This week’s The Catholic Herald: “Is the SSPX right about the liturgy?”

The UKS’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, has a some interesting bits this week.

Check out feisty Stuart Reid’s Charterhouse in which your humble correspondent is mentioned.

The persistent Anna Arco is always good.

There is a piece about why Catholics can’t be Freemasons.  DUH!

And there is also an long "debate" offering: Is the SSPX right about the liturgy?  Following their exchange in July, author Moyra Doorly and Aidan Nichols discuss the merits of post-Vatican II liturgical reform.

Smart stuff!

Read and discuss.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Gabriel Austin says:

    Newman would, I believe, note – and note strongly – the failure to emphasize the need for forgiveness of our sins.

    But then, sin has become an unmentionable subject in the Church today.

  2. Bornacatholic says:

    Great exchange. It is undeniable that the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass has been so diminished as to be practically non-existent.

    Obviously, it remained in The N.O. Liturgy, but it has been reduced to such a brief action that one could almost overlook it.

    Whenever I think about what the reformers have done I think it can be summed up thusly; He must decrease so we can increase.

    Thanks be to God we are blessed with a radical restorationist Pope.

  3. ssoldie says:

    New Order Of Mass, called a ‘fabrication, banal on – the – spot product’ liturgy, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,now Pope Benedict XVI (1989,preface to Reform of the Roman Liturgy; Mongs Klaus Gamber), so is also “Cranmers Godly Order’ Michael Davies fabricated also? Compare them, the similarities will shock you.

  4. Rien says:

    Just read an interesting article by Martin Mosebach in which he recounts his pilgrimmage to an Orthodox monastery.

    In it he says that “only in Orthodoxy had the authentic Christianity of the first millenium, the age of the seven Ecumenical councils, been realized”

    In this he was referring in part to the Mysteries – or sacramental services of the Orthodox.

    The article is about liturgy initially but quickly expands to a praxis emanating from the Mysteries celebrated by these Georgian monks.

    He says some other surprising things such as “the juridicial primacy claimed by the Popes entailing the right to govern the church in a centralist manner is not a question of faith but a development of the Western Church”.

    His awe at the Orthodox liturgy is palpable in the article and maybe that accounts for some of his unexpected comments – unexpected as he is a Catholic of a traditional bent and the article appeared in a traditionalist publication. It almost sounds like he is on the path to Constantinople. Very curious indeed.

  5. Choirmaster says:

    The thing that causes me to remain suspicious of the N.O. and its implementation is that when arguments are presented against the perceived deficiencies of the new rite, they are only rebutted by emphasizing small details and fine-print magnification. For example, Moyra is concerned that the “Mass as Sacrifice” is not an apparent feature of the N.O., but Nichols can only refute this claim by quoting sources outside of the text of the N.O. itself; this is done on a regular basis, it seems, with all such debate about the relative merits of the N.O.

    When facts and analysis are presented to argue a deficiency of the N.O. rite, it cannot be intellectually honest to rebut those conclusions without directly referencing the N.O. text and rubrics. Indeed, the Mass is a sacrifice and is considered such in the catechisms and within theological circles, but Moyra’s argument is not that the Church has changed her mind, but that the Novus Ordo does not present that clear teaching through its text, rubrics, or practice.

    Here is a parody of all such arguments:

    Confused Catholic: I just don’t see how the Novus Ordo conveys a sense of sacrifice.
    Expert: Ooo.. No, No. The Mass is a sacrifice. Why, it says right here in [some obscure document from VII] that the Mass is a sacrifice.
    Catholic: I know that, but I can’t seem to find it when I go to Mass on Sunday.
    Expert: Well it certainly can’t be because the N.O. is fundamentally ill-conceived or incapable of re-presenting the mystery of Calvary, after all, [that same obscure document from Vatican II] states in some other random paragraph that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. You’re just stuck on nostalgia.
    Catholic: Yes, but, I don’t think that the drafters of the N.O. were reminded to include that in the text or rubrics of the Ordo itself.
    Expert: Well, I’m the expert and you should probably just not worry about it and the Holy Spirit will guide the Church.
    Catholic: Yeah, never mind, you’re right. I’ll just go to my local E.F. community.
    Expert: [speechless]

  6. Dr. Eric says:

    Fr. Nichols makes a great point about re-orienting the priest after the homily to Ad Orientem would show the distinctiveness of the Liturgy of the Eucharist from the Liturgy of the Word in the OF. This would also still have the priest still “facing the people” so there would be not “rupture.”

