Monday, October 29, 2018



This is an interesting back and forth at Praytell:

Jack Wayne says:

I like how the document mentions adoration and popular piety being of value. I would also say that the continued use of the 1962 Missal is implicitly reaffirmed.

    1. I was gonna try and pick out a few quotes, but realized it was pretty much the whole thing…
      What do you think??????????


TJM said...

Here's all you need to know about "open-minded" Father Ruff who is heavily invested in the Liturgical Failure :

Dear Fr. Ruff,
I think this is a mistake. NLM, which of course takes a very different line, never deletes comments from people who disagree, even sharply, with the main points of the author. The only comments stifled are those that are personally insulting. I doubt if anyone reading my comment would consider it of this type. If you want PT to be an echo chamber that excludes reasoned critique of the liturgical reform, that is your prerogative, but it will increase your reputation as a one-sided progressive platform.
Best regards,
Peter Kwasniewski

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Of course he can delete and exclude whoever he wants and not accompany the rift raft in the liturgical revival. It does strike me as an insecure, narrow minded approach and rigid at that. Must have something to do with other issues unresolved as Pope Francis would complain!

Anonymous said...

Rift Raft? What is that, a cobbled together flotation device for crossing a large, flooded crevasse?

Try riff-raff.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Spot on. I find it amazing that Father Ruff would treat a highly respected scholar like Dr. Kwasniewski in that manner. Father Ruff is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Anonymous said...


Why did you delete your post about Megan Kelly and her alleged racism?

Anonymous said...

I wasn't around in 1962---tell me about the Missal of that year and why some want a return to that. Is it like the Episcopalians who prefer their 1928 Book of Common Prayer over the modern 1979 one in use?

Henry said...

Anon @ 3:30 pm,

I was around in 1962, but that may make me too old to answer you convincingly. Better for you to go to a typical TLM--ours has doubled in attendance in the last 2 years and the median age is well under 30--and ask one of the young folks there.

TJM said...


I am in your camp. However, I was tickled pink recently at the EF when a 10 year old boy chanted the responses back perfectly! I guess it's not "too hard!"

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."I wasn't around in 1962---tell me about the Missal of that year and why some want a return to that."

There are "traditionalists" who reject the 1962 A.D. Missal. Here are objections to the 1962 A.D. Missal:


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I was surprised to see my comment from PrayTell referenced here. I mostly intended it as a jab at Fr Ruff's belief the document reaffirms the liturgical reform - as if the EF can't embody characteristics such as being "fresh, authentic, and joyfull," "participatory," having a "mysterywealth" of rites and symbols, or any of the other characteristics mentioned. I was trying to point out that the document certainly didn't exclude the continued use of the old missal.

Jack Wayne

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Jack, I agree with you. I appreciate many of your comments there. I would have thought more would have reacted to it there.

John Nolan said...

The Missal of 1962 represents the last edition of the Roman Missal before the changes ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. It incorporates the re-classification of feasts authorized by John XXIII, and some minor rubrical changes, some of which were not universally adopted by the time it was effectively superseded by the decree 'Inter Oecumenici' of October 1964.

The 1962 Missal is in all essentials the same as that authorized by Pius V in 1570, which itself differs little from the earliest printed Missals of a century earlier. The only major change is the revised Ordo for Holy Week, authorized by Pius XII in 1955; this was controversial at the time and indeed remains so. Recently there has been a move to restore the pre-1955 rites.

Before the Novus Ordo of 1969, there was a succession of interim changes designed to pave the way for it. By 1967 many of the innovations associated with the Novus Ordo were already in place, and Gelineau, one of the fabricators of the new Mass, could boast that the Roman Rite had been destroyed.

It's not a question of 'returning to' the 1962 Missal; it's rather a question of using it, not for nostalgic reasons, but out of a conviction that it better represents the tradition of the Roman liturgy, its theology as well as its practice. There can be no return to the assumptions of the 1970s, since more recent liturgical scholarship has largely discredited them.

This is not lost on the diehards at PrayTell. Rita Ferrone had a recent post on liturgy and young people. One such commented on how his spiritual and musical life had been transformed by his discovery of the Tridentine Mass. La Ferrone thanked him for his comment, but did not argue with it.

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

Sedevacantists would reject the 1962 Missal since it was signed off by John XXIII, whom they regard as not a 'true pope'. You don't have to go to to a sedevacantist website to find those who have reservations about this Missal. The Bugnini-inspired Holy Week Ordo is a good example, but this is not the only one.

The insertion of St Joseph into the Canon of the Mass might appear a minor change, but as Dr Kwasniewski pointed out in his Oxford lecture last week, it had important ramifications. There is a story that the Franciscans petitioned Pius IX for this, only to be told 'I can't do that, I'm only the pope!' True or not, Pope John's tampering with the Roman Canon sent a clear signal to those modernists who wanted the Canon altered or replaced. It was no longer sacrosanct.

There may be some who deplore Pius X's 1913 reform which restored the balance between the Temporal and Sanctoral cycles, but I haven't met any. The same pope's revision of the Breviary has been less well received.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Where does the notion that the Roman Canon is, or should be, sacrosanct come from?

Henry said...

"Where does the notion that the Roman Canon is, or should be, sacrosanct come from?"

When? From apostolic times.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Jack, it is good to hear you again. I was banned from Praytell by Father Ruff over 5 years ago. I love your name because it is the same S rhe Hardy Boy's pilot, Jack Wayne, whose plane was "Sky Happy Sal." So, I used to imagine you flying in the plane. On the way to mass. Silly, I know.

qwikness said...

I like the images with all the fleur-de-lis and Sacre Coeurs. No French Republic flags. What and where is this? Vive Le Roy!

John Nolan said...


Annual youth pilgrimage walk from Paris to Chartres.


Your question merely draws attention to the fact that your liturgical sensibilities are still mired in the 1960s and are in effect atrophied. The assumptions about the Roman Canon made by liturgists in the first half of the 20th century were in fact erroneous. Perhaps you might make an effort to keep up with modern scholarship.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John, I ask again, "Where does the notion that the Roman Canon is, or should be, sacrosanct come from?"