Fishwrap has an excellent interview with Archbishop Chaput

Even as blind squirrels sometimes find acorns, sometimes the National Catholic Fishwrap does something right.  And it won’t surprise anyone that my friend the nearly-ubiquitous John L. Allen, Jr. was involved.

Fishwrap – rather Mr. Allen – has a long, and I do mean long, interview with the newly-appointed Archbishop of Philadelphia Most. Rev. Charles Chaput. The questions are intelligent and the answers are forthright and informative.

I warmly recommend that you read the whole thing.

And Chaput is pronounced “sha-pyew”, with a y-sound glide in it and a silent t.

Here is a sample section from the interview:

I’d like to take a rapid-fire tour of a few contentious issues. The idea is to get your basic position, without going into details. Let’s start with one you already raised: the Latin Mass.

The Latin Mass is deeply loved by some members of the church. The Holy Father, beginning with John Paul II and continued by Benedict XVI, has asked the bishops to be very sensitive to their needs. I was ordained in Rapid City in 1988, around the time that the Holy Father set up the Ecclesia Dei commission. As soon as I became aware of his desire, I welcomed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter to Rapid City to establish a community to meet the needs of those people. There were three or four St. Pius X [break-away] communities in the diocese, but by the time I left they had all disappeared because we met their needs. In Denver, we have a full parish served by the Fraternity of St. Peter, and we have two other places where the priest, at least on occasion if not weekly, celebrates the Tridentine form of the liturgy.

I’m very happy to follow the lead of the Holy Father on all of this, because he has insights that I don’t have. He also has an inspiration from the Holy Spirit which I don’t have.

The visitation of American nuns?

It was a decision of the Holy See to do this, I guess because they received many suggestions that there was a need for this kind of visitation. I’ve been part of visitations, of seminaries and the Legion of Christ, and I think those visitations can be very good for the communities involved — as long as the people doing the visitation are really open to listening, and are loving of the people they’re called to visit in the name of Jesus Christ.

It’s always good, if serious issues are raised, to have outside eyes look at them. How the Holy Father and the Congregation for Religious will follow up on this, I don’t know. But there’s no reason to be afraid of a visitation, if it’s done well.

Communion bans for pro-choice Catholic politicians?

I think that people who make decisions contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in public ways, in matters of faith and morals, should decide for themselves not to receive communion. They’ve broken their communion with the church, and to receive communion means you’re in communion with the church. If you’re not, it’s hypocritical to receive communion.

I think the best way to handle this is the way the bishops of the United States have agreed together to handle it, which is first of all to talk personally with those individuals who make decisions contrary to the teaching of the church. If they fully understand the teaching of the church and continue to act contrary to it, we should ask them not to receive communion.

If they persistently decide to do so in a way that causes scandal, which means leading other people into the same kind of sin, then I think it’s necessary for the bishop to publicly say something.

Health care reform, the Catholic Health Association, and Obama at Notre Dame?

That’s a lot of things together. Health care, of course, is one of the things the church has done in imitation of Jesus Christ, who came to heal the sick and to drive out evil in the world. It’s very important for us to be involved, but in a way that Jesus is involved, and not to do anything at all that would contravene the teachings of the Gospel. I stood with the president of the bishops’ conference, Cardinal George, when it came to the health care bill.

I was very disappointed when the Catholic Health Association took a position that really undermined the authority of the bishops. I wish that hadn’t happened. I think it was a severe moment of lack of communion in the church. I think we ought to continue to insist that when it comes to matters of faith and morals, bishops, in the name of Jesus Christ, have to be the ones who make the final decisions.

With regard to Notre Dame, I wrote a column in our Denver Catholic paper following the example of the local bishop, Bishop D’Arcy. I was very disappointed in the decision by Notre Dame. When the bishops met in Denver in 2004, we made a decision that Catholic universities shouldn’t give honors to people who are actively engaged in promoting abortion. That has happened with the current administration, so it seems to me that it was inappropriate for Notre Dame to give the President an honorary doctorate. I’m sure the President is a good man, and that he’s following his own conscience on the matter, but it isn’t the conscience of the church and he shouldn’t be honored because of that.

