A Jesuit’s brilliant notions about needed liturgical reform. What could go wrong?

The liberal-biased Religion News Service has run a piece by Jesuit Thomas Reese.

The future of Catholic liturgical reform

It is every bit as bad as you might imagine. A Jesuit on liturgy… after all.

First, you might remember that Reese was so bad as editor of Amerika that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had him removed. It could be that Reese has had it out for Ratzinger/Benedict ever since. That may have something to do with his lack of ability to see the liturgical issue clearly and his attitude about Summorum Pontificum.

You might remember that, back in the era when Reese was guiding Amerika, they published on the cover a photo of the Blessed Virgin wrapped in a condom.

You might remember the sharp rebuke he received from Card. Dolan for arguing that Planned Parenthood should not be defunded.

In this new piece… about liturgy, among other things:

(RNS) — Other than sex, nothing is more heatedly debated by Catholics than the liturgy. Everyone has strong opinions based on years of personal experience.

One of my correspondents wrote: “He can’t get 10 words into it without mentioning sex.”

Pre-Vatican II Mass

After the Pauline reforms of the liturgy, it was presumed that the “Tridentine” or Latin Mass would fade away. Bishops were given the authority to suppress it in their dioceses, but some people clung to the old liturgy to the point of schism.

Benedict took away the bishops’ authority and mandated that any priest could celebrate the Tridentine Mass whenever he pleased.

It is time to return to bishops the authority over the Tridentine liturgy in their dioceses. The church needs to be clear that it wants the unreformed liturgy to disappear and will only allow it out of pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change. Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.

Did you get that?

“Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”

“… should not be allowed…”

That’s how the left rolls.

The fact is that the number of Traditional Latin Masses is rapidly growing.  The average age of the faithful attending these Masses is really low.   The people give more in the collection than they do at the Novus Ordo.  Fulfillment of Sunday Mass attendance is must higher than most Novus Ordo attendees.   As the demographics of the Church in these USA change, those who attend the TLM will be more and more important.   The number of young priests learning the traditional Mass is growing.  Eventually, as numbers of vocations drops under Francis, these men will wind up more and more as pastors of influential parishes and even as bishops.

The fact is, the Traditional Latin Rite is not going away and it is going to grow.

In the meantime, I suggest to Reese that he learn how to celebrate the Traditional Mass before he flaps his pie hole about it again.  Until he does, he only knows a fraction of the Church’s liturgy for which he calls a new reform.

Also in that piece:

[…]

When liturgy is out of touch with local culture, it becomes boring and dies. These new liturgies need to be beta tested before adoption.

[…]

Can a deacon or layperson anoint the sick or hear confessions?

[…]

The church might also allow Catholics’ spouses to share Communion if they share our faith in the Eucharist.

[…]

There is no reason the hierarchy could not allow priests to use the 1998 translation as an alternative, allowing the priest decide which translation works best in his parish.

[…]

More important than the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is the transformation of the community into the body of Christ so we can live out the covenant we have through Christ. We do not worship Jesus, in this sense; with Jesus we worship the Father and ask to be transformed by the power of the spirit into the body of Christ.

[…]

The church needs more and better Eucharistic prayers based on our renewed understanding of the Eucharist.

[…]

I think you get the idea.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Jesuits, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Comments

  1. Fr. Kelly says:

    “More important than the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is the transformation of the community into the body of Christ so we can live out the covenant we have through Christ. We do not worship Jesus, in this sense; with Jesus we worship the Father and ask to be transformed by the power of the spirit into the body of Christ.”

    […]

    “The church needs more and better Eucharistic prayers based on our renewed understanding of the Eucharist.”

    From the passages you quoted, Fr. Reese does not share in the Catholic Faith, and so his opinions on our liturgy should be given just as much respect as those of any outsider who does not understand what we do.

    We should breathe a prayer for his conversion, … and quietly walk away.

  2. CJ Phaedrus says:

    Amen Father Z

  3. teomatteo says:

    His side is losing. He’s scared.

  4. jz says:

    The church needs more and better Eucharistic prayers based on our renewed understanding of the Eucharist.

    I just threw up a little in my mouth…

  5. Ellen says:

    All I can say is that is the worst codswallop I have seen in quite some time. I think Ignatius of Loyola would have some choice words for Fr. Reese

  6. Virgil says:

    Having read the Reese piece in its entirety, I’m struck by how absolutely irrelevant it is. The whole thing is nothing more than his wish list for further changes to the liturgy. All of us who are passionate about liturgy have such lists. (Reform of the Reform, Fr Z’s “gravitational pull,” my wish for a common calendar shared by ordinary/extraordinary forms, etc.)

