neo-conservative”. It’s the only term I know that includes people such as Fathers Pacwa, Fessio, and lay people such Amy Welborn, Scott Hass or a Mark Shea. These are all people for who I have great respect, but people I disagree with in matters of liturgy and some aspects of ecclessiology. They can’t be characterized as “traditional” nor can they be characterized as “conservative” as that term brings, at least to my mind, people such as William Buckley, Rober Novack etc. Give me a better a term, and I’ll attempt to use it, but I doubt anyone would know to whom I’m referring.

    What was present, however, was a great amount of frustration, especially at being told to “get a grip” and being characterized as “silly” when those traditional Catholics ask fundamental questions, and no doubt offer a challenge for rational discernment, are ridiculed for apparently no reason other than those doing the ridiculing can’t answer the question or rise intellectually to the challenge presented. For airing that frustration, I apologize.



  94. David says:

    correction: I meant Scott Hahn, of course. I guess I was thinking of old professor of mine, John Hass, who once told us undergrads, when speaking as to why he refused ordination in the Catholic Church, that being a Catholic meant embracing the whole, not just a part.

    I also apologize for my run on sentences and poor grammar… a sure sign someone is writing more from emotion than reason.

  95. john says:

    maybe we could have seen this train coming? (March article in NCR)

  96. Justin says:

    I think that the mass was beautiful and the music was absoloutley fabulous. No wonder the Catholic Church in the States is in problems with people leaving the church, as everyone is offended by something . The music was beautiful and uplifting and made me reflect on the beautifulness of the faith. The mass provided something for everyone and showed the true face of our beautiful church. It made real reflection on the love that Christ gives us in the Eucharist something which we need to celebrate. We are one church that no one can change and this mass showed the world the variety of our change and although we come from many different races and backgrounds we are all united in one true faith.

  97. Kathy says:

    I too agonized over the dreadful Responsorial-it was definitely music for a circus…clown music. I wanted to apologize to him immediately. At one point I thought that his face was showing a look of disdain.

    What I don’t understand is how this was all ‘approved’? I remember reading that everything was being approved in Rome before Benedict’s arrival. The article I read gave me the impression that it was an intense approval of each item of the Mass. Nothing was going to get done without their approval…so what does that mean?

    “Four choirs rehearse for papal Mass at Nationals Park”

    An editorial at America Mag. – “Neuhaus on the Papal Liturgy”

    This made me feel a little bit better….
    “Vintage Vestments: The Philosophical Threads Woven Into Papal Garments”

    Maybe I can make it through today’s Mass…I’ll look at his vestments and pray!

  98. David says:

    In light of that last comment, like I said above:

    Now, due to the novus ordo Mass, the Modernists certainly are no longer an underground movement. In fact, most Catholics today are, at least materially, Modernists.

    Leaving aside Justin’s aesthetic tastes, he proposes that the Mass is to show the world something, a secondary aspect of the Mass (education) trumps the primary purpose, which is to worship God. It would be one thing if Justin’s opinion were rare. We all know it’s not. Amerio and Davies lamented this over and over again.

    Justin provides an example of the attitude perpetuated in the novus ordo Mass that Romano Amerio so aptly explains:

    “The new liturgy is thus psychological rather than ontological, subjective rather than objective, anthropological rather than theological, and expresses not so much a transcendent mystery as the feelings with which the people react to that mystery. The specific function of worship is to stimulate man’s sense of the divine rather than to convey the reality of a divine gift; hence the congregation is more important than the Eucharistic rite, and the laity more important than the priest… The principle of creativity stems from the false presupposition that the liturgy ought to express the feelings of the faithful, and that it is something that they themselves produce; what [the liturgy] really expresses is the mystery of Christ, Christ being the true source of liturgy. The new view implicitly reduces the liturgy to the level of poetry” (Iota Unum, 630-2).

    In light of Justin’s comment, need traditional Catholics any further validation of their position here on this thread?

  99. David2 says:

    I agree with David.

    As an aside, Justin, conversions to the faith, baptisms, confirmations, and Mass attendance were high and growing until the late 60’s / early ’70’s. Then came the Novus Ordo and the whole lot collapsed virtually overnight. Protestant communities experienced no equivalent decline. It takes (at best) extraordinary ignorance for Modernists like you to blame “problems with people leaving the faith” on traditionalists.