Gay marriage?

This is the issue of our time. The church understands marriage as a unique relationship, with a unique definition, which is the faithful love of a man and a woman for each other, permanent, and for the sake of children. As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father. For us to redefine marriage as anything else undermines that notion. I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this.

It’s also important to say that we’re not against gay people. What we’re doing here is promoting marriage and the meaning of marriage, not condemning others. The church does believe that human sexuality has a meaning in itself, that it’s about love and procreation. Any other sexual relationship is contrary to the Gospel, and so a relationship between two people of the same sex is not in line with the teachings of the church and the teachings of the Gospel, and is therefore wrong. That said, we should always respect people who do things contrary to the Gospel. We live in a society where different ways of life are accepted by the general community, and it’s important for us to live in a way that’s not hostile to people.

We have a duty as Catholics, however, to speak clearly about God’s plan for human happiness. Part of that plan is traditional, faithful, Catholic/Christian marriage.

There is a great deal more.  Archbishop Chaput speaks about his own background and theological leanings.  Of course there is extensive discussion of the sexual abuse crisis in Philadelphia and in general.

WDTPRS kudos to Mr. Allen and especially Archbishop Chaput.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Classic Posts, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Allen’s interview was excellent. Some wondered how Mr. Allen got that interview, but I understand he lives in Denver and has known Archbishop Chaput for some time.

    There is another worthy interview with +Chaput, this one by Sandro Magister. Some of the discussion is interesting as it looks at his episcopacy thru the lens of a European

  2. Ezra says:

    I’m sure the President is a good man

    I’m not.

  3. Joe in Canada says:

    I wonder about this bit: “If they persistently decide to do so in a way that causes scandal, which means leading other people into the same kind of sin, then I think it’s necessary for the bishop to publicly say something.” Is that the only condition under which the bishop will publicly say something? Are bishops really that helpless in terms of who receives Communion in their diocese?

  4. FrAWeidner says:

    @Joe, he explains right before that the process of dealing with it otherwise. I don’t really understand the connection you make between what the Archbishop said and bishops being “helpless in terms of who receives Communion in their diocese.” I would think that this step and the prior one would entail the appropriate denial of Communion on the part of the ordinary (and the priests under him) as necessary, but perhaps I’m reading too much into it.

    @Ezra – I think we all know why His Excellency said what he did (all things to all people, following the deposit as a shepherd), but yes, that statement is rather a stretch to Catholic ears.

  5. benedetta says:

    The responses by Archbishop Chaput are very reasoned and he seems very responsive to the needs and concerns of the people. Great interview.

  6. ecs says:

    So he supports the traditional form of the Mass so long as the Pope is on board and their is a “need” to satisfy. I guess that is about the best attitude we can presently expect out of the American episcopate. I stopped reading after that comment. These types of attitudes towards the Mass are too frustrating for me.

  7. MichaelJ says:

    If you’re not, it’s hypocritical to receive communion.

    Quite an understatement, in my opinion. Those who “make decisions contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in public ways, in matters of faith and morals” and continue to receive Communion are doing far more than just being hypocritical. Where is the concern for their immortal soul? Does the Church now only care about sinners if they, through their example, could lead others astray?
    It seems obvious that these politicians either disbelieve or deliberately overlook the very real peril to their Soul. I also understand that every important Truth cannot be re-stated in every interview, but I still would have liked to have seen the Archbishop take advantage of this opportunity to remind people that they are risking their Eternal Salvation

  8. Andreas says:

    I visit the NcR website as seldom as possible…not wanting to contribute in any way to its log of visitors. However, on occasion, my curiosity about what Mr. Allen has to say leads me to that link. As his articles are oft vilified by NcR readers, one must wonder why Mr. Allen would not rather devote his journalistic talents to a truly Catholic publication.

