IF ONLY; IF ONLY; IF ONLY!!!!

 If only the 1970 reformed Missal and the reform of the reform Roman Missals since that time all the way of to 2011 would have been celebrated in continuity with the Roman Missal of 1962, would we have had the liturgy wars that are still in progress now for 50 years. I doubt it.

Even if the Mass was entirely in the vernacular, but celebrated this way, what a missed opportunity.

We no longer offer the EF Mass at St. Anne's 6 pm Tuesday Mass. Instead it is the OF Mass but celebrated in Latin with EF sensibilities! This is for the Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle. See for yourself:

Nice!

 I think taller candlesticks and a larger tabernacle would have worked, but a great renovation!

St. Agnes Convent Chapel Renovation by Noble Interiors, Inc. 

by John Paul Sonnenon November 30, 2021Architecture

The beautiful Saint Agnes Convent in St. Paul, Minnesota was built under the pastorship of Fr. John Gruden from 1951-1953.  Fr. Gruden was an author and educator who put great faith in Catholic education and the immense contribution of resident teaching sisters in a parish …

IS IT KOSHER TO DENIGRATE THE NEW ORDER OF THE MASS OVER WHAT IT ELIMINATED FROM THE OLDER ORDER OF THE MASS? AND TO BE FAIR, IS IT KOSHER TO DENIGRATE THE OLDER ORDER OF THE MASS OVER WHAT IT INCLUDED BUT THE NEWER ORDER REMOVED?

 Is it wise in the Church to denigrate any validly and well-celebrated liturgy of the Church in the new order, the older order, or any of the rites of the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites? 

In my most humble option, no it is not wise, kosher or respectful. In fact, it is the mortal sin of pride to look down one’s nose at other Catholics’ preference for the liturgy by denigrating what is or isn’t in it. 

This photo is used to denigrate the newer order of the Roman Missal over the older order of the Roman Missal and to compare it to the post-reformation rite of “Mass” in England:

SOME CONCILIATORY SUGGESTIONS AT PRAYTELL ON MAKING THE MODERN MASS MORE TRADITIONAL

 

Deacon Fritz Bauerschmidt has a good, conciliatory article at Praytell. You can read the full article by pressing the title. Be low the title I will list the five things he appreciates about the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II with my comments in red:

What is a Post-Vatican-II-Mass?

November 29, 2021 Fritz Bauerschmidt

1. The elimination of “parallel liturgies” for priest and assembly: i.e. for the most part, everyone does everything at the same time.

I would agree with this. When I first started celebrating the EF Mass, I tried to implement this with the 1962 Roman Missal, but I soon discovered that with a silent canon, it was best to launch into the Sanctus myself and then immediately start the Canon as the choir is chanting the Sanctus—it makes the Mass shorter, but I agree that ending the “parallel” Mass, the priest’s and the choir’s was and is a good reform!

2. The celebration of the liturgy of the word at the chair and ambo, rather than the altar, as well as the integration of the homily as a feature of the liturgy itself.

Agreed. What we do at the Cathedral’s EF Mass is to have a lay lector read the Epistle and the Gospel too in the vernacular as the priest reads these at the altar in Latin. Again, this useless parallel liturgy. But, what the Cathedral has done is to introduce the lay lector at the EF Mass, although I am not entirely sure how kosher it is for a lay person to read the Gospel in the vernacular even as the priest does it in Latin at the altar (EF liturgical abuse????).

3. The audible recitation of the Canon.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Basically I agree that this was a good move, but as with all prayers of the priest in the OF Mass prayed facing the congregation, the Canon can become a proclamation, like Scripture, directed to the people. The silent or low voice Canon does add a sense of mystery, the holy of the holies, the rood screen, to this part of the Mass and truly is Sacred Silence before the Majesty of God. I think a lower voice for the canon, but audible, would be desirable or at least for the words of consecration. It should be noted, though, that the rubric for the Eucharistic Prayer in the first edition of the 1970 Roman Missal indicated the following:

“The Eucharistic Prayer may be said audibly.” Subsequent reforms of the reformed Missal eliminated this rubric. 

4. The communion of the priest and people integrated as a single liturgical action.

I think this was a wise reform too. Although in the modern Mass it is an integrated single liturgical action, nonetheless the priest still receives first in order to conclude the Sacrificial aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There is still a clear difference between the priest’s Communion and the laity’s which follows the priest’s. One of the greatest liturgical abuses of the Mass in the 1970’s was the priest receiving his Holy Communion after the laity had been “fed” theirs. It was called being hospitable. In my first assignment, I encouraged the communion minsters to eat the Host and drink from the chalice at the same time as the priest and I had it quite well choreographed. I was malformed by my 1970’s seminary about the significance of the priest’s Holy Communion, no?