    Also, would not a compromise be that for Vigils of Feasts and Holy Days of Obligations that the Vespers and Low Mass would be said and Solemn High Mass would be said on the Feasts and Holy Days. On other days, the OF could be said.

    The Byzantine Orthodox and Catholics have a special Liturgy for special times- The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great- which is only said 10 times per year. They also say the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of St. Gregory the Great which is said on the weekdays of Lent. (We have a similar situation in the Liturgy on Good Friday.)

    Could this not be a compromise? (Not that I wouldn’t mind going to the EF every day.)

  7. chironomo says:

    Interestingly, I had an exchange just this morning at another site with Alan Hommerding concerning communion. My contention was that the description of the communion song in the GIRM seemed to emphasize, indeed to imply, that the purpose of communion was to join with others in the assembly “spiritually”, and that I found this description to be misleading about the Church’s teachings regarding communion. His reply was that “WE are the Body of Christ, and therefore by joining with one another we join with Christ. Communion is..communitarian, not individual.” He claimed that this is the current Church teaching about communion. I’m still researching a reply…

  8. Choirmaster,

    I think the sacrificial nature of the Mass is not apparent more because of the manner in which the Mass is sometimes celebrated. But we really shouldn’t blame the text itself. By my count the 1962 uses some form of the word sacrifice 10 times. The ordinary form uses the word 9 times. The sacrificial nature is in there, but sometimes it is just overwhelmed by an improper ars celebrandi.

    I agree that a return to ad orientem would make the sacrificial nature far more apparent.

  9. hoka2_99 says:

    Can’t wait to receive my Catholic Herald, which hasn’t turned up [postal strike in UK]. The sacrificial nature of the Mass is never mentioned in my parish and last winter I remember one parishioner saying to me:”It’s much cosier when we have Mass in the parish room – more like a community meal” You can imagine the look on my face. I’d rather stay in the church, freezing and with no lights apart from the candles – so beautifully Medieval. I think Pius XII’s encyclical “Mediator Dei” [have I got the title right?] is mentioned in the Herald’s article this week [I read it on some less than intellectual forum] and that this encyclical emphasises the INTERIOR nature of the liturgy. I have to say that my Holy Communion is my personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Strengthened by it, I hope I can then go out and be a Christian.

  10. mr. crouchback says:

    Dr. Eric:

    I think your idea–or something like your idea–is an interesting proposal, at least for the average OF parish. And to help your argument, I think you can further extend the analogy between the OF/EF and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom/Liturgy of St. Basil. Although the OF is significantly less venerable and obviously more problematic than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Ordinary Form is a derived, shortened use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite just as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a derived, shortened use of the Liturgy of St. Basil (which in turn is probably a derived, shortened use of the Liturgy of St. James).

    The celebration of the EF at “extraordinary” feasts seems like a sensible & balanced way of having the two uses mutually enrich one another in the ordinary parish setting.

  11. StevenDunn says:

    Where did you find the Mosebach article about his monastery visit?

  12. Nathan says:

    Aside from the approaches to the ars celebrandi, I would argue that the most apparent difference in the sacrificial emphasis between the two forms is in the Offertory (acknowledged by Fr. Nichols) and in the Roman Canon vis-a-vis Eucharistic Prayers II and IV.

    For years, the berekah prayers from the Offertory in the OF have really grated on me–“which earth has given and human hands have made”–which always sounded a lot like telling God how important we are in His sacrifice. The TLM Offertory prayer has always seemed to me to be a prayer much more in line with the Church’s teaching on the Holy Mass: “Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.”

    In Christ,

  13. Rien says:

    StevenDunn – the Mosebach article is in the fall 2009 issue of The Traditionalist. It is titled ‘A Winter In Shio Mghvime’.

