Liberals pit the experience of the individual during Mass against the assembly. Most liberals think congregations should be nearly constrained to do everything everyone else does (including what the priest does).

Is it possible that the Novus Ordo lends itself to this more than the TLM, the Extraordinary Form?

Some will argue that it does. Some will argue that it does by intention and design.

Perhaps we need a townhall meeting to discuss this?



(Socialized Worship)

Taking his cue from post-war European national health care programs, Annibale Bugnini, assisted by a small circle of spiritual-care specialists and church policy makers, spearheaded a massive overhaul of the Catholic Church’s spiritual care system in the 1960s. The centerpiece of “Bugninicare” was a program known as Novus Ordo, so-called because it introduced a New Order into the regulation of the Church’s worship. The NO regulations were aimed at extending spiritual-care benefits to those for whom active participation was previously thought to be inaccessible. Bugninicare guaranteed that barriers to full participation were removed, thus permitting access to spiritual care on the part of ordinary believers. Bugnini and his consultants were convinced that the costs their programs would exact would not be excessive.

Special guarantees were built in to Bugnini’s socialized spiritual care system to protect the rights of women. The program also reached out to previously disenfranchised sectors of the general population, ensuring that mainline Protestants, Pentecostals and charismatics would no longer be excluded from participation. In fact, Bugninicare so lowered the bar of spiritual care throughout the Church that other obstacles to full participation, stemming from language, education, religion, gender and sexual orientation, were also effectively removed. The goal of equal distribution of spiritual care in the Church was now guaranteed. Novus Ordo was designed by Bugnini as a monopoly, a “single-provider” liturgy that would allow no room for competition from previous forms of spiritual care delivery. In order to ensure that élite types would not be able to opt out of the Novus Ordo, spiritual care decisions in the Church were left to a small circle of bureaucrats, headed by Bugnini.

He sent some photos.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Classic Posts, Linking Back, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, SESSIUNCULA, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Jayna says:

    Not the blue vestments again! (That’s really all I can comment on as I have no words for the others. Well…not words I can share here.)

  2. Chris says:

    Call him a “prebyster” or a “presider,” allow him to be homosexual and tell him he’s no better than anyone else watching him pray the Mass. Then completely emasculate him by forcing him say the Novus Ordo.

    Is it really wonder why most nontraditional priests are such wimpy, faminine liberals? [I hope you are not implying that if a priest doesn’t say the older form of Mass he is therefore effeminate.]

    Of course the NO Mass intentially does these things. Just read the writings of the counsel fathers and you’ll know their intent. It’s not up for debate.

  3. Bill in Texas says:

    My eyes! My eyes!

  4. Eric says:

    It seems to me to be very arrogant to believe that a system that has evolved organically over a period of time can be overhauled for the better in a short amount of time.

    Whether it be Liturgy or less importantly health care or less so (but nearly tied for second with health care) the institution of instant replay by sporting officials.

    Will anything be left unruined?

  5. Prudentius says:

    Re: the low blow at Socialized Healthcare in Europe. There is nothing un-Catholic or un-christian about it. It’s certainly more compassionate than the miserable rich man’s system you have in the US. And Catholics who like socialized healthcare are NOT necessarly “Novus Ordo” liberals or hippies as much as you’d all like to pigeon hole people that way

  6. I don’t get the picture of the priest at the desk. Do I just not recognize him, or is he celebrating a newer and even more unrecognizable form of the Mass?

  7. EXCHIEF says:

    Catholics, liberal or conservative, NO or TLM, have a moral obligation to oppose a proposed health care plan which opens the door to both expanded abortion and euthanasia. Guarantee that neither are included, permitted, encouraged or funded by a proposed plan and I’m willing to consider it with an open mind. Until then I oppose the ‘plan’ as much as I oppose most of what is depicted in the photos on this post.

  8. Greg Smisek says:

    Christopher locuta, causa finata.
    Begging you indulgence, would you deign to provide some examples from the V2 texts to back up your assertion that the conciliar Fathers intended to wimpify, feminize, and liberalize priests?

  9. PS says:

    This is a pretty huge stretch, or at least it seems so to me (and the sort of nod-and-wink conspiratorial tone will definitely bring the green-inkers out of the woodwork; also, what does this individual v. the assembly thing mean?). The basic premise (that making things “more accessible” to different groups also lowers the “standard” involved) seems pretty self-explanatory. What am I missing?

  10. Greg Smisek says:

    Make that: Christopher locutus, cause finita. Begging your indulgence… (I’ve gotta get those fingers fixed).