    What makes his list different from these other lists is that all his suggestions have been tried before – and failed miserably. Like Fr Z, and like Father Reese, I was in seminary in the 80’s. We did all that stuff, and saw the crazy happening at parishes, too. It was mostly ugly, irreverent and drove a lot of people away. Did the Jesuits not get the memo?

  7. Bob says:

    Do they not realize the patience that our Father is exhibiting by staying His hand and not striking in anger? If they did they would not be pushing the envelope as they are…it scares me to death.

  8. ajf1984 says:

    To paraphrase another Jesuit, if people are Catholic and they seek God and have good will, who is Thomas Reese to judge if they are devoted to the Usus Antiquior?

  9. “…our renewed understanding of the Eucharist….”

    Is that the renewed understanding that 70% hold which is disbelief in the Real Presence (ie the protestant view) or the 30% that are holding fast to the traditional (gasp) teaching of the Church since Jesus’ fundamental statment “Hoc est enim corpus meum…”?

    Asking for a friend…

    [Answering your friend… yup. That’s about right. The “renewal of understanding of the Eucharist” has been so successful that millions fewer now believe what the Church always taught.]

  10. Fr. Brady says:

    Wow. Just reading the short quotes of Reese S.J. makes me dizzy. It will continue to be difficult the correct the error that sacred liturgy must be made in our image and conformed our our sentiments. Unless by divine grace one orders their emotions and memories under the will and intellect, we will end up with this type of erroneous thinking. It is akin to saying Jesus must come off the cross at our preference to prove himself Lord. There go I if not for Divine Mercy.

  11. JustaSinner says:

    Why do the vast amount of laity WHO KNOW BETTER, fail to act? Taking a page out of Maxine Waters/the Left, why aren’t we in the faces of Bishops, Cardinals and Church Leadership that WE KNOW are against Christ’s Church? Does not God compel us to LIVE out our faith in PUBLIC? If we can’t stand up to the bummers leading Christ’s Flock astray, I dare say what happens in a true time of of tribulation. There won’t be many martyrs made then…
    I have to say I’m disappointed in the Priests in my life over the past twenty years. Have found some that burn with Glory for God, are orthodox and have a fervent desire for the Rites of our Church. But are afraid…of their congregation, of the Bishop, of being labeled Trad. Bully, I say. No faith that the Holy Ghost will protect you? Not concerned with your Soul and the hereafter? A little too cushy with the conveniences of life?
    If you lead, Fathers, they will follow.
    Everyone, quit waiting for Hugo First and ACT. Yes, pray. Yes, fast. Indeed, confession. But also make contacts with your Priests, Bishop if possible (haha). Get a feel for them. Make your humble feelings known.
    If they are truly bad and against Christ’s Church, PROTEST. Get in their faces and let them know they are wrong. Ooohh, they went to seminary so they know more than you. Of course they do; all that education should have taught them something. But you can have all the education and STILL BE WRONG. And when there is active PERVERSION OF THE WORD OF OUR LORD, I don’t need Seminary and years of Post Seminary education to know it and fight it.

  12. Fr. Charles A. F. says:

    Em… can someone with better English reading skills than myself confirm whether the first quote by Fr Reese actually implies that he has years of personal experience with sexual activity?

  13. ex seaxe says:

    Almost all wrong, but I would like to see a competent commentary, such as you can give Father, on the 1998 translation. I find the current one clumsy, sometimes to the point where it misleads, sometimes it sounds as if the celebrant has misunderstood. The classic example of this is right at the beginning of the Missal, the Post-Communion for the first Sunday of Advent. The natural referent in English for ‘them’ is the preceding noun or noun clause, in this case “passing things”, but the Latin, I think, intends to refer back to “these mysteries”.
    I note that on the rating beneath the Reese article adverse reactions were running at 10 times agreement!

  14. dinsdale says:

    If one begins with the entirely reasonable presumption that our priests and bishops should desire salvation for all, then it likewise seems reasonable that, if some are brought into (or back into) the Church by way of the Extraordinary Form, and if some find the Extraordinary Form to be the means though which they can best work towards their own salvation, our priests and bishops should be pleased. That some priests and bishops would (and in so many cases, do) obstruct this path or close it outright implies their willingness to impose their personal preferences at the risk of losing souls.

  15. benedetta says:

    I think Fr. Reese should attend to his own house before weighing in on what others do. I remember attending his mass in NYC some years ago, at my parish where he was assigned as a visiting priest, on a weekday and he changed the words of consecration around severely to something kind of poetic but not remotely valid. I think whoever has the power to say what we should and should not be allowed to attend ought to pronounce his invalid mass inclination as off limits for our own good.