    The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is neither a caberet nor an introductory lecture on Catholicism. Your comment, Justin, is at best the product of bad catechesis; it is evidence of a sacreligious perspective on the faith, and, as David said, materially Modernist.

  100. David2 says:

    By saying “I agree with David”, I meant in respect of Justin’s recent post.

  101. RBrown says:


    IMHO, 90% (a conservative estimate) of the liturgical abuses happen for two reasons: Vernacular liturgy and versus populum.

  102. D. S. says:

    Laudetur JS CHS!

    Thanks to David for your comments!
    The questions arised 8.59 are totaly justified – quotation of F. Z. is given.

    To David and also Tom and Rev. F. Z. in response to Tom:

    Yes, why beeing suprised – it was the NOM.

    And F. Z.: Yes, I agree, that the EF is not immune to such nonsense and also the OF/NOM can be celebrated in a better way resp. with better music. This kind of abuse would not be my main criticism of/on the NOM, it is in some respect only an abuse and so an accident (accicently, not essentially).

    But on the other hand David (and therefor Tom) is right, that it is not only an abuse but the NOM itselfe, its conception, how it was created by its “makers”, tends to those “abuses” (that are not longer only abuses then). Wouldn´t You agree, Rev. F., that the NOM is much more coherent with this kind of “abuses” than the VOM? That the NO has, let us call it an “inclination” to such things, is open to such things – more than the VO? or perhaps the unclear and very “open” rubrics are the reason of such “abuses” (that are, I repeat, then no abuses!)?

    But yes, my main criticism on the NO is the essential, inherent things – as You put it, Father, the rubrics and redacted prayers.

    Therfore I do not state that the NO is invalid. But then don´t draw the conclusion many “conservatives” draw: valid means licit or morally legitimated, not sinful.
    No, it can be valid, but illicit. And because clearly supporting some heresies the NO must be seen as illicit/morally illigetime. I will bring some examples/proofs for this thesis later. In general it is what You, rev. F., stated: the rubrics and the redacted texts of prayers.

    With best greetings from Germany


  103. D. S. says:

    Laudetur JS CHS!

    Examples for changings by the NO that are clearly supporting some heresy (I say clearly or in other terms: that it is evident – well, I admit, perhaps not at the first glimps and not for everybody, but if you know and take the context and the intentions and comments of the reformers the you can bring it to evidence. And please (re)read the text of H.H. Pope Leo XIII concerning the Anglican consecrations you learn that in liturgical changings you do not have to consider only the texts theirselfes but also the “intention of the reformers” and the whole circumstances! It will cost some time and space to give this circumstances, but I think most of You know them and should honestly admit that some – not all – changings tend to heresy!):

    1. The second eucharistic prayer (anaphora; canon – or what is the word in English for “Hochgebet”?) (and also some other euchasristic prayers, because there are more then the common four!). It (and some others) tend – if you take the context – so clearly to the heresy of protestantism and modernism – suppoert claerly this heresy – that the Mass is not an actual reconciliation-offering.

    And it is no valid argument to state: o.k., concedo, but you can take the first prayer, that is (nearly) the old Roman one and reay catholic. – Not valid because the 2. (or other) one(s) is (are) not (an) abuse(s), but legitim, approbatet prayer(s).

    And, see also Dr. Barth´s work “Die Mähr vom antiken Kanon des Hypolit” that shows that they did not take this old Canon without changings but with clearly tendentious changings: eleminating devil and hell and some other “eccl. non correct” things. Rev. F. Z., ask Your friend Fr. Lang who also knows Dr. Barth and I suppose his work on this!
    So this Canon is unaceptable

    (-to be continued-)

  104. Lisa says:


    I totally agree with everything you’ve said. I am very aware that as in my own experience the ability to grasp the faith is not limited to the powers of the intellect as vital as these powers are. This is why I spend most of my energy praying for those who are confused and misled because I do not have the gift to explain the faith as you apparently do. Deo Gratias!

  105. mark says:

    The apostles were concerned and impatiently worried that the children present would be a distraction to the message of Jesus.Why do the instruments of the temple (Psalm 150) threaten so many today as if they are a new distraction?What instruments accompanied the Arc of the Covenant ?