5. The Universal Prayer, in which the faithful exercise their priestly role of offering prayer for the world, as an integral part of every Mass.

I think it is superfluous when the Roman Canon is prayed as the Canon has all the intercessions needed. Not so with the other Eucharistic Prayers, though. Nonetheless, I think the Universal Prayer needs to be codified in the Roman Missal (not the ones in the appendix, these are too wordy.) The made up ones are often a disaster, sometimes ideological and political or inane. But, the good Deacon Fritz should know that when a Deacon is present, the Deacon should pray these not a layman. I believe in the Maronite Rite, the Deacon is the one who prays the embedded intercessions in the canon, not the priest.

MY FIRST SUNDAY OF ADVENT BULLETIN LETTER ON THE LITURGY…

 Pastor’s Letter

Dear Parishioners,

Happy New Year. Yes, you read that correctly. Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of our Liturgical New Year. In our three-year cycle of Lectionary Readings for Sunday, we now begin year “C.” For daily Mass, it is Year 2. Did you know that if you attended Mass every day for three years, you would hear about 90% of the Bible read at Mass? 

Of course, apart from the Lectionary, there are Scriptures for the official Introit, Offertory, and Communion antiphons. So, there’s plenty of the Bible in our Catholic Mass revised after Vatican II. 

You might have to be a Church geek to know that since Vatican II, there have been many complaints about the way the revised Mass is celebrated compared to the older form. The so-called “new” Mass became mandatory in the new liturgical Year of Advent 1969. It was the new Roman Missal of 1970 that has had a few updates since that time, the most recent in 2011. 

The complaint is that the older Mass was/is celebrated in a more reverent way, with an ethos that instilled awe, wonder, and reverence among those participating, including the priest. It was celebrated in a more formal way, highly choreographed, and with rigid rubrics (directions) on how to celebrate it. The church building was to be used only for prayer, before, during, and after Mass, which meant no socializing, only prayer during Mass and before and after Mass, prayer before the tabernacle or any of the images of the saints. The Mass itself had a great deal of sacred silence. The Roman Canon (First Eucharistic Prayer) was offered by the priest in a hushed, almost silent, voice, as were many of the other prayers.

Vatican II never intended for the Mass to become casual, sloppy, or banal. The implementation of the “new” Mass, though, seemed to encourage these things, with the mentality that new and improved was better than old and stale. 

The greatest problem with the “new” Mass in my most humble opinion has to do with casualness, a loss of the sense of the sacred by the priest and congregation and inappropriate musical idioms dragged into the Mass based on passing musical fads young people enjoy. In my opinion, too, I think standing for Holy Communion, receiving in the hand and on the run has diminished the sense of awe and respect Catholics once had for Holy Communion, especially when they knelt at an altar railing and received on the tongue and from a bishop or priest. 

I often see people, especially children, unthinkingly receiving in the hand and not in the way the Church asks. When I think back to my childhood and up until I was in my very late teens, we knelt at the altar railing and received on the tongue. When we moved to standing and receiving in the hand and from a variety of laity, a sense of the sacred was lost. I experienced that firsthand, as I could compare the two ways of receiving Holy Communion, the old and the new. 

In this new liturgical year, I pray that each of us will rediscover the awe, wonder, and reverence that is due the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the appropriate and reverent way of receiving our Risen Lord’s glorified Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Perhaps we need to take another look at older traditions that helped to form all Catholics with a sense of wonder, awe, and reverence.

This coming Saturday at a special Mass at our Cathedral, Bishop Stephen Parkes is awarding the Gartland Award to parishioners throughout the diocese. This year Rosemary Brown and Eugene McKee are our two parishioners receiving this wonderful recognition. Both work closely in promoting wonder, awe, and respect for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Most Blessed Sacrament. God bless them and all who are receiving this award next Saturday. 

As we prepare for our celebration of the Nativity of our Lord, let us ask God for special graces of the renewal of our Catholic Faith in these challenging times. God bless you.

Your pastor,

Fr. Allan

IF YOU REACT TO REACTIONARIES, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A REACTIONARY? THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK WANTS TO KNOW AS WELL AS REACTIONARY MINDS!