  9. JohnMa says:

    His backing of the Wuerl doctrine on Communion by pro-choice politicians couldn’t be more disappointing.

  10. Joe in Canada says: I wonder about this bit: “If they persistently decide to do so in a way that causes scandal, which means leading other people into the same kind of sin, then I think it’s necessary for the bishop to publicly say something.” Is that the only condition under which the bishop will publicly say something? Are bishops really that helpless in terms of who receives Communion in their diocese?

    Under what other condition should the bishop publicly say something? If the sin itself is not public, then the bishop cannot — and should not — publicly comment on it.

  11. FrAWeidner says:

    JohnMa, I think that’s an unfair characterization of his position. Do some Googling of His Excellency’s earlier commentaries on the matter. He’s one of this country’s strongest voices on the subject, and the comments here should be seen in that context, not taken out of context.

    If one is truly concerned about the salvation of the politician’s soul (as, for example, I think MichaelJ is by his comments) as opposed simply to retribution and getting to be right, then I think it’s clear that denial of Communion by the prelate and his priests is the end of the process, not the beginning. That action clearly hopefully begins a new process for the politician which we can pray leads to conversion, but it is a last resort in the dialogue. The canons are to save souls, not bludgeon people.

  12. irishgirl says:

    Why can’t the Bishops come right out and say that homosexuality is WRONG? That it’s one of the sins that call down God’s vengeance? That it’s against the laws of God and the laws of nature, PERIOD? This pussy-footing and tippy-toeing-around drives me nuts!
    Stop being so ‘pastoral’, Your Excellencies! Sheesh….! Show some guts!
    Heck, even Our Lord Himself got angry on more than one occasion!

  13. Andrew says:


    Thank you.

  14. dans0622 says:

    JohnMa: The “Wuerl doctrine”? It seems to be the Burke doctrine since that is the process he used on more than one occasion and the one he suggested in his scholarly article on the topic, which was published in 2007 in Periodica. The important point is that he used the process. It doesn’t seem to be widely applied by the bishops of the USA, even if it is their “way to handle” it.

  15. Ana says:


    I believe that is an unfair assessment of what Archbishop Chaput said. He said the chapels affiliated with the SSPX are no longer operated in Denver due to the needs of the faithful being met. He supported our Holy Father from the beginning although many Bishops and Archbishops refused to respond accordingly. If he was so hostile to tradition, he would not have a parish operated by FSSP in his diocese.

  16. MichaelJ says:

    Should withholding Communion be the first thing done (to prevent further damage )or should it be the last resort? I guess that this is a sensitive topic, but if a guest at my home were to drink too much, you can bet that the first thing I would do would be to withold the car keys and prevent that person from exercising his “right” to drive a car. Then I would work on changing his heart.

    Is receiving communion unworthily less potentially deadly than drunk driving?

  17. FrAWeidner says:

    @Irishgirl – perhaps because they have to teach what the CCC teaches?

    The phenomenon of same-sex attraction (“homosexuality”) is a natural evil with massive moral evil consequences. Genital acts between two people is the sin that cries out to God. There is a difference. Hate the sinner, hate the sin is the teaching of the Westboro Baptist Church, not the Catholic Church. That said, yes, many U.S. bishops could arguably be more outspoken that same-gendered genital acts are direly evil.

  18. JohnMa says:

    1) Cardinal Wuerl is the one that wrote the USCCB document that His Excellency is referring to. 2) It is not only the soul of the politician at stake, it is also the souls of million of faithful that see them receive Communion. There must be a prior restraint in order for this scandal not to occur.