  14. StevenDunn says:

    Thanks Rien!

  15. robtbrown says:


    You comments remind me of an incident that happened while I was in grad school at the Angelicum. An American seminarian raised his hand and said to the prof: Father, you are always talking about the mass as Sacrifice. Why is it that when I go to mass, I have the sense that I’m at a communal meal.

  16. Kimberly says:

    “no one seems prepared to question Vatican II itself”

    It appears to me that; VII called into question many of the antiquated ways of the Old Mass and changed them for the sake of the Faith. Why is it that the same thing cannot be done for VII?

  17. robtbrown says:

    Patrick Thornton,

    The use of the vernacular makes it easy for celebrants to avoid the word “sacrifice”. For example, in the place of Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile,

    a priest here says: Pray that our gifts might be acceptable.

  18. Jack Hughes says:

    on ried’s charterhouse colunm: I bet that Hitchins was just angry that Dr William Lane Craig (protestant) wiped the floor in a debate with him last spring

  19. Sam Schmitt says:

    The official translation says: “Pray, brethren that our sacrifice . ..” How is the priest changing the words the fault of Vatican II exactly? (the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” more likely).

    I, for one, have never quite grasped the whole “the old mass was clearly a sacrifice but now it’s just presented as a meal” argument. Like Patrick Thornton said, the text of the Mass of Paul VI has multiple references to the mass as a sacrifice.

    I would rather blame poor catechesis after the Council. We could have kept the 1962 missal intact and still had a weakening of people’s knowledge and faith through poor teaching. After all, the traditional mass is not a guarantee against heresy all by itself – the Jansenists, for example, still celebrated it. I think people acknowledged of the sacrificial nature of the mass more through priests referring to “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” than through their taking in of the liturgical texts. And which ones exactly would have inculcated this anyway? When exactly *did* Catholics prior to Vatican II “find it when [they] went to Mass on Sunday” as choirmaster suggests they did?

  20. robtbrown says:

    Patrick Thornton,

    By my count the word sacrifice (sacrificium or hostia)

    In EP II is not mentioned at all. And my experience is that EP is the most used of the EP’s.

    In EP III is mentioned 2 times.

    In EP IV is mentioned 4 times.

    In EP I (The Roman Canon) is mentioned 5 times.

  21. patrick_f says:

    “Catholic: Yes, but, I don’t think that the drafters of the N.O. were reminded to include that in the text or rubrics of the Ordo itself.
    Expert: Well, I’m the expert and you should probably just not worry about it and the Holy Spirit will guide the Church.
    Catholic: Yeah, never mind, you’re right. I’ll just go to my local E.F. community.
    Expert: [speechless]

    This is exactly the problem. Too many people “know liturgy”, and are giving advice that should. The so called expert in this is a perfect example.

    I’ll tell you why we dont have a concept of the mass as sacrifice. Because sacrifice is hard. Our society has become one of false sympathies, which all the while end up further crippling the afflicted.

    Our Lord gives a very good example of this on the water with Peter. Peter leads with faith. But when his faith fails, its only when he cries out “Lord Save me!”, that his life is spared. Mass should challenge us. It should make us cry out “Lord, Have mercy on me a poor sinner!” . Worship should challenge us to believe in the power of the Cross, not simply ignore it. Like the good theif, we need to remember how to ask Jesus to remember us.

    You cannot have an Easter without a Good Friday. We have to endure, and relearn what sacrifice is, if we are to hope for the eternal bliss.

  22. patrick_f says:

    “This is exactly the problem. Too many people “know liturgy”, and are giving advice that should. The so called expert in this is a perfect example.

    This is what happens when you type from work :) I was trying to convey that these experts probably SHOULDNT be giving the advice they give

  23. patrick_f says:

    “that the purpose of communion was to join with others in the assembly “spiritually”, and that I found this description to be misleading about the Church’s teachings regarding communion. His reply was that “WE are the Body of Christ, and therefore by joining with one another we join with Christ”

    Also here is another example that is all too prevalent. I had a similiar discussion with a fellow parishioner. Surprisingly, she responded similarly that we are all “The Eucharist”, when I objected to children dancing and skipping down the isles during mass.