 FEATURE

NOVEMBER 24, 2021

 BY MIKE LEWIS

The Godfather of Reactionary Priests

Today’s lineup of outspoken reactionary US Catholics priests with extremist, conspiratorial, and inflammatory messages (examples include Frs. Altman, Nix, Heilman, Pavone, Zuhlsdorf, Murray, Ripperger, Msgr. George Rutler, and Bishop Joseph Strickland), as well as their even more bombastic lay counterparts (Voris, Marshall, Parrott, Ruse, Arroyo, and many others) owe a great debt to...

AN EDITORIAL IN SUNDAY’S ISLAND PACKET NEWSPAPER ON HANUKKAH OR IS IT CHANUKAH?

 

Stop treating Hanukkah like it’s ‘the Jewish Christmas’

BY STEPHANIE BUTNICK,

LIEL LIEBOVITZ AND 
MARK OPPENHEIMER

SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON POST

Retailers everywhere are breaking out their best seasonal wares, whether it’s ugly Christmas sweaters or mammoth Rudolphs for your front lawn. Traditionally, we American Jews have looked at these rites of commerce with an air of bemusement, grateful that our wintertime holiday required nothing more complicated than a small and tasteful menorah. But lately, the ghost of Christmas commerce is haunting us, too.

On a recent trip to a large retailer, we spotted the following abominations: a festive tray featuring four minuscule bearded dudes, their hats decorated with dreidels, above the phrase “Rollin’ With My Gnomies”; a throw pillow, in the blue-and-white color scheme of the Israeli flag, stitched with the phrase “Oy to the World”; an assortment of elves, sporting Jewish stars and looking like they belonged more in a Brooklyn yeshiva than anywhere near the North Pole; and a set of three kitchen towels with the truly baffling wording, “Peace Love & Latkes.”

We have absolutely nothing against the practice of cultural appropriation. We’re guilty of it ourselves: Pick up any Jewish cookbook, and you’ll see traces of the spices and herbs we picked up from different parts of the world before once again getting expelled. We’ve also shared with the world our own cultural assets, like monotheism and Natalie Portman. Nothing makes us happier than, say, strolling through the airport in Boise and seeing a bagel shop with a distinctly Jewish name selling a jalapeño bacon bagel with reduced fat salsa schmear – it’s our gift to America. Y’all are welcome. But weird bagels are one thing. Hanukkah becoming Christmas is another.

The holiday we celebrate more or less around the same time as the Yuletide isn’t “the Jewish Christmas.” In terms of the holiest days on the Jewish calendar, it wouldn’t even crack the top five.Hanukkah, after all, is a commemoration of an ancient uprising by a band of bearded zealots, the Maccabees, who took arms not only against the oppressive Greeks – but also against their fellow Jews who happily assimilated into the cosmopolitan culture of the day. Sure, the holiday has taken on a few embellishments over the years, like eight nights of presents, concessions to make sure our kinderlach don’t feel left out when you-know-who comes sliding down the chimney. But at its core, Hanukkah is about celebrating our Jewish particularity, relishing our differences from the wider world. The commercialized Christmas creep, the repackaging of Hanukkah to fit the gingerbread cookie cutter mold, is precisely the sort of stuff those Maccabees were fighting. The entire point of Hanukkah is that it’s not Christmas.

These days, of course, commerce may not be the only motivation for merchants hawking Christmas-y Hanukkah wares. Some of the marketing (and the Hallmark movies) seems to be attempting a sort of cultural sensitivity, an inclusivity, the kind that leads people to say “Happy Holidays.” But what we Jews want is respect for particularity – yours, and ours. That’s why we’ll gladly wish you a “Merry Christmas,” and even partake in the occasional eggnog. We celebrate difference and appreciate public displays of religiosity. So wish us a “Happy Hanukkah” (if we’re being honest, “merry” does sound, well, goyish). Don’t assume we’ll be offended because we’re a minority. We love having our own thing. And we don’t suffer from stocking stuffer envy. We appreciate nothing more than someone taking a moment to learn about our tradition, so if you drop a line about the Maccabees or the miracle of the little tin of oil that lasted eight nights, we promise you a latke.

But most urgently, this plea: Enough with the Christmas-y looking Hanukkah swag. We beg of you. Keep the elves and the jollies and the funny caps. We don’t need them in our holiday. No Jew has ever gazed longingly at a 12-foot inflatable reindeer and wished she had an equally large Moses to display in front of her house. And if we want an outfit to wear on special occasions, all we have to do is reach into the closet and pull out our tallis, or prayer shawl. Unusual garments, we’ve got. 

So, friends, a very merry Christmas from us to you. And may this year bring us nothing more than an abundance of blessings and a dearth of hideous cheap tchotchkes.