  19. teaguytom says:

    ECS makes a good comment above that needs to be expanded on. Bishop Chaput, like the majority of Catholic laity and clergy, have no clue as to what summorum pontificum was about. Fr Z has explained this until he was blue in the face, as well as NLM and Rorate Caeli blogs. Summorum Pontificum is about liberating the traditional form of mass for everyone. It is for enriching the whole of the Church and going back to true organic growth in our liturgy. It is not for appeasing laity who want it so they don’t join the SSPX. Did His Excellency read the Instruction on SP? Does he have an irrational fear of SSPX? Would he be “on board” with traditionalists if the Holy Father didn’t act enthusiastic about liturgical customs from before Vatican II? Having said that, I believe Archbishop Chaput will do a fine job in Philadelphia. He is Orthodox and will root out the filth that has invaded the Archdiocese. I do think someone needs to link him up with WDTPRS and Fisheaters so he gets an understanding of what the meaning of Summorum Pontificum is for the whole Church, not just a few hanger-ons.

  20. Dave N. says:

    One of my concerns has been that the Abp.’s education (at least as recounted in the standard bios) seems a little thin for what someone who will undoubtedly wear a red hat in a few years. Maybe someone has more info on that. That having been said, I think Abp. Chaput has done exemplary work in moving seminary education forward in Denver and raising the bar academically in the archdiocese.

  21. Joe in Canada says:

    FrAWeidner, my connection was that at no point does he say “I will forbid them from receiving Communion.” He suggests. But perhaps it is the last line “to publicly say something” that includes the unspoken step.
    Miss Anita Moore, OP: the good Archbishop’s statement is qualified with “in a way that causes scandal”. My point wasn’t about whether it was private or not, it was about why the bishop would qualify it this way. And the phrase “the same kind of sin” is ambiguous, since the politician is guilty of a particular sort of sin in exercising public power for an evil purpose, which the large majority of people never get to do.
    But I do hope for the best interpretation, so I am glad to be corrected.

  22. PostCatholic says:

    “The bottom line is that we have to do our best to make sure that kids are protected, that the rights of priests are protected, and that the church membership has confidence in its leadership.”

    Herein the bishop missed a beat by not saying the rights of victims be protected–which is the heart of the problem in Philadelphia and the reason for the second grand jury investigation. I do wish this class of people were foremost in his mind.

    On the other hand, I’m encouraged he doesn’t shrink from due process of law or its outcomes; in Philadelphia they will be many, painful, and expensive and that’s sadly just expiation. I am encouraged also that he believes in better accountability for senior church leadership and will be in a position to meaningfully propose it. I hope he does.

  23. RobertK says:

    I still think that the only reason +Chaput was chosen for Philadelphia, was to cleanup the sexual abuse mess created by the previous hierarchy. Nothing more!. I’m surprised he wasn’t sent to Ireland!. I love how the NCR article highlighted the word “Evangelical” Catholicism. Like what we need right now is a catholic form of “televangelism”. What we need right now is our restorations of Roman Catholic identity. Not televangelism. I don’t want a Jerry Falwell on the pulpit, with mega Roman Catholic Churches. I sometimes wish I was Dr. Who, and could hop in the tardis and transport myself back to the Middle Ages.

  24. Andrew says:

    I love the Latin Mass, and I go to it not very week, but regularly. The parish adjacent to mine, is now offering a Low Mass on Sunday, so I expect I will be going much more often.

    What I can’t understand though, is why Catholic people who have this inclination, are sore on a terrific prelate like Archbishop Chaput, just because he does not share this predilection.

    It is not obligatory for anyone to attend the traditional Mass, but a beautiful privilege that has been extended to us by Pope John Paul, and Benedict. We should rejoice in this, but not use our love for a particular and optional liturgical form, as our lens by which we judge other people.

    As I said on another post, from the perspective of a bishop, all that matters is that they uphold the principles enunciated in Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum and now Universae Ecclesiae, something Archbishop Chaput has done from the time he was made the bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, in allowing laity there access to the Missal of 1962.

    King Henry VIII organized for Latin Masses to be said after he died, but that still did not stop him from separating from Rome, in 1534. In the 1970’s a man name Clemente Dominguez Gomez who was very keen on the old form of Mass, declared himself Pope Gregorius in Seville, Spain, and had hundred of thousands of followers around the world.