    These individuals only get it half right. We are all part of the Body of Christ, but mass isnt the only place this is supposed to manifest itself. Mass has another purpose, sacrifice. We should be the Body of Christ all the time, and not need one day of the week to do it. Maybe this is why we have so many Sunday catholics? They come to share their story, they come to break their bread, they come to know their rising from the dead, and then they go home. Incidently, notice what point my little transliteration doesnt have?

    Its been reinforced for 40 years, poorly. I fear without a switch slam of the Pastoral staff, it may take another 40.

  24. MichaelJ says:


    The problem is that people of good will cannot hope but see the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the “old” Mass. That is not the case with the “new” Mass.

    People of good will can, and often do, miss this fact with the “New” Mass, thinking it to be merely a communal memorial meal.

    Take those same people of good will – with no catechesis at all – , have them read both and then identify which represents a sacrifice and which represents a memorial, and it should eliminate any doubt about whether the problem is due to “poor catechesis after the Council”

  25. Malta says:

    “When facts and analysis are presented to argue a deficiency of the N.O. rite, it cannot be intellectually honest to rebut those conclusions without directly referencing the N.O. text and rubrics.”

    Very good post Choirmaster! Your faux conversation is apropos too. But here’s the thing to remember in this discussion/debate: Vatican II DID NOT call for a brand new rite of mass. If you read Sacrosanctum Concilium carefully, it *allows* for such things as more vernacular etc., it is not prescribing a brand new liturgy.

    But here’s the unintended consequence of what Bugnini did (at the behest of Paul VI, but the NO was really Bugnini’s baby): in so radically altering the Roman rite, heactually preserved the Traditional form! A weighted counter-balance ensued to off-set his modernistic hemorrhage: the mass of the Saints (as I shall call it) was saved as in amber from the modernists, to be discovered and relished anew, as we are beginning to do today. The Novus Ordo has been such a dismal failure, that we are rediscovering the great rite of our ancestors. But, if the traditional form had been allowed to be eaten, slowly, from within, as Vatican II prescribes, then it would have been slowly diluted, and ultimately destroyed. But, as theologians say, God does not allow an evil which cannot lead to a greater good; in this case, Bugnini inadvertently led to the restoration of the mass of the Saints…

  26. robtbrown says:

    Also here is another example that is all too prevalent. I had a similar discussion with a fellow parishioner. Surprisingly, she responded similarly that we are all “The Eucharist”
    Comment by patrick

    Sounds like another case of the Stuck In the 70’s Syndrome.

    From John Lennon (I am the Walrus):

    I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
    See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
    I’m crying.

  27. Ogard says:

    Patrick Thornton

    The Choirmaster has given you more precize statistics. The point is that the EP II is used in 75% cases, i.e. in 75% cases the sacrifice is not mentioned.

    And our distinguished Expert is too blind to see it. He is busy to prove to Moira that the sacrifice is in books, but fails to see that the Mass is not the book but an event each time when it takes place. And an ordinary Mass-gore doesn’t read the books but experiences the mass each time he attends it. As he hears the EPIC day after day, Sunday after Sunday, his notion of the Eucharist as a sacrifice fades away.

    The Expert’s quotes from Vatican II prove nothing.

  28. Jordanes says:

    Ogard said: The point is that the EP II is used in 75% cases, i.e. in 75% cases the sacrifice is not mentioned.

    Not mentioned specifically within the eucharistic prayer, but still mentioned in the Orate Fratres and not uncommonly mentioned in the Proper prayers.

  29. Ogard says:

    Ad Jordanes, the sacrifice in the Orate Fratres refers to the priest’s and congregation’s offerings of bread and wine, and not to the Chirst’s Self-Sacrifice. As for the Proper prayers, it depends on which sacrifice is referred to, how “not uncommonly” they are used; and as unconventional extras they usually escape attention.

    Neither the Orate Fratres nor an occasional mention of the word sacrifice, even if happens to refer to the Christ’s Self-Sacrifice, in the Proper prayers, make good for the omission of the word in the EP II. And, as I said before, an ordinary Mass-goer does not read rubrics or documents.