WHAT IS GOOD LITURGY?

 I don’t particular care for that question or phrasing it that way. But it is what it is. 

I think many who comment here are a bit too harsh on Ordinary Form parishes and their Catholics.

There are many orthodox ordinary form parishes with wonderful faithful, prayerful Catholics. They have been formed properly in the post-Vatican II Church and have no desire for an all Latin Mass, although they might be open, if properly catechized, to ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion, but neither are pressing issues for them and their Catholic faith.

A good traditional vernacular Mass, facing the congregation and with standing for Holy Communion means the following.

1. There is attention to detail and the red is followed and the black is said or chanted.

2. Altar Servers and lector’s are properly prepared, properly dressed and are attentive in what they do.

3. The priest is well prepared and downplays his personality although there is room for personality and friendliness at the homily and announcement time which is after the Prayer after Holy Communion.

4. The music/chants can be eclectic. But the theology of the words must be Catholic and orthodox and the idiom of the music should be seen as sacred not has banal or secular or dripping with Protestant devotional sentimentality, like Amazing Grace and How Great Thou Art, to mention only two.

5. There is post-Vatican II reverence at Communion time. The laity sing or speak their parts robustly.

6. The sanctuary is uncluttered and the altar has the so-called Benedictine altar arrangement.

In your experience of “good liturgy” in the modern form, what do you appreciate? 

LET’S GET REAL FATHER Z; PROPOSE THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN; NOT THINGS THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY OR IN THE NEAR OR FAR FUTURE!

I think Fr. Z is well meaning, but his suggestions are part of the problem not the solution. We would like to see the Ordinary Form Mass improved but some of these suggestions will alienate about the 99% of Catholics who still attend Mass (about 5% to 20% of Catholics) and lead no where but to a further decline in attendance and more anger and alienation. 

We recovered the TLM of the 1962 Roman Missal and what happened, that’s all these people who celebrated wanted and they did not want to make the Ordinary Form better, they wanted it suppressed—a bad tactical move and truly an impossible probability! This may have led to Pope Francis putting a stop to this kind of thinking in the most severe and unfair way possible.

No altar girls? Yes, let’s alienate a bunch of Catholic parents with that one.

No lay readers, yes, throw mama under the bus and grandpa as well and see all the goodwill that will create. 

Try to impose Gregorian Chant, Polyphony and other Latin Motets or chants and see what the reaction will be when the vernacular hymns are ended and at funerals there is no allowance for “Here I am Lord; On Eagle’s Wings; Be not Afraid and O Danny Boy!”

These are Father Z’s suggestions, some good, some implausible given the nature of things today:

The “Eucharistic coherence” efforts promoted by the bishops are not bad in themselves but they are a little dreamy.  There’s nothing wrong with aiming at Eucharistic congresses, and so forth.  However, just as all politics is local so too must be all efforts to rekindle or indeed kindle for the first time faith in and devotion to the Eucharist.

What we need to do is:

• Recover the Traditional Latin Mass.
• Phase out Communion in the hand.
• Stress clear doctrine in the pulpit.
• Reclaim the Church’s great treasury of sacred music.
• Phase out altar girls.
• Return to ad orientem worship.
• Preach the need for the Sacrament of Penance and get priests into the box.
• Phase out lay readers, etc.
• Support bishops with the Faith and backbones.
• Re-institute Forty Hours Devotion.
• ?

LITURGICAL ABUSE IN THE ORDINARY FORM: IS IT STILL RAMPANT TODAY?

 

Defining liturgical abuse

Simply stated, a liturgical abuse occurs when the priest intentionally deviates from the norms of the Mass, substituting his private alterations for the liturgical norms and rubrics of the Mass, as set forth in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the GIRM). 

We all know about clown and puppet Masses. Children’s Masses seem just as prone today to liturgical abuse as in the 70’s.

But your normal Sunday Mass, just how many liturgical abuses are there today?

Let me tell you my anecdotal experiences.

I am way too critical of the Masses I attend where I am not vested liturgically, such as when I am on vacation and participate from the pew as an incognito priest.

I go crazy by what I see, not only how the sanctuary is arranged, but the shear sloppiness of the liturgy, especially poorly trained and sloppily dress altar servers who know nothing about how to carry themselves publicly. And don’t get me started on tennis shoes and flip flops under a baggy alb, tied with a rope and hooded making them look like KKK!