    For some a return to latin is not enough.Our focus might be best directed at service to others and not at the unworthiness of others.Who is worthy after all and why did He come?

  106. colkoch says:

    I don’t know how you can recreate the transcendance of the TLM Mass in
    a baseball stadium. I thought the music more or less fit the venue,
    just as the music selections at St. Patrick’s fit that venue.

    The real issue is that Christ is present in either case, and I thought that’s
    what the Mass is supposed to be about. I have been to some really
    distracting NO Masses, and I have been to equally distracting TLM
    Masses. Ineptly performed music is ineptly performed music irregardless
    of the type of Mass. Maybe we all need to get over ourselves.

  107. delahood says:

    I to noticed the Pope’s head was down during Communion. Having been there and seen the blind paratrooper at the front of the line, the Mexican American private who obviously had been all but blown to pieces who received from him, the Down Syndrome man that handed him the Bread, the young woman with cerebral palsy who gave him a relic of Mother Teresa on the Altar with tears in her eyes, maybe he wasn’t thinking about the music at all. Maybe he was thinking of all the suffering we are bound to offer the Father as a Gift. Maybe he was thanking God for the Joy of the day.

  108. Doug Nesmith says:

    Father, I’m at a loss and maybe you can help. We are all aware of the things the Holy Father has said about returning the sacred to the Mass, Latin language, Gregorian, etc. How then could a Mass like this have happend? Why was this multicultural Broadway play not re-worked by the Pope or someone else. It’s almost like there are 2 different people wearing the miter. We watch expectantly as he tries to bring everything back in line, yet as he presides over this type of show it’s almost as if he is condoning it. I have faith in Jesus that he wont let His Church go down, but it’s almost as if I expected more from him in reining this in? Am I expecting too much?

  109. pablo says:

    The Holy Father has visited the Roman Protestants and ‘Twinkie’ Mexicans in the U.S.A. (brown on the outside, American Capital Monger on the inside).

    We will wait patiently for him to visit the land of Nuestra Señora Santa Maria de Guadalupe; Mexico.
    Most of our families are still strong Catholic ones despite the American and European Masonic attacks upon us. Those attacks never stopped with the ‘end’ of the Cristero War.

    When he comes he will see what His Holiness John Paul II saw; the humble children of our Mother wrapped in her mantle. So much so he visited several times, and at the foot of his deathbed had the image of the Morenita.I believe because of the prayers of Traditional Catholics and the thirty days of Tridentine Masses said for him by Traditional Priests around the world, he did not taste the fires of Hell.I attended one of those Latin Masses at a Traditional Benedictine Monastery. What a beautiful Mass said by our Lord’s Faithful soldiers.

    Our prayers are that the Lord delivers us all from the attacks of Satan.

    Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.

    (I appreciate this Padre allows such strong opinions to be voiced on his blog. He must think he is Sheppard of all his sheep, not just the polite, intellectual few).

  110. pablo says:

    “…The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is neither a caberet nor an introductory lecture on Catholicism…”

    I am with you one the first part, but what we overlook many times is the fact that yes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a lecture on Catholicism. (sometimes it can be introductory depending if the Catholic has ever paid attention to the Sermons). How many times have we heard someone say, “After hearing that Padre’s Sermon I know more now about Roman Catholicism than I ever did”. It is because he is a Holy Priest who obeys; in the order of Ad Catholici Sarcedote, perhaps.Listen during the Holy Sacrifice and you will become Catholic; listen and your Priest will also become more Catholic. God will grant that grace.
    Which leads to the subject at hand; there were many stumbles at this Mass because the Cardinals, Bishop’s and Priests in America are not ‘Catholic’. They do not know how to be Catholic, and I am sure if we study some of the video, we could probably find some in the crowd with their vestments on backwards.
    The Holy Father was holding his head down whispering “Oh my gosh!My Sheep are lost!”

    Why did all the Priest stand around waiting for the Pope mobile? Ever heard of praying the Angelus, and praying the Rosary before Mass? If the proud Bishops would have let just one Traditional Priest have his say, the Angelus and the Rosary would have been prayed not once, but several times. Yankee Stadium too big a venue to pray the Rosary? Hogwash.