  30. mattdiem says:


    “”StevenDunn – the Mosebach article is in the fall 2009 issue of The Traditionalist. It is titled ‘A Winter In Shio Mghvime’””

    Can anyone provide a link or more information about where to find this journal called the Traditionalist? I have been googling and not finding the journal or the above article……

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!


  31. Rien says:

    Matt – The Traditionalist (my friend subscribes and she lent me the latest copy) apparently does not seem to have a website. Looking at the magazine all they have is an ad to subscribe with a physical address to mail the subscription to.

    If it helps this is published by Robert McCaffrey of Roman catholic Books. That website is

  32. Rien says:

    Matt – I just checked that website and there is a link there to The Traditionalist.

    Warning – the cover of the sample magazine has a title Benedict’s Restoration This is a bit misleading I think as the magazine seems somewhat critical of Benedict and his failure to appoint strong bishops. They even take at shot at Archbishop Dolan of NYC. It generally a pessimistic tone – highlighting in the issue the Pope’s lack of decicive moves and backing down (the curious resignation of Bishop Martino and re-assignment of Rajnith) in suporting it’s natural allies in the episcopacy.

    I sense they are moving inexorably towards Constantinople. Anyway that is the feeling I get from having seen 2 issues so far.

  33. Sam Schmitt says:

    “The problem is that people of good will cannot hope but see the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the “old” Mass. That is not the case with the “new” Mass.”

    So you’re saying that someone who starts going to the EF will “wake up” and say: “Oh, so the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice! I never realized that by going to the new mass, but now I do because of the old mass.” My question is (if this really does happen): How so? What exactly is it about the old mass that makes this person realize the sacrificial nature of the mass, and what about the new makes this person miss it? People have mentioned how many times the word sacrifice appears, but is this totally responsible for the way people understand what the mass is?

    I’m saying that the texts of the masses have less to do with this supposed scenario than does catechesis. I would agree that the *people* attending the old mass are more likely to understand the sacrificial nature of the mass – but then that is exactly my point: people who attend the old mass tend to be more knowledgeable about their faith, particularly in the more traditional aspects. This is due primarily to catechesis, understood in the broad sense as the entire ethos or milieu in which they live their faith – the sermons they hear, the books they read, people they talk to, etc.

    As I said, the form of the mass isn’t responsible for this all by itself, though it can be a powerful influence.

  34. Mitchell NY says:

    There is so much controversary over Bugnini and his Mass, even the Holy Father calls it fabricated liturgy…That should not be accepted….Why not use the 1965 Missal in the vernacular for Mass or even the 1962 Missal in vernacular…At least the 1965 Missal is not tainted and be be welcome to many people who attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Because the language seems their biggest issue…And the 1965 Missal is much closer to that the Council Fathers wanted. The NO is moving there anywhere..Wouldn’t it just be easier to suppress the NO and work with an Organic Development of the 1965 Missal for those interested. The truth is we lay Catholics will never know the truth behind this man, even if the Vatican does. People just do not like the way this Mass was created for the whole of the Roman Rite. They do not trust the motives and that is an inherrent flaw in the NO that will not go away even with the best window dressings. The NO and Tridentine Mass represent opposite ends of the spectrum. It is highly visible. That visibilty is signigicantly less between the 1962 and the 1965 Missal. I am not saying all that was done with the 65 Missal is ideal but it seems a better start point to continue with real organic development, and put the Bugnini Mass to rest. Minds will rest as well. The intentions of Bugnini are tainted and forever will be.

  35. moon1234 says:


    Mass in the vernacular IS one of the problems many have with the Novus Ordo. Why would we want to AGAIN throw out Latin with another vernacular translation.

    Latin has been the bulwark language of our faith for more than 1500 years. The problem, again, is the lack of catechesis. Missals can be used for people to follow along. Once one has attended the Tridentine Mass for a while with a missal, that person will become very comfortable with the Mass. This person can then go anywhere in the world where a Latin mass is offered and be able to worship in a common language. A sacred language that unifies everyone present with all of the past members of the church.