And then there are the celebrants who play to the congregation. They have long, sermon like, folksy introductions to the Penitential Act. Often there is an acknowledgement of visitors and a welcome to them. It completely destroys the trajectory of prayer begun with the Introit. It’s an intermission from prayer for the priest to act like an MC and bring all of the attention to himself. 

What is wrong with simply saying, after the Sign of the Cross and Greeting, “Brothers and Sisters, let us acknowledge our sins so as to prepare ourselves to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries”?  For many priests, it means they aren’t friendly, it isn’t about their abilities and their desire to be like an mc and begin the show like the late night comedians do!

And then there are the celebrants who have idiosyncratic styles to how they “proclaim” prayers to the Congregation, gesture to the us at the consecration in a dramatic way and show all their pious looks and powerful spirituality. Again, its all about them and their acting abilities, their performance. 

It need not be this way even when facing the congregation, although facing the congregation creates a greater need to be less me and more directed to God. Pope Francis’ style of celebrating Mass is blah, but it certainly isn’t about him in his style. Although he would be better ad orientem because he seems so blah, but there you have it, the problem with facing the congregation.

What liturgical abuses have you experienced at a Sunday Mass in the Ordinary Form and have there been any in the Extraordinary Form?

WHEN IS “RE-ENCHANTMENT” A BIT TOO MUCH?

 I prefer the traditional look of Catholic Churches and the renovations and wreckovations we have experienced since the 1970’s has been a colossal scandal of misused charitable contributions and destroying what previous generations gave, not to mention, destroying the architectural integrity of buildings which architects paid a great deal of attention to unity of sight lines, etc. 

Thus this renovation while nice seems a bit too much to me. Although the total interior is not shown, it strikes me as a more modern building with an antique look imposed upon it, a clash of styles if you will. I ask, why?

Before:

After:

And please notice the oscillating fans in the after look! What’s up with that? Maybe they could have spent less on some of the glitz so as to have money for a central HVAC!!!!!! Come on guys!

THE UNCLUTTERED SANCTUARY

 Magnificent noble simplicity:

TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE ACCOMMODATE THE “DISABILITIES” OF CATHOLICS DURING MASS?

We have tried to bend over backwards to accommodate those with celiac disease. We use a host for them that is low gluten, but for the validity of the sacrament, the host does have some gluten.

Some cannot tolerate even that and become ill if they consume any amount of glutton.

But another solution is to give them the Precious Blood only (which of course is the Risen Lord, whole and complete). 

But what about the serious alcoholic where this might catapult that person back to serious drinking?

Of course there is “mustum” which is wine that has its alcohol content  removed. It taste horrible, but many alcoholic priests use it. Do we provide this for the laity too? And if and when the common chalice is returned to the laity to quick start another epidemic/pandemic, do we as a matter of course offer mustum for alcoholic parishioners who want both forms of the One Christ?

Just how hospitable must we be to those who have health and addiction issues when it comes to bread and wine which then become Bread and Wine?

THE ABSURDITIES OF THE LITURGICAL LEFT AND THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA

Praytell is often a paradise of absurdities in logic and anti-intellectuallism cloaked in academia. It also worships the false gods of an ecumenical council, ecclesiology and reform as though these are gods.

The article linked below is a case in point. Fr. Anthony Ruff’s diagnosis of the multitude of “heterodox” Catholics who reject a pastoral council whose non-infallible reiterations are simply that, pastoral, and many of them time-constrained by the late 50’s/60’s mentality. 

A Catholic is bound to dogmatic teachings but not pastoral intuitions. 

I know Catholics in my parish and in our diocese who would be more than happy to see the 1970 Roman Missal abrogated. Could another pope do that? YES HIS HOLINESS CAN AND MIGHT VERY WELL DO. His Holiness might read Sacrosanctum Concilium through the actual eyes of the Church Fathers, not those who interpreted the Council Fathers for Pope Paul VI. He might return us to the older Missal with the minor adjustments the Council indicated. I’d be pleased with the rubrics in the the vernacular, the changing parts in the vernacular and the parts the people are expected or encouraged (not demanded) to chant to be chantable for them. But active participation through vocals is not a god and indicates nothing about a person’s inward disposition. Deaf mutes can be more faithful Catholics than those strapped with hearing and voices.

Fr. Anthony’s hysterical condensing towards Catholics who prefer the older books of the Catholic Church is pure nonsense. The Catholic Church is diverse liturgically in the East and West and even in the Latin Rite, prior to the Council, there were more pronounced differences in rites within the Latin Church that were all unified although some with some major differences.