  16. Ariseyedead says:

    I never attended a TLM until I was in my thirties back in the late 1990s, but the libs/modernists are going to have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

  17. ex seaxe says: 1998 translation

    Three fast points based on my long experience of dealing with translation.

    1) No translation will have it all, perfect transmission of content and beautiful style.
    2) The 2011 translation is a translation. It is therefore subject to the problems of translations.
    3) Again… the 2011 is a translation. Frankly, if it sounds like a translation, that’s okay with me. It is a translation! Let it remind people that LATIN is the language of our worship.
    4) Let’s use Latin. People can have in the pews whatever translation they desire and the entire treasury of sacred music will open up again, to the enriching of all.

  18. kathy says:

    Since I will be turning 60 in a few shorts weeks I guess I am one of those older people who will be allowed to attend the TLM because I don’t have the intellect to understand the need for change. Thank goodness for that.

  19. ChrisP says:

    Anybody who has had experience with the infraorder Alethinophidia knows that at the point of death, the last resistant thrash is the most aggressive and violent.

    Total capitulation and mortis then follows.

  20. Padre Pio Devotee says:

    Just the ramblings of a 20-something-year old TLM attendee: The 1970’s called they want their deformed, lame duck arguments against the TLM back.

    The hippies in the church have wanted to remain “hip and cool” in the eyes of young people. They always want to “move forward.”

    Yet when the young people desire the TLM over the Polka Masses and the Folk Masses, the hippies/boomers thrust themselves back in the 1970’s/1980’s. They best follow their principle they developed in the 70’s: move forward with the young people (aka offer the TLM).

    It’s tradition or bust!

  21. Clinton R. says:

    Hard to believe this was written by a Catholic, must less a by a priest. The TLM should be only for old people? Has Fr. Reese ever been to a TLM? If he did, he would find it full of young men and women who have fallen in live with the Ancient Rite.

    The phrase that really raises my hackles is: “When liturgy is out of touch with local culture, it becomes boring and dies. These new liturgies need to be beta tested before adoption.”

    An utterance that is consistent with the notion Mass is an anthropocentric activity. Holy Mass is not software that needs testing to suss out bugs. Our Lord died upon the Cross for our sakes and He deserves the most reverent worship we can offer.

    The church Fr. Reese desires is not one the first Christians would have risked their lives to enter. Nor would countless martyrs have laid down their lives for something so artificial and banal, so lacking in the supernatural.

    Sadly, Fr. Reese and other like him, whether they be clerical or lay, resent those who have faith they no longer possess or never did have.

  22. Here’s the comment I wrote on Fr. Reese’s column (I wanted to get into his insane idea the we don’t “worship Jesus” during the Consecration [whuh???], but comments there have a space limitation):

    Uh, Fr. Reese, there aren’t any “older people” at the typical Tridentine Mass. Well, maybe a few, but most attendees are young people and youngish parents who bring their children of all ages. Like parents in the Eastern Orthodox churches, they don’t go for special, dumbed-down “family Masses” where the priest talks baby-talk to the kids while the parents get out their phones and click away at cute little Jennifer reading the Gospel. They want their children exposed to the real thing. It’s the Novus Ordo, especially in the liberal parishes, where all you see is old folks. I don’t think you’ve been to a Tridentine Mass in a while, Father. You need to get out more.

    Furthermore, confess your sins to a lay person? Are you out of your mind? As for the idea that non-Catholics married to Catholics somehow deserve to receive Catholic Communion, that’s just sentimental hoo-hah. If a Protestant spouse shares “the Catholic faith in the Eucharist” (which is different from what Protestant churches teach), shouldn’t she convert to the Catholic Church? My husband’s a Prot who attends Mass with me nearly every Sunday, but you don’t hear him whining about not being allowed to receive Holy Communion.

    Believe me, I have nothing against the Novus Ordo. I attend its Masses more often than I do the Tridentine, since I belong to a Dominican parish near my home where the friars say the Novus Ordo with due reverence. I just don’t want any more weird liturgical “reforms” beta-tested on me.

  23. VP says:

    Fr. Reese did not write a set of recommendations. He wrote a Monty Python skit.

  24. Gab says:

    Yes because banning youth from anything has always worked out so well. This will only increase more interest in the usus antiquior.

  25. LeeGilbert says:

    “Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”

    This I have seen before, and recently. Essentially, it is the view of the CCP. Surely Fr. Reese is “with it.” Time was when the Jesuits set out to convert China. Here the influence seems to be running in the other direction.