    With vernacular in the Mass we have isolation around language even in our own towns. English speakers go to the 9am Mass and Spanish speakers go to the 11am Mass, etc. You begin to see that the people at the 9am Mass don’t interact with the people at the 11am Mass. They are seen as seperate communities who share the same church. At least that is how it seems to me at the NO Masses I visit once in a great while.

    I would even favor going back to the 1955 Mass. Bugnini was allowed to monkey with Holy Week after 1955. This lead to a bunch of changes inHoly week for no other reason than to make changes.

  36. Ogard says:

    MOON1234, Latin has not been “the bulwark language of our faith for more than 1500 years”. For thousand years, a half of the Church celebrated the Mass in Greek and other languages, and even after the break at the turn of the first millennium, the vernacular was used in many dioceses of the Croatian coast. Apart from that, all the Easter Rite Catholic Churches have always celebrated the Mass in their respective liturgical languages.

    Not doubt, Latin is an important unifying factor in areas in which the population speak different languages, in great international gathering, or solemn occasions – but only in the Latin Church. And people should be instructed how to participate in the Mass if it is Latin. But to insist on an exclusive or predominant use of Latin would be a pastoral disaster.

    More important would be to provide, whenever possible, Sunday bilingual leaflets – the missals are too bulky and too complicated to follow – and encourage people to use them.

    To be clear, I am not referring to the NO, but to the Tridentine Mass. It was quite sufficient for it to be used along these lines for the liturgical reform to be effective and fruitful. Nothing, really nothing, has been gained by the NO as such. On the contrary, taken at large, it is both doctrinal and pastoral disaster, I think. Not to mention the resources squandered on it.

  37. MichaelJ says:


    I do not quite understand your comment. You state that the Mass has little to do with how people understand the sacrificial and propitiary nature of the Mass and then later on state that it can “be a powerful influence”. From this I take it that you acknowledge that the Mass itself was once also a teaching tool, but now it no longer is.

    And yes, to answer your earlier question. If someone attending the EF Mass for the first time does not at least realize that “something very significant has just happened” at best I would say that they were not paying the least bit of attention.

  38. MichaelJ says:


    Please be careful. You wrote “But to insist on an exclusive or predominant use of Latin would be a pastoral disaster.”

    But the Council of Trent, Session XXII states:

    “Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.”

    emphasis added

    I am not saying that what you wrote has been anathemized; only that it is the next logical step of what you wrote to say that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only.

  39. Ogard says:

    Michael J
    No, in view of what I said before, the “vernacular only” would be the first ILLOGICAL step.

    I, of course, accept the Trent decree, although this particular issue is disciplinary in nature and the Church can change it.

    As all decrees, it should be interpreted in the context: Trent was summoned to deal with the Reformation, which challenged the use of Latin. Its objective was not to address the use of Greek in the Orthodox Church, or the use of vernaculars in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Trent did not challenge the Mass in the ancient Croatian vernacular either – the custom that was at least 600 years old at that time.

  40. MichaelJ says:

    Sorry Osgard, the protestant “reformers” being addressed by Trent insisted on a vernacular liturgy for precicely the same reasons you put forth. Where you differ is your concession to allow latin in a set of limited circumstances.

    I also question your characterization of a solemnly declared and anathemized canon from an Ecumenical Council as a “disciplinary decree” that can be changed.

  41. Ogard says:

    MichaelJ, up to a point the “reformers” were right and not condemned. We must not insist that the Trent condemned more than it did. It condemned those who insisted on “vernacular tongue only”, not the vernacular as such. Otherwise, the decrees of the union councils of Lyons and Florence would have been in error.

    A “solemnly declared and anathemized canon from an Ecumenical Council” is not necessarily a dogma: it depends on the subject involved. In this particular case, it is evidently a solemn disciplinary canon.

  42. Warren says:

    Well this got the Traditionalists out in force, in the comment box.

    I was hoping for more discussion of the articles. I found Aidan Nichols’ writing to be right on the button. As in, couldn’t have said it better myself.