  11. PS says:


    I think most here would agree with you. But the argument being made has nothing to do with abortion, but that the drive to make something more accessible makes it less “good.” After all, didn’t Abp. Chaput just talk about how, on principle, universal health care sounded downright Catholic? (more or less)

  12. ljc says:

    Anita Moore OPL,
    It’s Archbishop Piero Marini, Papal MC to John Paul II, understudy and disciple of Card. Annibale Bugnini. He is also in the next picture beside Pope Benedict.

  13. Bugnini was never a Cardinal.

  14. ljc says:

    Fr. Z, my mistake, I thought he was a Cardinal for some reason. Perhaps because he was given more authority than most Cardinals will ever dream of having…

  15. John Enright says:

    Greg Smisek:

    V2 had little direct influence on the NO. The NO is a post-conciliar creation. Many of the V2 Fathers were appalled when they were confronted with the NO.

  16. Fr.Z, Bugnini should have never been an Archbishop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. Gus says:

    Your comments re. “allow him to be a homosexual…” is really offensive to many holy priests who have same sex attraction but are wholly celibate-many of these are also very orthodox and traditional.
    Your failure to differentiate in your statement between homosexual priests who are celibate and those who aren’t sounds very homophobic. I’ve only heard blanket condemnations like that from people who are not just traditional Catholics but Traditional ones so
    I’m wondering if you recognize the validity of the OF of the Roman Rite or if you reject Vatican II.
    Pax et Bonum

  18. theloveofwisdome says:

    Its actually physically nauseating for me to see pictures like this.I simply cannot stand it. It makes me sick to just see a picture, let alone to assist or be present at these kinds of liturgies. I have too many bad memories.

    I remember assisting at a certain Cardinal’s liturgy in a certain diocese in southern California where a pagan Native American “Grandfather Creator god” was invoked in a solemn Native American blessing of this certain monstrosity-of-a-cathedral on the occasion of a certain “migration day mass”. I almost publicly wept when I witnessed 5 bishops (including this cardinal) and countless priests complacently participating and being ‘blessed’ – (and having their presence and the celebration of this ‘Migration Mass’ blessed by this so called “Grandfather Creator god”) – as though they needed its approval… and this all because this particular cathedral was built on Native American land… I can’t help it, but I can’t help but feel as if these kinds of abominable liturgies cry out to heaven for vengeance.

    I marched up to one of the bishops before they began their procession down the center isle during this “Native American” blessing (which involved facing north, then east, then south, and then west), and asked him a question. He interrupted me stating that there was a blessing taking place and that I should participate. I ignored his response. Clearly scandalized, I proceeded to ask him, “who is this Grandfather Creator god? And why are we asking his blessings upon this place and our mass” . The bishop saw that I was upset, and he looked at me, almost apologetically, and replied, “oh, well this is the Native American name for God. Just like the Jews have Yahweh as a name for their God, ‘Grandfather Creator god’ is the name of the Native American god.” To which I replied, “Except for the fact that the God of the Jews is Christ, the true God, but we do not know who this Grandfather Creator god is.” He fell silent for the remainder of the “blessing”, not facing east when the rest of the congregation and clergy did- nor did he face south, or west. I then left the center isle in order to not be trampled by the circus of people dressed in costumes, cultural and religious (pagan) attire, holding flags of many nations, in celebration of humanity triumphantly marching down the isle celebrating itself. The mass procession had started. Proudly they marched, forgetting what the purpose of the mass is, to Glorify God. Instead they decided to glorify themselves… they had forgotten that the crux of the mass is the presence of God, not man. As the procession continued to the begining of the mass, I found my way to an obscure side shrine where a beautiful statue of our lady was banished, hidden from plain view, and I prayed and wept privately. I had never been so scandalized in my life. The mass got much worse, as the time seemed to scratch by like finger nails on a chalk board… ever so slowly…. & I’ve only described the beginning…

    This is a true story. Ever since that day, I can’t help but be deeply disturbed by such liturgies….

    I feel like they are a display of a horrible public blasphemy.

    Some may say,
    “but this is a mass, how can you say that” – to which I would respond, “Its precisely because it is in fact is a mass that I would say such a thing”

  19. PatrickV says:

    No, no, not the giant puppets again.

  20. Timbot2000 says:

    “These saw the evils that were done in the people of Juda, and in Jerusalem. 7 And Mathathias said: Woe is me, wherefore was I born to see the ruin of my people, and the ruin of the holy city, and to dwell there, when it is given into the hands of the enemies? 8 The holy places are come into the hands of strangers: her temple is become as a man without honour. 9 The vessels of her glory are carried away captive: her old men are murdered in the streets, and her young men are fallen by the sword of the enemies. 10 What nation hath not inherited her kingdom, and gotten of her spoils?