  26. Uxixu says:

    I pray a future pope commands the Jesuits to use the Extraordinary Form exclusively again. Dispense and laicize those who refuse.

    That act alone would purge most of the most heterodox. I suspect Fr. Charles A. F. hits close to the mark, though with the juxtaposition of Fr. Reese’s words revealing something he didn’t intend….

  27. Colm says:

    I am finishing up my final year in seminary. What strikes me the most from this article is how out of touch Fr Reese is. I do not believe there is a single man in the seminary now (I am speaking of my own), no matter which end of the ideological spectrum he lands on, that would agree with what Fr Reese puts forward. Let us pray for him, that he will come to know and love the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the rich Tradition of our Latin Rite.

  28. kurtmasur says:

    “Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”

    This reeks of desperation. They are desperate, and they are scared. Very scared.
    I think at this point the lib clergy in the Church are in denial of the current trend being played out, that the TLM is the future of the Church, and that one day, it will come to be once again the dominant form of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. With the passage of time, it will only be inevitable that they will increasingly look out of touch, as is the case of Reese.

  29. pcg says:

    In 2008, I took my son down to Georgetown for a campus visit for considering college choices. It was April 15/16- Benedict XVI was visiting; it was his birthday. There was a small symposium hosted by Georgetown on his visit; the theology dept. had a panel discussion which my son and I attended. At the time, I was still attending NO, my 17 yr. old was attending TLM- One of panel consisted of a Jesuit from the history dept. (BTW, his talk was terrible! He sounded as though he just showed up at the last minute). At the Q+A after the talks, I asked whether any of the panelists thought Benedict might address some of the liturgical abuses we had witnessed since Vatican II. Fr. Jesuit nearly bit my head off: “What liturgical abuses?!!” “Well “, I replied (in my best shaky voice, a la Flannery O’Connor), ” have you ever been to Mass at the Paulist Center in Boston?” Awkward silence ensued until the nun on the panel (in bad plainclothes) replied:” I think we’re all called to be Eucharistic”…Huh??

  30. robtbrown says:

    Fr Reese was for me the canary in the coal mine. I knew that Jesuit vocations had collapsed. But the first time I saw him on TV, I realized that most who actually had entered the Jesuits were flatliners.

  31. RichR says:

    I’m not letting this one small article get me concerned one bit. In 5-10 years the landscape will be dramatically different. The major donors will be different. The average priest will be different.

    I’m focusing on my 5 boys, their religious and liturgical formation, and those things I have actual control over. I’m doing my part, and if we all did that we wouldn’t waste time over opinions such as Fr. Reese’s.

  32. AA Cunningham says:

    Reese is anathema. He and his homosexualist comrade the Pied Piper of sodomy James Martin LGBTQWXYZSJ are probably planning on pleading not guilty by reason of insanity during their particular judgments.

  33. robtbrown says:

    Fr. Kelly says:

    “More important than the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is the transformation of the community into the body of Christ so we can live out the covenant we have through Christ. We do not worship Jesus, in this sense; with Jesus we worship the Father and ask to be transformed by the power of the spirit into the body of Christ.”

    What you quote is known as Transfinalization. It was a consequence of removing the emphasis from Transubstantiation–from ontology to sociology. And it was out and about in the 1970’s.

    Another 1970s Jesuit . . .

  34. OK_doc says:

    “pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change”

    This older Southern lady’s response to Fr. Reese:
    “Well, bless your little heart, sugar.”

  35. Phil Lawler has a good take on this at Catholic Culture.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    Our own local Jesuits are our former and current PP.

    The former is generally in charge of the Choir at the Diocesan TLM ; our current PP gives a reverent and Latinate NO, with at least a degree of Gregorian Chant (sometimes mostly Gregorian), at least a part of the Mass in Latin, and so on — i.e. as the Council Fathers intended.

    And whilst that TLM is poorly attended, mostly I think for its awkwardly location and inconvenient time, the net effect of their time at our Parish is that the Congregation has become much younger, and the number of children attending the Mass is a lot larger than it was.

    And in my foot pilgrimages in Europe, apart from some exceptions involving some particularly dynamic and generously spirited priests, I have generally found that those Parishes offering more traditionally minded and reverent NO Liturgy tend to have larger and younger Congregations than those with Liturgy more “modern” and “progressive” in form and spirit.

    Although I do have to add that some very dry Low Mass TLMs that are given here or there in France with little enthusiasm of spirit or joy in the Form have not very large nor youthful congregations either.

  37. Sportsfan says:

    I wonder if Father Reece is hip to the new disco sound.