    The SSPX and other traditionalists lose me with their whinging attitude, with their privileging their own their understanding of some bit of Canon Law, or ability to quote anathemas of Trent, over the rather more important ability to cultivate an attitude of humility and obedience towards Christ, who we see nothing of in this world, except in the most Blessed body and Blood of Christ, which we receive from the Priests. If St. Francis was respectful of Priests, and Bishops, and the Pope, what traditionalist is going to move my heart to imitate him, by being so opposite the example of a Saint’s attitude?

    I regularly attend a mass in Latin, in the Ordinary Form, celebrated Ad Orientem, with gregorian chant, a Schola, liturgical servers are all adult, and male.
    There is nothing in this mass that would upset even the most die-hard of traddies. But this is the Novus Ordo (their word), the Ordinary Form (our word, and also, what the pope likes to call it). Me? I’m with the Pope on all this stuff.

    When I attend a mass in English, in the Ordinary Form, I am not consumed with thoughts of canon law, and the presence of not, of the Hanc Igitur,
    but rather, I am, interiorly struggling to maintain a focus on the sacrifice of the mass. This struggle, I find is an interior struggle, and I have not won or lost this fight merely because the liturgy fails to make enough of a point of the sacrificial nature of the mass. It is only in the rubrics and footnotes of my old 1962 missal that I find it most clearly highlighted. I would be most happy to see those essays and footnotes resurrected. I would be most happy to bid goodbye forever to “missalletes”, and to have a new permanent English and Latin Missal, after the ICEL wraps up its reform of the reform.



  43. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine. I believe that the abuse of the Mass needs to be separated from the rubrics of the Mass themselves.

    That being said…

    a. The orientation of the priest truly reduces the sense of sacrifice. I truly believe that because of the orientation of the priest the “I don’t get something out of Mass,” “I must be entertained” crowds come from. The direction makes it seem as if it’s a dialogue with the people when the majority of the Mass is being addressed to God. Even my Confirmation students (who mostly go to OF’s in the vernacular versus populum) understood this principle that because of the position of the priest it de facto makes those things come out. What did they suggest? Turning the priest around :)

    b. The verticality that is intrinsic to the EF flat out does not exist in the OF, no matter how much you dress up the OF to make it look like the EF. The penitential rite is an absolute joke (especially with all the options other than the shortened Confiteor). The sense about sin is reduced to the lowest common denominator possible. (I pray the longer form in Latin when attending the OF anyway). Whenever revision of the Missal comes around, that the longer form is restored as well as the Indulgentiam.

    c. It is also my hope the old offertory prayers are restored to the full extent. The glorified table prayers do not convey Sacrifice at all and I also believe takes the focus away from who is being offered.

    d. Attending the OF in Latin, I must say, these thoughts do NOT come to my mind. However attending the OF in English, drives me insane. The abuse that’s done in most parishes drives me to the point of insanity (Liturgically)…Of course I’m in LA…where the state of Liturgy is an abject disaster.

  44. MichaelJ says:

    As I recall, it was Pope Paul VI who coined the term “Novus Ordo”.

  45. ssoldie says:

    Novus Ordo Missa, The commision, headed by Annabelle Bugini with the blessing of Paul VI called it, New Order of Mass. Please, what are the fruits of Vatican II? If the N.O. is a fruit, then so was Cranmer’s Godly Order, in England at the time of the English shism. Read it.

  46. ssoldie says:

    ” They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’ and so under the pretext of restoring it to it’s primative form, they corrupt the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators” -Pope Leo XIII
    Apostolicae Curae
    13 September 1896
    Very wise Pope, sure wasn’t tickling ears was he, and was saying the ‘hard things’ also.

  47. BLC says:

    Joe of St Therese said: “However attending the OF in English, drives me insane.”

    I’ve never attended an OF in Latin but I will concur with your sentiments on the OF in English. I became an exclusively EF attendee because I found it impossible to focus on what the priest was saying, try and respond AND also pray. It doesn’t help that my concentration is not fantastic anyway, but the ‘active’ participation even at reverent English OFs is just too busy for me to have the correct disposition. As a result, I often walk out more agitated than I walked in, and daily Mass is usually the most calming time of day for me, especially with all the silence in the EF. (I went through my process of conversion in an FSSP chapel, so I’d not really been to an OF until recently.)

Comments are closed.