Saturday, January 25, 2020


Crux has an interview with a liturgist. Yes, a liturgist. They have caused more problems in the post-Vatican II Church than any other group of people, especially liturgists who think they are smarter than anyone else. You can read the full interview HERE.

Read this response about the Extraordinary Form Mass and then read my comments at the end:

In 2007 Pope Benedict issued a document that carefully delimits when and where priests can celebrate the Mass according to the pre Vatican II Mass in Latin. One personal anecdote: I was in residence for a time in a downtown Washington church where the Tridentine Mass was celebrated every Sunday at nine o’clock followed by a catechetic program for the children. One day one of the people responsible for organizing the Mass asked me “when will you celebrate our Mass Father?” I replied that I would likely not because there were priests on staff who could do that better than I. Then he asked whether I would come for the catechesis. I asked what book were they using. He replied “The Baltimore Catechism.” I then realized that those children would not learn about the Church’s social justice teaching (from Leo XIII on) or the teachings of Vatican II. I declined.
Now let me distinguish two things - a Mass in Latin celebrated according to the Roman Missal published after Vatican II and a Mass in Latin celebrated according to the Mass approved after Trent. A Latin Mass in Latin is not the issue. The issue is whether it is the reformed Mass after Vatican II with the emphasis on participation, and the exercise of a variety of ministries in the liturgy. This is always preferred and Benedict XVI has called this “the ordinary form.” He calls the older version “the extraordinary form.” Some prefer the extraordinary form for a variety of reasons. But it needs to be said that the extraordinary form does not contain many of the theological advances approved and taught at Vatican II. Again, what we pray is what we believe. If some prefer the extraordinary rite, to what extent does that affect their understanding of church teaching and acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II?
My Comments: Please reflect on a few things on which he pontificates. He won’t celebrate the EF Mass because, he, unlike those who do, knows what Vatican II teaches and thus he simply can’t lower himself (humble himself) to celebrate it because it would make him look bad. (I wonder who those people are in his academic world who would denigrate him for doing so and maybe think less of him or mock him?)

Then he mocks the Baltimore Catechism and laments that children who use it won’t learn about the social teachings of the Church. Thus he can’t humble himself to visit children in a classroom after an EF Mass because they are using the Baltimore Catechism.

But does he speak of post Vatican II catechetical coloring book materials that don’t teach about transubstantiation, the Mass as sacrifice, the permanence of lawful marriage that is also a Sacrament, the need for frequent confession, the knowledge of sin, both original and actual and what distinguishes a venial sin from a mortal sin and let’s also ask about the devil, the eternal fires of hell, the need for reparation, penance, prayer and fasting and other ascetic practices.  In other words, why doesn’t he look down his nose on what Vatican II Catholics, especially children, don’t know. And let me tell you it is plenty especially a lack of knowledge of the Church’s social teachings! They don’t know the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, the foundation of the Church’s social teachings which in fact the Baltimore Catechism teaches so well!

I might also add, that the very people that he looks down his nose at are the very people who are young, having numerous children and take the post Vatican II mandate that parents are the first and primary teachers of their children in the ways of faith and that the home is to be the domestic Church in all that this means. My experience of EF families or those families open to both the EF and OF and home school as well, are much more likely to be involved in the religious formation of their children at home and in a lived way. He says not a word about this. It is scandalous

Finally, he laments the EF Mass because it doesn’t allow for the clericalization of the laity which Pope Francis so deplores. Remember that Pope Francis himself has implied that the danger of the Ordinary Form, not to be found in the extraordinary form, especially before Vatican II, is that the laity turn their gaze at being active at the altar’s formal ministries, is like second class want to be priests.The pope says not to allow this to happen. In the pre-Vatican II experience of the Mass, in the sanctuary you only had a first class priest at the altar and altar boys assisting him. This model could be used in the ordinary form too.

This is a paraphrase of His Holiness' actual words:

"Move the (laity) away from the altar… They are the custodians of service (in the world), not first-class altar boys or second-class priests,” (His Holiness) added.

But prior to Vatican II, the acting deacon and subdeacons were actually first class priests! There were no permanent deacons, wrongly called in the 1970’s, lay deacons, which is a misnomer.