  38. Chaswjd says:

    I had thought that the cognitive dissonance between the following two of Fr. Reese’s sentences was something to be savored:

    “ The church needs to be clear that it wants the unreformed liturgy to disappear … Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”

    But then perhaps I am not so capable of holding two contradictory ideas in my mind at the same time.

  39. Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  40. Cameron466 says:

    From my own experience as a teacher, I leave this:

    I teach English at the high school level and Latin at the elementary in a Catholic school.

    I’ve got an M.A. in English. I love to read. I went into teaching partially because I love teaching this subject in particular. I have a good deal of experience keeping kids engaged in this subject.

    Conversely, I had to learn Latin, by myself, in two months, for the job. I had NEVER studied it before. I could not be less qualified to teach Latin––I am just the only guy they could get.

    And yet…Latin is BY FAR the more popular of the courses. I frequently hear students tell me it is their favourite subject.

    Who’s really the one who doesn’t understand the need for change?

  41. JonPatrick says:

    If it was truly just a few old people that were attending the TLM then the solution would be obvious- do nothing and just let it die out. What the libs such as Fr. Reese are truly frightened about is precisely the fact that the TLM is growing and is predominantly younger than a typical NO mass. Their 50 year old revolution is failing and this is an act of desperation.

  42. Imrahil says:

    I have a tendency (which I consider morally neutral) to focus on things interesting and unexpected. So, cutting aside all the things deplorable but all too expected (well, that he actually does let the cat out of the bag publically actually talking about banning people from attending TLMs was unexpected, too… so, putting that aside also), I am rather struck by this one here:

    A unique “preface” for each Sunday that picked up themes from the Scripture readings could also tie the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist more closely together.

    You know, there is a sense in which you can talk about “Liturgy of the Word” and “Liturgy of the Eucharist”; you can find preconciliar Mass-explanation-books that use such language. Still however, the idea of a sharp barrier between the two is a particularly liturgy-reform idea. The “TLM spirit”, if you pardon the unprecise expression, is to start with an earthquake (the Introit with its Gloria) and then work up to a climax, which is the Canon of the Mass, with the Gospel one of the steps (a rather important one) on the way to this goal. The neat separation between the “two parts” on the other hand is a liturgy-reform idea.

    By the way, that is of course the only reason why the Intercessions are said where they are said, and standing: they are supposed to be “culmination of the Liturgy of the Word”, with what follows a separate thing. This is of course rather illogical when a Gospel preceded and the Transsubstantiation is going to follow. (I can imagine three logical things if you want to have Intercessions: 1. have them in the canon, as we actually do have some. 2. have them kneeling or even sitting as part of the Offertory: “we bring these petitions to the altar also”. 3. Have them in the Collecta where they, pardon me, belong – “that’s what we’re praying for, so, we’ve said it, and now let’s proceed to the important things” – which was more or less principally the case until the 1950s, the oratio imperata and oratio ad libitum, just obscured by the abundance of duplex-feasts which excluded the additional orations.)

    So, he wants to tie them back together! Fine, and very interesting. Let’s set aside that one specific preface for each Sunday is for this and that reason a rather bad idea, still this means that he does want the liturgy-reform to be (in some part) revised in favor of more tradition.

  43. Fr_Sotelo says:

    This article by Reese seems so far fetched, I wonder if he published it to upset people on purpose.

    He’s believed in a radical makeover of the Liturgy for many years. Why publish what he has said already? I wonder if he’s just stirring the pot, and then sitting back and laughing at how angry he makes faithful Catholics.

  44. Ex Seaxe asks about the current Missal translation and that from 1998 that was never implemented…

    There are a couple of easy-to-understand reasons the current translation is sometimes clumsy. First, because any project undertaken by a committee (in this case, basically lots and lots of committees in different places) is going to end up this way; I’m amazed that the 2011 translation turned out as well as it did. But there are surely times when someone who saw a problem just gave up banging his head fruitlessly. Example: at some point, someone noticed that the recurring phrase, “one God, forever and ever…” in the opening prayers of Mass were not on target, because the prayers using this phrase are really emphasizing that Jesus Christ is God, and thus, the “one” is at minimum, unnecessary and confusing; at worst it implies a denial of the Trinity. But obviously, whoever inserted the “one” was thinking the prayer was all about the Trinity. So people did try to get rid of the “one,” but was vetoed by someone in Rome. Well, guess what? Several years later, after thousands of missals were printed, someone in Rome noticed and said, “golly, that’s wrong, y’all should fix your Missals!” Another example that drives me nuts is in the sequence for Pentecost. Overall, the sequence is well translated, and it still sounds like poetry; but at one point, where a “thine” would work perfectly, someone stuck on avoiding such terribly confusing language, insisted on a “your.” Senseless.