  111. Patrick Buckley says:


    The quality of the liturgy at the Papal Mass did not surprise me at all. It was very consistant with the tastelessness that is the normal in the Post Vatican 2 U.S. Church. If one wants to see truely beautiful, reverant and Orthodox liturgy in the U.S. today, one needs to go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. The ancient faith is alive and unchanged in the Orthodox Church, while it is mangled beyond all recognition in the Post Vatican 2 Roman Catholic Church. Have an open mind and attend an Orthodox Church Liturgy one time. I guerantee that you will be surprised what you find.


    Orthodox convert from Roman Catholicism

  112. Antiquarian says:

    Just to emphasize how puzzling the music at the DC stadium Mass was, consider yesterday’s Latin Ordinary Form Mass at St Matthew’s Cathedral here in Washington. Glorious music, Palestrina, the entire ordinary chanted with full participation by the congregation, the introit and communion antiphon chanted by the women’s schola. A reverent tone, altar boys (including two new ones being shepherded around), and a packed church. Sigh.

  113. Barb says:

    Bad liturgy is no reason to abandon the Church. Indeed there is NO reason to abaondon the Church. When you abandon the Church, you abandon the faith, and will end up sharing in the grinding and gnashing of teeth later on if you don’t hurry back.

    We are at war here. I for one will never abandon my post, The one where God placed me. I am not so arrogant or cowardly as to think that my sufferings at the ‘rack of cacophany’ or the ‘thumbscrews of liturgical abuse’ would justify my turning my back on our Divine Lord.

    Christ created ONE church. Regardless of what the lunatics within do, I will cling to Her and in my own little way (prayers and sacrifices) defend Her. I am staying thank you very much.

    Fiat Voluntas Tua

  114. Daniel Guenzel says:


    Pablo’s beautiful comments about Mexico and its Catholics brought tears to my eyes. This good man understands his Faith, just as he well understands the sinister forces still at work trying to bring degradation on these good people south of the border.

    I wish him God’s choicest blessings.

  115. D. S. says:

    Well, now I find time to continue. And to pablo:

    Yes, the Mass is – or should be – a lecture on Catholicism. So my point: the NOM is in some points no more this lecture. (I stress: only in some points – so please don´t give me an argument like: not all things in the NOM, celebrated in a correct way, are that bad. – Because I agree. But if there would only be one point that is clearly (stress: clearly!) supporting heresy, leading to heresy, then this would be enough to criticise and reject it! And there are points, as following.)

    So further examples for changes that support some heresy – and do clearly so, with evidence – if you take the whole context, as I stated above:

    2. The new “offering prayers”

    3. The abolition of the kneeling-down immediatly after consecration. (Note: this point perhaps seems to be – at first glimps – a tittle or bagattele and I seem to be nitpicking or somthing like that. But here you must also study the context and the gravity or great importance of this rubric within this context. We do have an unsuspicious wittnes on that: Rev. F. Hönisch – R.I.P. – , founder of the SJM, an “Eccleia Dei – community” beeing biritualistic, so celebrating the old and the new Mass. So he and his congregation did not reject NOM – but he saw some great deficits/shortfalls in the NOM and also spoke about them. One of the biggest problems, as he mentioned, would be this abolition of the knee bend. He also stated, that it can very easy be interpretated in an protestant, heretical way (see articles in his “Der Ruf des Königs”) and he got special permission from Rome to do the kneeling within the NOM. – So, nice, but my point then is that normaly the knee bend is away and that is no abuse, but the rubrics of the NOM. And by context a can argue that the posssibility of protestantic interpretation was willingly intended and therefor it is no misinterpreation or bad/uncharitable/biased reading!!)

    3. Translation “for all”. might object: that is not a problem of the nOM itselfe but only of the vernacular. – Answer: No, the vernacular versions are approbated forms of the nOM and as posted also the Holy Father did use it. So no abuse, but inherent to NOM.
    But if you insist on the point that in the latin version it is not wrong and so not supporting some heresy, then I remind that I have given examples for failures also in the latin version (1. and 2.) and can give you right more of them, so:

    4. NOM-prayer fo the Jews on Good Friday. BTW, this is the only thing I would say not only clearly supporting heresy, but realy heretic – at least in the German vernacular, but I tend to declare this also concerning the latin version. But at very least the latin version is so absolutly clear supporting heresy if you see the context that I wonder why some of You are not willling to commit this.