    11 All her ornaments are taken away. She that was free is made a slave. 12 And behold our sanctuary, and our beauty, and our glory is laid waste, and the Gentiles have defiled them. 13 To what end then should we live any longer? 14 And Mathathias and his sons rent their garments, and they covered themselves with haircloth, and made great lamentation. ”

    1 Maccabees 2:6-14

  21. Hidden One says:

    I was just thinking today of – Mariazell, was it? – that great horror which Pope Benedict wore at the Marian shrine.

    I hope that it’s since been burned. In however many years, I don’t think anyone would care about it as a relic of our German Shepherd.

  22. Heather says:

    Gus: homosexuals have no business in the priesthood–for obvious reasons.

    That has to be an old photo of the pope…that outfit looks like a leftover. And thank God he seems to favor the more traditional papal staff of Pius IX.

  23. Agnes says:

    Hell. I don’t know why it’s the only comment coming to mind when I see these pictures, but that’s just it. Must be Hell.

    Chris – that was a pretty nasty blow. How does blanket character assassination help suffering clergy? I’m glad your holiness exceeds us all but truly, would you deign bend from yon lofty throne and maybe *pray for priests?* V2 is not to blame – it’s the world, silly.

    Did we mention Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions?

  24. Mike Morrow says:

    Annibale il Cannibale!!

    Gross abuse will always be *the* defining characteristic of the novus ordo and its adherants, in general. One can not exist without the other…they are enablers, facilitators, partners, brothers, lovers of each other.

    How long will it take for all interested parties to realize that true novus ordo types (as opposed to the majority of novus-ordites who go along with it because, frankly, they just never couldn’t care less) are a church completely separate in all important respects from the almost 2000 year old institution that existed prior to 1965?

    I loved this article. Unfortunately, it can’t be called parody. It’s too real.

  25. moon1234 says:

    Your comments re. “allow him to be a homosexual…” is really offensive to many holy priests who have same sex attraction but are wholly celibate-many of these are also very orthodox and traditional.

    This is like allowing a reformed arsonist to be in charge of the fire department, or a reformed pedophile to be in charge of an all boys grade school.

    The list of examples could go on and on. This line of thinking is why we have sexual abuse scandals in the Church. A company would never allow a person who tended towards tax evasion to run the accounting department of a legitimate company. Yet people are somehow comfortable with a homosexual priest tending to their flock??????

  26. Gus says:

    A celibate, obedient, and orthodox priest with same sex attraction is not at all like a “reformed” pedophile; obviously, I agree with you that the latter should not be at all around altar servers or any other child or adolescent.
    IMHO, a holy priest who has homosexual attractions is no more incapable of fuilfilling his sacred vocation to the priesthood than a good husband who has evidently heterosexual attractions is incapable of fulfilling his vocation to holy matrimony.
    Everyone has temptations whether it is priests with homosexual attractions (or for that matter, married men with the same condition) or heterosexual ones or married or single men with either.

    Pax et Bonum

  27. TomG says:


    I accept the spirit in which you offer your opinions. This is an extremely complex issue. But after all, a married man has an outlet (cf. St. Paul in his epistle saying it is better to marry than “burn”). A priest can never have an outlet. Any talk of “attraction” simply begs the question.

  28. Mitchell NY says:

    It is no wonder people outside of our faith see this and think of Catholics as a laughing stock. These are awful representations of what can go wrong with the NO Mass, not because of the NO Mass itself but its’ perception and what people and Priests think they can do with it..That is why I think it is inherently flawed and perhaps can not be reformed or “fixed”..It is the simple thought that this behavior is linked to this form of Mass that is its’ downfall. I am all for the “65” interim Missal to replace the NO in the vernacular if they wish..At least it brings it closer to the TLM and at the same time tightens to rubrics to restrict this type of scandal…It is also the perception of people who will think twice about doing these things once the NO is replaced with something more in line with what the Second Vatican Council actually wanted…Then, somewhere far in the future the 62 “Latin” Mass and the 65 “vernacular” Mass can eventually be merged..As it stands now these photos make the two Masses appear as polar opposites which is going to lead to confusion and trouble as they are brought closer together..And I bet we will not see that set of Papal vestments in the Vatican Museums any time soon !

  29. Jordanes says:

    Gus said: IMHO, a holy priest who has homosexual attractions is no more incapable of fuilfilling his sacred vocation to the priesthood than a good husband who has evidently heterosexual attractions is incapable of fulfilling his vocation to holy matrimony.