My suggestion to the Holy Father is to do with traditional Roman Catholics what Pope Benedict did for former Anglicans. Give them an ORDINARIATE. The structure is already in place with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP). Give them a bishop, like Bishop Lopes of the ORDINARIATE. 

This would in fact enable some SSPX to return to a more “regular” association with the See of Peter.

Ecumenism begins at home. When progressive Catholics are nicer to Anglicans and Lutherans and Presbyterians compared to their own brothers and sisters who prefer the older liturgy books, the hypocrisy is palpable. 

Here is Fr. Anthony’s article with a link to an article by Max Faggioli (Maximum Beans). The comments to the article, if not removed by the same Fr. A, are quite good and point out the hypocrisy:

Faggioli on U.S. Traditionalism: A Response

November 24, 2021 Anthony Ruff, OSB 5_  Vatican II

At Commonweal in “Traditionalism, American-Style. A new kind of opposition to Rome,” Massimo Faggioli notes that the reaction to Traditionis custodes in the U.S. has been

“hostile (from those already militantly opposed to the pope) or lukewarm (from most of the U.S. bishops).”

A VOICE OF REASON AND CONCILIATION AS THE CARDINALS PREPARE FOR THE NEXT CONCLAVE

 This article in America is well worth the read. Cardinal Scola could have been Benedict XVII…but alas. But his words are words of reason and conciliation and truly Catholic. Press the title for the complete article. 

But for those progressive liturgists still counting the number of angels dancing a the head of a pin as it concerns actual participation in the reformed Mass, this is what Cardinal Scola has to say about the all more important actual participants of the Mass:

While “there are many beautiful experiences in the church in Europe, there is a real decline in true participation in the life of the church and a decline of the figure of Jesus among our people and especially a decline in their belonging to the Christian community,” Cardinal Scola said. 

Interview: Cardinal Scola condemns ‘harsh and insolent attacks’ against Pope Francis

Gerard O’ConnellNovember 23, 2021

I AM NOT CONVINCED ABOUT NOT MIXING RITES!

 

This idea of not mixing rites, is it law or just a pious opinion of whoever is saying this. I personally don’t believe the reformed rite is a different rite from which it came, it is the same rite, reformed. Thus I accept Pope Benedict’s more codified statement in SP that the older form and its reformed expression  are two expressions of the same one Roman Rite. 

If that is the case, then what is stopping any priest, apart from pious opinion of the pope or bishops or the CDW, from having a silent prayers at the foot of the altar in Latin as in the EF, while the Introit is chanted. What is stopping the use of the older offertory prayers prayed quietly? What is stopping the same genuflections and bows and kisses of the altar in the Roman Canon? 

What is stopping the triple “Lord, I am not worthy…?”  What is stopping the saying of the Last Gospel and in the vernacular for that matter? Inquiring minds want to know the canon law preventing this, not just something someone, no matter high up, has said.

As Fr. Fox reminds us, there are all kinds of changes, additions and free-lancing by more progressive priests when it comes to the Mass, they are indeed making a new rite and mixing the reformed expression of the one Roman Rite with their creativity in making another rite, even if individualistic, which goes with the culture of our day.

And don’t get me started on Protestant music as well as secular idioms dragged into the Mass, if that isn’t the mixing of alien rites with the Roman Rite, I don’t know what is!

And what about the Pachamama plant and bowl placed on St. Peter’s Papal altar at a papal Mass????????

So, this not mixing of the rites, canons please!

THIS IS A LEGITMATE QUESTION: CAN THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE NORMAL LATIN RITE USE THE ORDINARIATE’S CONFITEOR EITHER IN LATIN OR ENGLISH INSTEAD OF THE CLEARLY MINIMALIST SO-CALLED REFORMED VERSION OF THE SAME PRAYER?

 Inquiring minds want to know. And isn’t it a bit unfair that the Ordinariate’s Missal allows for EF options that are not allowed in the normal much reformed 2011 version of the 1970 Roman Missal?

It is unfair and makes no sense to me, at least:

The Confiteor of the Ministers

If the following is prayed at the foot of the altar, the People may join in saying the responses and praying the Confiteor, kneeling. If so, this form may replace the usual Penitential Rite.

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed; [they strike -x- their breast thrice] by my [x] fault, by my own [x] fault, by my own [x] most grievous fault. Wherefore I beg Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and thee, Father, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

A VATICAN II MOMENT OF A DIFFERENT KIND; IF ONLY WHAT SAINT ANNE’S WILL BE ABLE TO DO WITH THE LATEST INCARNATION OF THE 1970 ROMAN MISSAL IN ITS TYPICAL LATIN EDITION, THE ENTIRE CHURCH COULD HAVE DONE THAT INFAMOUS FIRST SUNDAY OF ADVENT, 1969!