    5. Prayers (Collecta, Secreta, Postcommunio) of Requiem-Mass (day of obitus). In the Collecta the mentioning of hell/damnation is omitted and, much clearer supporting heresy or error:in all the prayers the “soul” is eleminated.
    (I am student of theology in Germany and I know the heretical/erroneous modern teaching of non-existing such thing as an immortal, substancial soul and the so called “Ganztod-Theorie”. ( Some of my “Catholic” teachers – standing in “full communion” with the Pope (Pah!…) – s0pread this error) – This liturgical change stands so obviously in this context and does – and shall – intended – support this heretical/eroneous teaching!).

    List could be enlarged, but I think that are the clearest, most undoubtful examples for changings supporting some heresy if you study a littele bit the context.

    I also remind of the analyses and statements of the “Short Critical Analysis/Examination of the NOM”, with a foreword by Card. Ottaviani and Bacci, that comes to the same conclusion: NOM is in some parts [and generally] drifting away from Catholic doctrine, promoting heretical thinking.

    In Cho per Mam

  116. D. S. says:

    And in answer to some probably arising objections:

    I don´t state that the changes resp. the new texts are directly heretic, perhaps also not indirectly (exept the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday). But htere is not only the alternative heretic – orthodox, but there can be texts, that are – seen in their context – supporting heresy, leading to heresy, tending to heresy, temerarious, etc. [haeresi(m) favens/fovens, inducens in haeresim, … temerarious….pia aures offensiva etc.].

    But then you might object: as long as there is no heresy you have to interprete it in a Catholic way. – Answer: 1. There is one heretical prayer: those for the Jews, as I stated.
    2. You have to consider the context – then it becomes obvious and clear – to full evidence – that some of the changings at least support heresy (if you don´t want to state that seen in context they are heretic – but I don´t want to say so – except of the prayer mentioned above for the Jews.

    Objection: why to consider the context and not only the words themselfe? – Answer:
    1. It is common, normal allowed and necessary to do so in every case of interpretation, so generally.
    2. Especially in liturgical texts and changes it is also to be done: therefore we have the witness of HH Leo XIII. In “APOSTOLICAE CURAE” he shows that the common duty to consider the context (as I put it in 1.) is to be adopted/applied to liturgical textes and rubrics as well – you have to consider not only the texts and rites themselfe but also the context, the intention of the reformers, etc… (see there!). By this means we can proof – bring it to evidence – that the nOM supports heresy.

    And to 2. Canon: yes, you can take the first one – but does not change the fact that the 2. one (and some more…!!) is (are) still (a) legal possibility in the NOM. It is no abuse but an inherent problem of the NOM.

    And, as rev. F. Z. stated somewhere, that the old Fathers were alsways in great fear of schism, I have to add: they were in much more fear of heresy.

    So to the delicate question of SSPX it seems to be, that the old Fathers could have chosen between a group that is in danger of Schism but rejecting cooperation with and supportion [supporting?] of heresy by rejecting the NOM on the one hand and on the other hand the “non-Schismatic” Catholics, who promote some heresies by not rejecting the NOM. So between supporting schism and supporting heresy… but… – Getting my point?

    Let´s pray for our deep wounded Church!
    In CHO per Mam

  117. D. S. says:

    And allow me a last comment:

    Why not stressing the most problematic thing in this context: not the bad music, not only the fact that it was the NOM – but that the Pope used the consecration-words “for all” (as posted above). THAT IS REALLY ABHORRENT!! (If I would know a stronger English word I would use it!)

    If you have read my comments carefully you will know that I am not saying that this would be intrinsically heretic. No, it can be understood in a Catholic way. BUT within the whole context of liturgical reforms and modernism it is clearly supporting the heresy of “Allerlösung” -and, btw, it is a lie, because JEsus did not say so!!

    [So the Pope – objectivly(please recognice) – did commit a mortal sin, in old times would be seen as “suspectus de heresi” – Again recognice: I am not judgeing about/on him, about the forum internum and the guilt, but only about the forum externum, the objective level, what we should do in all discussions!]

    Laudetur JS&MA

  118. Pingback: Interesting links over at WDTPRS « ••• Welcome to the Jackass Trilogy •••

Comments are closed.