    The major difference, of course, is that the husband’s heterosexual attractions are natural and rightly ordered, whereas the homosexual attraction is disordered and unnatural. Persons with such psychosexual illnesses ought never be ordained.

  30. Jordanes says:

    Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention to the topic of this post. I didn’t mean to follow others down a rabbit trail . . .

  31. The-Monk says:

    What more be said than this: “How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that He is there!  Here “He” refers to Jesus Christ crucified, and risen, the great missing person of so many new liturgies, which have become meaningless dances around the Golden Calf that is ourselves.” Pope Benedict XVI, Good Friday Services, 2004.

  32. TJM says:

    Hopefully these photos will become a “quaint” remembrance of the time when the Holy Roman Catholic Church went off the rocker for a few decades. By the way, Bugnini must have had a HUGE ego to do what he did. I was young then and I remember getting into an argument with a liberal nun telling her that it was hubris of an extraordinary order to radically alter the Mass in the way it was being done, that one generation had no right to do what it did. Tom

  33. TJM says:

    Please all, can we stop this commenting on a priest’s sexuality and return to Bugnini? Tom

  34. Heather says:

    TJM—I don’t think anyone is commenting on a particular priest’s sexuality, rather we are correcting Gus’s erroneous belief that a priest can have deviant sexual inclinations and still be a priest as long as he does not act on them.

    Gus–it is precisely the error you espouse that has gotten the Church into so much trouble. To be a priest a man must be mentally and physically healthy. One with disordered attractions is not mentally healthy and therefore not a suitable candidate for the priesthood.

  35. Heather says:

    Moon1234—exactly. When one considers that the *majority* of the sex abuse victims were teenage boys, and therefore, homosexual pederasty *not* pedophilia, then it is all the more obvious why a homosexual does not belong in the priesthood.

  36. TJM says:

    Heather you are corrrect. However, the reason that false perception came about is because evil newspapers like the New York Times, which absolutely adores gays, would NEVER point out that essential fact. Tom

  37. Agnes says:

    To say that V2 or the NO turned priests into gays is pretty ridiculous. Did the changes attract more homosexual men into the priesthood? I don’t know. A homosexual may not belong in the priesthood but the reality is that there are some, and they need particularly vigorous prayers from the laity.

  38. JoeGarcia says:

    In photo #2…are those baskets of croutons?

  39. Agnes says:

    JoeGarcia – looks like chunks of bread, and he’s trying to reenact the multiplication of loaves or something.


  40. Gus says:

    Hi Heather,
    I think your statement illustrates well why homosexuality that is not acted upon does not bar from priesthood.
    You said: “Gus—it is precisely the error you espouse that has gotten the Church into so much trouble. To be a priest a man must be mentally and physically healthy. One with disordered attractions is not mentally healthy and therefore not a suitable candidate for the priesthood.”
    So, even if homosexuality is a mental illness (BTW, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association say that it isn’t) as long as it is well controlled it should not be an obstacle to ordination, unless, of course you really do want to carry your argument to its logical conclusion and bar the recovering alcoholic, the man with depression in remission, and every other man called to priesthood who is an asthmatic or has cystic fibrosis or who in one way or another is not mentally and physically healthy.
    Do you really understand the implications of not ordaining men who have any lack of mental or physical health?

    Pax et Bonum

  41. Dr. Eric says:

    I would say that alcoholics should not be admitted to the priesthood. Since daily they have to place themselves in near occasions of sin.

    Those who develop the condition after ordination should be shown mercy and allowed to continue in the priesthood but kept free from temptation.

  42. Heather says:


    As Our Lord has said, many are called…*few* are chosen. Ordination is not a right.

  43. Gus says:

    Of course no one has a “right” to ordination. However, when God calls a man to the priesthood both the individual and the Church have a responibility; the former to accept the call and the latter to confirm it.
    Given the large number of men with homosexual attraction that are already priests (and hopefully celibate ones) there can be no doubt that God is indeed calling such men to priesthood, that they are accepting the call, and that the Church is confirming it.
    Some may not like the fact that God is calling such men but He is. I think God obviously knows that such men can be holy priests because as long as they are celibate their sexual orientation is not an impediment for them to glorify God, edify His Church, bring salvation to the world, and be sanctified themselves.

    Pax et Bonum

  44. irishgirl says:

    theloveofwisdome-my heart was broken by your post. You had every right to tell that ‘bishop’ off!

    And if I had been there, I would have knelt before Our Lady’s shrine and wept, too!

    Those pictures are atrocious!

Comments are closed.