Finally, when he says that Catholics who prefer the EF Mass don’t experience or want to experience what Vatican II’s new and improved vision for the liturgy entails, he lies. Most reject what Pope Paul VI’s committee on the manufacturing of a reformed liturgy came up with. Yes, it was authoritatively promulgated by Pope Paul, but it entails a skewed vision and abrupt disruption in the organic development of the liturgy. What Vatican II actually taught in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which by the way is a pastoral document not a dogmatic one, is very conservative. It asks for maintaining Latin but with some vernacular. It calls for noble simplicity presumably directed at the pontifical Masses. It says nothing about lay ministries, but does ask for actual participation both internally and externally. Actual participation does not mean clericalizing the laity by making them lector’s and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion,

And let’s talk about extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and making them the ordinary ministers of the distribution of Holy Communion, especially the unnecessary unsanitary common chalice? The reason why intinction, as the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal allows, is not allowed by bishops and priests is because it limits the need for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion because the normal minister can offer both forms together. It also curbs Communion in the hand, a mortal sin for so-called Vatican II clergy and laity. You don’t need multiple stations for the chalice and Host especially if people stand or kneel along an altar railing with the ordinary minister going to the communicant in an actual procession with our Lord.

My take from this interview is my resolve not to listen to narrow minded, pompous priests who are arrogant and way too much full of themselves and into clericalism which Pope Francis so decries.


John Nolan said...

I frequently attend a Mass in Latin (I shall be doing so tomorrow) according to the Missal of Paul VI. The level of 'participation' is not much greater than it would be if the Mass were in the Extraordinary Form. The people sing the Asperges, the responses, the Credo, the Pater Noster and after the Ite Missa Est a vernacular hymn. They do not sing the Kyriale since it is usually polyphonic, nor the Gregorian Propers since they are beyond the competence of most people. That's why we have choirs and scholas. They do recite the Confiteor and the Suscipiat, and the first reading is given by a lay person.

The sanctuary is not swarming with lay people exercising so-called ministries. To regard this as a necessary feature of the Novus Ordo is to assume too much. If papal liturgies are anything to go by, the main difference between Francis and Benedict is that Fancis's celebrations are duller due to vestment choice and a refusal to sing anything. Trying to read any more into it is mere wishful thinking.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Well said, Father! In the 1970's my parish priest, Henry Romanowski encouraged those in the parish who would listen to supplement the parish religious education with the Baltimore Catechism. My parents bought them through the Leaflet Missal store. I am grateful my parents do, because I actually learned the faith. Otherwise, religious education was a joke. I suppose, in part that is why out of my first communion class of 12 in June 1976, there are two lukewarm Catholics. And myself. The rest have fallen away, and most did so as teenagers in the 1980s

Anonymous said...

Father, you made a very good response. Your paragraph about intinction was especially right on focus!

One good trend is that parish "liturgy committees" seem to on a downward trend. Good! They were/are mostly staffed by well intentioned but poorly informed people. Felt banners do not a good liturgy make! I think they were just another way to "empower the laity." I think most clergy could improve the liturgy if they just read their Ordo and considered the sensible suggestions in it.

joe said...

I just realized that there are two electric light/candles with shades on the altar.
This is a first for me

joe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob said...

"does not incorporate the THEOLOGICAL ADVANCES" of the new Mass? The mark of a "progressive" right there...

As one theologian honestly remarked in a forward to a book of his, the reader would find no new major ideas, but only a collection and synthesis of what came before, as, in his words, "Those who strive to be original in theology inevitably stray into heresy."

And there surely were no advances to theology made in only changing up of a rite...nor were any changes of doctrine approved with the changing of the rite. His is a vacuous claim.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

WOW! You have great eyesight. I went back to look at it and I couldn't figure out what you were writing about. Then I saw it! Yes, I expanded the photo and indeed you are correct andthere are electric cords! I have never seen that either except in Rome where in an older church light bulbs were affixed on top of the six candlesticks and electrified.

The photo is 1922. Maybe a novelty or poor lighting in the Church?

Bob said...

To the idea and practice of intinction, I wish it were universal norm. I skip receiving under both species primarily due to the mass consumption at Mass from a common chalice which was unheard of until modern times....and exceptionally poorly thought out by the liturgists who proposed it.

Intinction is the OBVIOUS choice for large numbers of communicants receiving under both species, and if any communicable disease or public health organization were able to regulate what happens at Mass, it is precisely what they would rightly mandate for the public good.

The current practice is no different than restaurants able to reuse dirty cups, and mind boggling it not only was allowed, but mandated.

Anonymous said...

Bob at 7:44: Right on! Intinction would allow Communion under both species and do away with a lot of problems from Communion in the hand, and from a cup shared by dozens of other people.