    Conversely, a man like Archbishop Chaput is marvellous for the loyalty he shows the Holy Father. That is really what counts, at the end of the day.

  25. RobertK says:

    Quote from teaguytom: “I do think someone needs to link him up with WDTPRS and Fisheaters so he gets an understanding of what the meaning of Summorum Pontificum is for the whole Church, not just a few hanger-ons”

    It will be easier said than done. We still have Mr Jenkins at Notre Dame, Ireland still has most of it’s hierarchy in place, and his fellow Capuchin, Sean OMalley, who supports a parish that hosts gay Masses. Better hope that Ireland doesn’t break the seal of confession. What is Rome going to do then?. Other countries may soon follow.

  26. RobertK says:

    The problem Andrew is that most Roman Catholics don’t even know about the older form, or that it is accessible. It’s about teaching the faith along with the patrimony. And the patrimony doesn’t start after Vatican 2. As most Roman Catholics think. I didn’t even know that there was an older form until I watched a youtube video. The only thing I knew was Gregorian Chant, but only heard it on a cd. Never in Church. and the franciscan priest I had in university ministry, would have a tissy fit when I mentioned it. The only real tradition I knew was the rosary. And that’s it.

  27. RobertK says:

    So I am really going to find it interesting on how +Chaput will change things here in Philly. Most priests are stuck in their ways and will not change. How will he restore our Roman Catholic identity. will it be an identity that started after Vatican 2, or an identity that has existed for over a thousand years.

  28. RobertK says:

    I wish him the best though. And he has my prayers.

  29. MichaelJ says:

    What I can’t understand though, is why Catholic people who have this inclination, are sore on a terrific prelate like Archbishop Chaput, just because he does not share this predilection.

    Andrew, it’s because most do not see it as a matter of personal preference. Nobody I know attends the Traditional Mass soley because they “like” the Chant or the Incence or for any other subjective esthetic reason. They attend it beacuse they believe that it is objectively more pleasing to God. One oft heard catchphrase is :” You worship God in your way; I’ll worship Him in His”

    As far as it being a “privelege” goes, I could not diagree more. Pope Benedict XVI, and to a lesser extent John Paul II addressed an injustice, both to God and the laity. They did not “grant a privelege”. His Holiness said as much in Summorium Pontificum (although perhaps it was in the accompanying letter)

  30. Andrew says:

    Dear Michael, I could not disagree with you more. To say that most people attend the Old Rite because “they believe it is more pleasing to God”, is quite arrogant, and certainly not indicated in any church document.

    There may be some people who attend the Old Mass who share your opinion, but for the vast majority, it is a matter of personal preference, and never in any of the recent pronouncements allowing wider access to the traditional liturgy, is it anywhere stated that this is a matter of justice. It is because of the generosity of two popes, who have felt acutely for the needs of a more traditional type of Catholic, like you and me, Michael.

    But to return to my main theme, that people would use this issue to condemn a man like Archbishop Chaput, (because he is not as excited about the traditional Mass as we are) is outrageous, and lacking terribly in charity.

    May I say that I know Archbishop Chaput personally, and I would like to stress what a humble, kind, spiritual, courageous man he is. I don’t have his level of spirituality in following St Francis, but I wish I did.

    I hope and pray he will have a good sojourn in Philadelphia.

  31. Andrew says:


    So to understand you clearly, you are saying the the Archbishop has a personal preference for the Novus Ordo?

  32. Andrew says:

    That is correct, Andrew (hey what a great name!) He prefers a more accessible, vernacular liturgy, but like a good shepherd, has always supported Catholics who have felt more inclined towards the older form.

  33. Michael J said in reference people who attend the EF Mass: They attend it beacuse they believe that it is objectively more pleasing to God.

    Dear Michael,

    Can you cite anything put out by Ecclesia Dei, or in Summorum Pontificum or Universae Ecclesiae which supports your assertion? If anything, my recollection is that when Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, the Church did not want us to walk away with the impression that one form was more pleasing to God than another. I think this is an errant position the Church does not want us to have.