    Another reason the translation may seem clumsy is that the underlying Latin frequently expresses complicated thoughts in complex sentence structure, and the translation does try to be faithful to this. The 1970 translation fled from this complexity like Dracula from a cross, so you ended up with prayers like a first grade primer: “Oh God. You love us. We need to love you. Help us do that. Amen.” I’m exaggerating, but less than you might think. So the 2011 translation veered the other way. Had anyone asked me, I’d have suggested every text of the translation be run by a set of really top-notch masters of English expression, who would make the text sing; then run it back by the Latin experts who would tighten it up again to be sure it’s faithful, and so forth. Maybe that’s what happened, except I think the artistry got neglected. I devoutly wish such a process would be used for translating the Bible, but I am not confident it will be.

    About the 1998 translation. You can find it online if you want and read it for yourself. Compared to the 1970 translation, yes it was an improvement. However, there are three big problems with the 1998 attempt.

    First, it still took a too-loose approach which the progressives favor. A lot of the progressive teeth-gnashing about the current translation imagines that the faithful just can’t understand complicated words and ideas like “dewfall” and “consubstantial” and “merit.”

    Second, the 1998 missal doubled down on the post-Vatican II fetish for a buffet approach to the liturgy (notice Fr. Reese wants a vastly expanded buffet). So, for example, the ’98 missal proposed not just one opening prayer for the 3rd Sunday of Advent, but four options.

    And this reveals the third and maybe worst problem with the 1998 Missal: many (all?) progressives don’t really want a translation at all! What they want is something new (again, notice Father Reese advocating this).

    I recall attending one of many meetings to prepare for the 2011 Missal — you’d think we were preparing for an asteroid strike by the way the church bureaucrats were acting. One of my brother priests went on a rant about the new translation, but what was revealing was that he complained very little about the quality of the translation. Rather, what had him up in arms was the dreadful ideas that the new translation had uncovered in the Latin texts and put out on display! All those terrible, old ideas about grace and sacrifice and merit, oh he just hated it all!

    So, if what you want is a truly new Mass — to sing a new Church into being! — then the 1998 Missal is a triumph. That’s why progressives are so implacably furious it was abandoned, and they keep hoping, hoping.

  45. RBill says:

    I think the whole screed against the TLM is a red herring. The main thrust of his assault is upon the Eucharist; that the Transubstantiation is not as important as collectivism and that the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ is so insignificant as to be shared as a token of goodwill to those who have positively chosen to reject Jesus and his teaching.

    In a different day and age, he would be declared anathema and prevented from ever taking pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) again.

  46. Gaetano says:

    There are precious few things that smack of clericalism more than a priest dictating what Mass young Catholics can attend.

    This isn’t even a question of whether they should attend.

    He believes that they should be outright prohibited, even against the wishes of their parents.

  47. Semper Gumby says:

    teomatteo: “His side is losing. He’s scared.” Good point. They’re also filled with the zeal of a false religion and are angry and lashing out.

    benedetta: “I think Fr. Reese should attend to his own house before weighing in on what others do.” Good point. The Society of Judas has abused enough children over the years, they should repent rather than doubling-down.

    Diane Montagna yesterday: “You know who else forbids children from going to Mass? The CCP and other Communist regimes!” Apparently the ChiComs have evangelized the Vatican.

    From Pachamama rituals at St. Peter’s to Marxist and pagan encyclicals to (insert lengthy list here) the Society of Judas is a menace. If the Society of Judas wants our Latin Mass Missals they can come and get them- that will not end well for them.

  48. Prayerful says:

    I honestly think Fr Reese knew that some traditional outlet would pick up on it. This Jesuit might be one of those who thrives on negative attention. The idea of banning the young is an archly foolish idea. No one needs to ban young people from far too many Novus Ordo liturgies, whose priests sometimes think cringeworthy novelties will attract the young. Young people, old people are not foolish like this idea. The Mass of Ages is too powerful for that failing Order.

  49. SharonZ says:

    From the article, ” I doubt I will see many of these reforms in my lifetime, but we need to begin talking about the future of liturgical reform.” Hopefully, none of the reforms Fr Reese suggests in his article will ever make their way into the liturgy in anyone’s lifetime. I pray that the TLM will become more available where I live. The closest TLM parish is over 200 miles away. I’ll be praying for Fr Reese and for all those who seem to have veered so far off the path.

  50. Joe in Canada says:

    Sportsfan – do you dig it, man? groovy!
    I was told 30 years ago by the liturgical director of the diocese that the most important thing that happens at Mass is the gathering of the people.

  51. Charivari Rob says:

    pcg, The Paulist Center?