 

Yesterday, Tuesday, November 23RD, was our last 6 pm EF Low Mass at Saint Anne’s. Our bishop is allowing this Mass in our Savannah Deanery only at the Cathedral and each Sunday to include Christmas Day. He will consider baptisms, weddings and funerals on an individual basis. 

I am the bishop’s delegate to the EF Communities in our diocese. We’re working out the details of what this means, but I hope to visit the various deaneries who celebrate this form of the Mass, especially the one at my former parish in Augusta, the Church of the Most Holy Trinity.

While our Low Mass on Tuesday is discontinued as an EF Mass, my bishop has allowed us to celebrate the latest reformed 1970 Roman Missal with an EF ethos.

I don’t think this was even thought of when the 1970 Roman Missal was rammed down the throats of parishes throughout the world in Advent of 1969. 

What does this mean for the 1970 Roman Missal at Saint Anne’s Low Tuesday night Mass?

The Mass is using the latest 2011 reformed version of the 1970 Roman Missal, its typical Latin edition. 

Thus the Mass is all in Latin, save the little bit of Greek and Hebrew. The Introductory Rite with the Penitential Act is at the foot of the altar and we will always use the Confiteor with its absolution then the priest ascends to the center of the altar for the Kyrie and Gloria when prescribed and then to the Epistle side for the Collect.

All sit for the Liturgy of the Word done in the vernacular as is normal for the OF Mass. At the Gospel Acclamation, the priest goes to the center of the altar for his private prayer, the Roman Missal is transferred to the Gospel side of the Altar and the priest goes to the ambo to proclaim the Gospel.

The priest will wear the beretta as is prescribed in the EF Mass. He will say the Introit at the Epistle side of the Altar after he enters and returns to the foot of the altar for the Introductory Rite as described above.

The Offertory Antiphon will be recited as in the EF Mass. Only the Roman Canon will be prayed. And the Communion Antiphon will be recited as in the EF Mass. 

As a postlude to the Mass, the Last Gospel will be read. The Leonine Prayers will be prayed as a postlude devotion. 

I wrote this comment on the Savannah Latin Mass Facebook Page on a post they wrote concerning Saint Anne’s last EF Tuesday Low Mass:

While our St. Anne Tuesday evening Mass at  6pm will not be the 1962 Roman Missal, it will be celebrated with a 1962 Roman Missal ethos and in Latin, ad orientem, kneeling for Holy Communion. But more importantly for our salvation and the salvation of the world, just like the 1962 Roman Missal, the One Sacrifice of Christ will be renewed at the altar in a gloriously risen and unbloody way and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord will be made present and offered to God the Father who will return His glorious Risen Son, Jesus Christ to us in Holy Communion. It doesn't get any better than that. Here is a video of a recent First Saturday Mass celebrated as our Tuesday Mass will be: https://fb.watch/9t2KxgonAh/

HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE DOES "FULLY CONSCIENCE" OR FULL AND CONSCIENCE ACTIVE OR IS IT ACTUAL PARTICIPATION MAKE? LITURGICAL MINDS WHO LIKE TO COUNT ANGELS DANCING ON THE HEAD OF NEEDLE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW!

WHO CARES ABOUT ACTUAL OR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF FULLY CONSCIOUS OR FULL, CONSCIENCE PARTICIPATION--LET'S JUST HAVE ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS AND REJOICE IN THAT!

And could it be that whatever scribe put the various documents of Vatican II into Latin did not do it accurately? Maybe the scribe had his own agenda? 

But Paul Inwood thinks there's some hanky panky going on at the English Vatican website at is concerns Sacrosanctum Concilium:

"The most common translation of that oh-so-familiar first paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium 14 runs as follows:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

I wonder how many have noticed that the version which has been on the Vatican website in recent years has a subtle difference:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

The bold type indicates the change, from “full, conscious and” to “fully conscious..."

 My comment:Who knows and who cares at this point in the so-called liturgical renewal. I'd be happy simply with actual participants at Mass even if they aren't actively participating. Do they have to be fully conscious? I doubt it some seem quite asleep to me!