    Now, I assist at daily Mass at Assumption Grotto where there are Masses available using the 1962 Missal (EF) 7 days a week. I prefer the this Mass. I can give you a long list of reasons how it helps me in my worship. But I cannot dismiss the beauty of the “Novus Ordo” as it is celebrated at Assumption Grotto, as well – often with Latin, always ad orientem, and always in a very reserved and dignified manner. That said, I will always gravitate to the TLM.

    I am fully aware of Archbishop Chaput’s position on the EF Mass. If anything, I appreciate his truthfulness in stating that it does not affect him the way it does me. That’s an honest statement. And, who am I to judge his soul, and how his worship pleases God when he celebrates the new Mass. Is a “Novus Ordo” Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict any less pleasing to God than one he celebrates using the 1962 Missal? I would love to see someone ask the man who rubber stamped Summorum Pontificum this question if they are in doubt.

    Being critical of Archbishop Chaput’s position about the TLM is not going to encourage him to get more engaged with TLM communities. It is not going to help him to see that it is not just about keeping people in the fold who are in communities not in full communion with the Church, if that is what he thinks.

    I trust there are seminarians in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and other young people, who will approach Archbishop Chaput in a positive way, and use that thing which I think the man has proven he is good at, which is reason. Hopefully, he sees people of all ages who will show him their interest in a joyful, positive manner, and this will open him up further.

    So, for those who think they are going to warm Archbishop Chaput up to the EF Mass by broadcasting criticism on the web, think again. This. Does. Not. Change. People. Find another way.

    Considering the overwhelming workload about to hit his plate, in a bigger diocese, with many problems, I think it is expecting an awful lot out of one man for those who want him to invest the time needed to do the TLM himself.

    My recommendation to people in Philly, is to give him some time to catch his breath, then nicely petition him to have some TLM’s in his Cathedral on special occasions. It is sufficient for him to be in choir. From there, let him see who comes, and what kinds of fruits come from it.

    As when writing any bishop, let him know you are praying for him, and then follow through with it. If you want to change hearts, you have to follow an old military tactic: Soften the target. For Catholics, this means you storm heaven with prayers and sacrifices first, then you approach the bishop, and leave the rest in God’s hands, accepting the outcome with docility.

  34. MichaelJ says:

    I apologize that I misunderstood your question. I thought you were genuinely curious as to why many self-described Traditional Catholics were disappointed in Archbishop Chaput’s ambivalence toward the Traditional Mass.
    Now, apparently your anecdotal evidence is different from my anecdotal evidence. What of it? I can state with absolute certainty that every Taditional Catholic I know and have asked (with the exception of you, obviously) believes that the Taditional Mass is more pleasing to God. Based on this information that I personally know, I answered your question. Apparently, this is not what you were seeking.

    Diane, are you honestly seeking “proof” that one form of the Mass is more pleasing to God than another or, as others seem to be doing, do you simply want to point out how wrong “they” are?
    I can answer why I believe this to be the case, if you are curious, and will even entertain different perspectives to perhaps modify my belief. Don’t bother responding, though, if you plan to bludgeon me with the obedience stick.

  35. ecs says:

    For Heaven’s sake, internet conversations are beyond exasperating. How in the world could anything written above be reasonably critiqued as a “condemnation” of Bishop Chaput for his position regarding the TLM? The simple fact of the matter is just what MichaelJ states. As for myself, my love for the TLM is not simply due to personal aesthetic preferences. And I cringe everytime I hear a bishop talk in terms of accomodation and need. How would he feel if the tables were reversed? What if he were a lay Catholic and the new form he loved so much was viewed by 99% of the episcopate as just something to be accomodated but of no real practical benefit to the Church at large? Practically every tradition minded person I know views the TLM as essential to not only their own perseverence and salvation but to the restoration and perseverence of the entire Church. I for one just find the attitude insulting and discouraging if for no other reason than it shuts down a very much needed debate. One problem with the novus ordo crowd is that they simply just ignore the voluminous arguments about why the old missal is superior to the new.