    Cool! Haven’t been there in years.
    I’ve worked “in town” at one job or another for over twenty years now. Out of the 16 or so places that come to mind on my personal preference list for potential work day and/or Holy Day of Obligation Masses (including a couple of places I’ve been to for other things, but not Mass), they come in about 15th.
    I actually like the Paulists in general. Spotty memory has occasional advantages – it’s been so long since I was there that I can’t remember exactly what was “meh” about the experience – it means less energy spent dragging around a grudge.

  52. Sol says:

    This rag-piece by Fr. Reese has all the elements from the radical left’s playbook:

    1) The left harps on about supposedly wanting everyone to be free from all those “bad” things like the Church, family etc etc, and yet they sometimes show their true colors. They espouse totalitarian mentality with utter disregard for human reason and dignity. How it irks Fr. Reese that those “stupid faithful” have choice! Would that bishops could simply mandate which Mass to attend. How they long to have all the power, just like their commie predecessors.

    2) The Left’s desire to wrestle children from the arms of loving parents and their influence. We see this on so many levels, and now, too, in connection with the Liturgy – would that the people could be told which Mass they aren’t allowed to attend! Their condescending attitude towards the faithful in the pews is sickening – they think that people are sheep and can’t think for themselves.

    Imagine if this piece read like this:

    “After Summorum Pontificum reforms of the liturgy, it was presumed that the Novus Ordo Mass would fade away. Bishops were given the authority to suppress it in their dioceses, but some people clung to the old liturgy to the point of schism.

    The pope took away the bishops’ authority and mandated that any priest could celebrate the NOM whenever he pleased.

    It is time to return to bishops the authority over the Novus Ordo Liturgy in their dioceses. The church needs to be clear that it wants the bad liturgy to disappear and will only allow it out of pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change…”

    All jokes aside – I pity them, for they are like pharisees who did not understand that by fighting Jesus, they are fighting God himself. It’s similar with the TLM – this is of God, and so the Left cannot prevail. The sheer hubris of those who consider themselves God’s servants and who yet think they can fight God Himself and win is just astounding.

  53. albinus1 says:

    “Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”

    I’d love to know how exactly he proposes to enforce that. Bouncers checking IDs at the door of the vestibule, as if it were the entrance to a nightclub?

    As it happens, the TLM I attend is celebrated at the local college Catholic student center, which would probably make Fr R’s head explode.

  54. oledocfarmer says:

    As many know, St John Eudes pointed out that the worst chastisements Almighty God inflicted on the Children of Israel were those of ignorant, incompetent, just generally “bad” clergy. We should all remember that….such treasures in the Old Testament to guide our footsteps even today.

    In 1958, Pope Ven Pius XII sent Fr Arturo Fuentes, SJ [the bitter pre-Arrupe irony] to interview Sr Lucia. In that meeting, Sr Lucia was insistent about the imminent “great chastisement” that was to befall the Church. She kept mentioning 1960, 1960…

    Shall we simply connect a dot or two….

  55. jflare29 says:

    One thing came to mind as I read Fr Reese’ whole piece: How does this man succeed in holding priestly office? He clearly only vaguely believes what the Church teaches. Seems to me he’d be happier with a different occupation.

    Another matter comes to mind later though: I don’t think the Mass will be a lick more…poignant…by adding a number of Preface options, Introits, and whatnot. For one thing, …well, I actually found myself wondering if Fr Reese paid any heed to the overall Mass. If I look through my TLM and NO missals, both include snippets of reference to the day’s readings in the Introit, the Collect, the Offertory, and the Secret, or it’s NO equivalent. So does the Communion antiphon. That’s the point. We don’t need more variety in anything, it’s already there. Each of these parts presents a snip of something Proper to the day, and are therefore known as…Propers. I should’ve thought Fr Reese of all people would know that.
    For another, ..I’ve been to Mass in 6 languages. I have noticed that, especially when I’m traveling, I have all the greater need for something to be…normal. I don’t mind experiencing the new, the novel, the provocative, the different to some extent. Yet I still have need to return to “normal” matter sometime. Especially if I’ve had a rough day, I most need for the Church to be the sanctuary for the weary and troubled. Priests who insist on being “innovative” begin to be the Church pushing me away, precisely when I most need Her to pull me in. I need my chance to be with God. He will provide me with what I need far better than will a badly done circus clown.

  56. JonPatrick says:

    albinus1 they could simply rule that TLM’s be held at an inconvenient time such as 10 AM on a weekday so only retired people could go. Of course that wouldn’t stop homeschooling families, who likely make up a significant portion of TLM goers, as they could just work their schedule around the mass.