THE MASS IN EITHER FORM AS A MATTER OF TASTE OF EITHER THE CELEBRANT, THE CONGREGATION OR THE MUSIC DIRECTOR

The 1962 Roman Missal allows for about four main options in its celebration: 1. The Low Mass; 2. The Chanted Mass (High Mass) with or without incense; 3. The Solemn High Mass, with deacon and subdeacon and highly choreographed; 4. The Solemn Sung Pontifical Mass with all the stops pulled out. 

Only at the principle Sunday Mass in a parish would the Asperges be celebrated as a prelude to the High Mass.

At a sung Mass, depending on the ability of the choir and the taste of the pastor, there could be simple or more complex Gregorian Chant and polyphony. Other more "concert" oriented Mass parts could be chanted, but normally the propers would be Gregorian Chant, plain or complex. 

With the Ordinary Form Mass, the distinctions between Low, High and Solemn High and Pontifical are nearly obliterated. Thus the tastes and desires of the celebrant, congregation and music director are far more intrusive. 

With the latest reformed 1970 Roman Missal and depending on the desires of the celebrant, you can have the first experience of Mass which I post below which indeed is an Ordinary Form Mass celebrated with an EF ethos in style and chant. I doubt many would know that it is not an EF Requiem. 

The second Video is our Christ the King Vigil Mass on Saturday. This is quite different than the Ordinary Form Requiem. I am able to chant and I do chant all my parts at all our Sunday Masses and have done this for so long that it is second nature to me. The congregational music selections are up to the Music Director. Only rarely would I ask her not to ever sing a particular piece again, although I have done that.

Her tastes are such, that she likes piano at Mass (I do too, but less so today than when I was younger). She likes more contemporary idioms, some a bit too 1970's for my tastes but are not objectionable for the Ordinary Form.

Thus you have it. The main problem with the OF is it is often a victim of personal tastes and preferences that go way beyond what would have been possible with the 1962 Roman Missal.

There is a bit of a multiple personality disorder at work in the Ordinary Form!

All Latin, Gregorian Chanted Ordinary Form Requiem Mass for All Souls:

 

All English, more contemporary vernacular music Ordinary Form Vigil Mass for Christ the King:

INANE AND TIRED ISN’T THE WORD FOR IT

The pandemic spreading post-Vatican II Mass. One liturgical scholar promotes improved way of celebrating this Mass in order to kill off the remaining Catholics who actually attend the new and improved Mass. I’m using her logic!

 Read this article and cringe:

Discerning the Lex Orandi

By Rita Ferrone | November 17, 2021

I think we have to demand more from so-called liturgical scholars who, for the most part, are responsible for the dismal state of the liturgy and Church today. 

Read the entire article for the so-many absurdities contained in it. But let me focus just on one silly absurdity.

Here is the quote:

Traditionalists have challenged this development. In 2001, in a book entitled The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, the Society of St. Pius X took aim at the paschal mystery as the very heart of what they reject in the reformed liturgy. For them, the Mass is about the expiation of sin through the sacrifice of Christ. The Resurrection really has nothing to do with it. 

My comments: This accusation is so silly and baseless as to make me cringe, but there you have it. The Mass as expiation for our sins through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross has nothing to do with the resurrection.

This is so silly; it is outrageous. It is like trying to decide which is more important, Christmas or Easter? My answer could be the absurd “neither” as the Annunciation and Incarnation are more important. If you focus on the resurrection of Christ without his Incarnation, what good it that? 

We all know the ideology of the SSPX, but they aren’t stupid. They know that the Expiation of our Sin at Calvary demands and implies they accept the incarnation and not only that, but the Virgin Birth and not only that, the Resurrection, but not only that, the Ascension, Pentecost, and wait for this, the Second Coming of Christ, the Last Judgment and the resurrection of the dead!

REASON 98789789787778798797979797 FOR EUCHARISTIC HETERODOXY AND DECLINE IN CATHOLIC ACTUAL PARTICIPATION

 It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why and the multitude of reasons of why, Catholics no longer attend Mass as they did in pre-Vatican II times and when they are faithful attendees, don’t believe what the Church teaches about the Most Holy Eucharist.

No amount of words written by astute bishops will change that. We know what needs to be changed but there isn’t a act of courage yet to bring it about out of fear of being called that nasty word, “restorationist.” It is the equivalent of being labeled “pre-Vatican II” and make no mistake about it, it is like the “N” word in being derogatory about faithful Catholics. 

BEFORE & AFTER:

MOSAIC GONE WRONG?

 This mosaic is beautiful but there is a fly in the ointment with the eyes and mouth on both the images of Baby Jesus and His and our Most Blessed Mother. Can it be corrected? I am sure it cost a pretty penny!