  36. Andrew says:

    I guess that would apply to what sort of traditional chapel you are attending. I’m sure if you went to an SSPX church, the vast majority would share the view that the traditional Mass is more pleasing to God, than the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, as stated by Pope Benedict in Suumorum Pontificum.

    And I am sure if you went to sedevacantist and followers of a number of antipope chapels, like “Pope Gregorius” (he had the sedevacantist papal movement in the world although I hear there is also a Pius XIII in Minnesota) I dare say you would find the majority of the people holding such views as well.

    But for those of us who love tradtion and are loyal to the Church, we wish to be guided in all things by the Church’s Magisterium. And there is absolutely no magisterial document which says that the traditional form of Mass, is more pleasing to God. Rather we have been instructed that the reformed liturgy (now with a new English translation) is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, and that the Missal of 1962 is the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. We are allowed to take our pick as to which one we prefer, but we are certainly not allowed to make presumptuous statements, about which one God prefers. From reading a number of lives of saints, they are unanmous in saying, it is the Mass that matters, not its ritual form, even if some saints like Padre Pio and St Jose Maria Escriva, were given dispensations on account of age, to still offer the old liturgy, after the changes were introduced.

    As Archbishop Chaput said in this interview “we will go to hell if we don’t feed the poor and the hungry”, but something tells me damnation is not awaiting those who have a preference for a liturgical form, more in sync with the modern age.

    Why would the Holy See take a decade of time to insure that its new vernacular translation was up to speed, if they thought at any time soon the reformed liturgy would be reduced in status or jettisoned as some interloctuors here, obviously hope it will?

    I make my own the words of Archbishop Chaput quoted above in matters liturgical, “I’m very happy to follow the lead of the Holy Father on all of this, because he has insights that I don’t have. He also has an inspiration from the Holy Spirit which I don’t have.”

    But I have the impression there are some voices here, which think they do.

  37. MichaelJ says:

    I certainly hope that when you choose which form of the Mass to attend, you put a bit more effort into the decision than you’ve indicated here. The way you’ve presented it, it sounds like you’re trying to decide between a Quarter Pounder and a Quarter Pounder With Cheese.

  38. ecs says:

    Andrew –

    As far as I can tell, you are the most presumptuous and uncharitable poster on this thread. Based on your comments alone.

  39. Andrew says:

    A good one Michael.

    Well my quarter pounder with cheese is a Low Mass said according to the 1962 Missal, with a priest reading the prayers in an ad orientem posture, and an altar boy answering them , with the Leonine Prayers at the end, followed by a beautiful hymn from the congregation. Two verses is fine.

    Not as keen on missa cantatas and High Masses, because I find I become more absorbed in the ceremony, than my personal prayers, and I want going to Mass to be an act of worship and devotion.

    I can tolerate the newer liturgy, (normally I attend this during weekdays) and have been edified by some very reverent celebrations of this, in particular by Opus Dei priests in my city. But for the most part it is celebrated in such a horizontal and loose manner in terms of its worship, assisted by contemporary music ministries, that I find it unedifying.

    So that is my take on matters of liturgical preference. The point I am trying to make is that if a Catholic, whether he be a layperson, priest or bishop has the right to participate in the liturgical form he feels most comfortable with, and it is not for others to impugn him, because of this.

    From the perspective of a bishop who is an ordinary like Archbishop Chaput has been since the late 80’s, his duty is to support and encourage those Catholics more inclined towards tradition, because this has been the request of the previous and current pope. Archbishop Chaput’s record in this regard speaks for itself.

    And I find it sad that others would criticize a good man like Archbishop Chaput, just because he might not have the same liturgical preference as ours. Attendance at the traditional Mass in not obligatory, and the Church in its new openness to the traditional rites, has never said it is.

    I am now resigning from this thread. If I have been uncharitable to anyone here, I ask their forgiveness.

Comments are closed.