  57. scaron says:

    “The church might also allow Catholics’ spouses to share Communion if they share our faith in the Eucharist.” WOW. Just wow …

    I am a long-time RCIA instructor. One of the most fruitful channels of new Catholics is the spouses of current parishioners. These people usually wind up as some of the most faithful, most involved people in the parish. They often start that journey out of curiosity and love of their spouse. They nearly always end the process with an entirely new kind of love – of Christ and our Holy Mother Church. On Holy Saturday we had two such converts this year – both of them positively vibrating with excitement to receive the Holy Eucharist for the first time.

    Why would *anyone* want to turn off that beautiful display of the Lord’s grace?

  58. Pingback: The “trowel” and the “sword”.  That’s what is needed now. | Fr. Z's Blog

  59. robtbrown says:

    Consider:

    The liturgical changes were pushed for “pastoral” reasons–those in the pews would rejoice at the changes. Parish priests would busy themselves with instruction of enthusiasts intending to become Catholics. Seminaries and religious houses of formation, already filled, would need to build additions to accommodate the surge in vocations. It would be wonderful, all the thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    Well, it seems the Holy Spirit didn’t get the message. The opposite happened. And it was the provinces of the Jesuits (who had engineered the takeover by “the Holy Spirit”) that first felt the collapse. Their house in Hyde Park, NY, in which 100+ SJs (novitiate and juniorate) lived, didn’t even make it to 1970.

    Now it seems the tactics have changed. The likes of Fr Reese finally have realized that the “pastoral” project was a pastoral flop. And what does he recommend? Strong arming parents to prevent children from attending a TLM. I guess we should be grateful that he doesn’t (yet) think the solution is a gulag.

  60. teachermom24 says:

    “Children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses.”
    This sounds Marxist. Leave the old people alone, but we will control the young.

    Also, the whole thing seems in line with the anti-Latin movement in the Vatican. I wonder if he isn’t floating something of a “trial balloon” from the Vatican and we may soon see a suppression of the TLM. I pray God, no, but I can imagine it. The devil isn’t fooling around; he’s going for the jugular. The Latin Mass is the life of the Church.

  61. robtbrown says:

    scaron says,

    Why would *anyone* want to turn off that beautiful display of the Lord’s grace?

    They confuse ideology with Church doctrine.

  62. Iacobus Mil says:

    Let us all pray that the once-great Society of Jesus finds its St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila SOON.

  63. Semper Gumby says:

    robtbrown: “The liturgical changes were pushed for “pastoral” reasons–those in the pews would rejoice at the changes…It would be wonderful, all the thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Well, it seems the Holy Spirit didn’t get the message. The opposite happened.”

    Good point. Bugnini was probably a Freemason.

    “They confuse ideology with Church doctrine.”

    Indeed, some of them intentionally conflate ideology and Church doctrine. One of these days Fulton Sheen will be St. Fulton Sheen.

  64. Semper Gumby says:

    JustaSinner wrote: “But you can have all the education and STILL BE WRONG. And when there is active PERVERSION OF THE WORD OF OUR LORD, I don’t need Seminary and years of Post Seminary education to know it and fight it.”

    Good point.

  65. Semper Gumby says:

    Sol wrote: “This rag-piece by Fr. Reese has all the elements from the radical left’s playbook.”

    Good point.

    Back in the 1970s some journalist asked a Leftist nun who was griping about the Catholic Church, “Why don’t you leave the Church?” The nun replied “Because that’s where the Xerox machines are.”

  66. The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am that Father Reese included in this essay his absurd and extreme recommendation that people be banned from attending the Traditional Latin Mass. There is almost no chance of that happening — the pope would know what a ___-storm he would kick up, and to what end? Pope Francis, after all, following his predecessors, has tried to regularize relations with the Society of St. Pius X, and Fr. Reese’s advice would make a shipwreck of that effort. And of course, banning people from attending the TLM would be a huge recruiting tool for the SSPX and anyone else favoring the old Mass, including the sedevacantists. They would have a field day!

    What’s more, some number of priests, and perhaps bishops, would resist, either openly or on the sly; creating more problems.

    And how exactly do you even enforce such a ridiculous proposal? How old does someone have to be to be admitted? Can their children come? What if they needed a ride, or they need a caregiver? Who would be the altar servers? Will IDs be checked? Will there be a canonical penalty for someone entering Mass illicitly?

    Will it be a sin to stand outside church? How far away is OK? What about watching a TLM on TV or the Internet? The idea is a shamble.

    So why even include it?

  67. Pingback: The Jesuits Are At It Again – RETURN TO TRADITION

Comments are closed.