Monday, June 21, 2021



Yes, Fr. Anthony makes some good liturgical points. He’s a Benedictine after all. But the bad points are so bad and so cliche that I wince for him when I read them. It’s as though he hasn’t reflected on the lived and unlived experience of the Mass in the years since July 7, 2007. It’s a time warped article. Press the title for the article. I have a quote below the title that will make you wince: 

The Bishops’ Document on Eucharist: A Teaching Moment 

Here are the winceable quotes:

The end point [of the reformed Mass]  is that worshipers are transformed to be the Body of Christ, to offer themselves to one another, to live sacrificial lives for the sake of the world, to be Christ’s presence in the world, to witness to the coming Kingdom which is already present in transformed lives of Christian disciples.

Only with this starting point and end point do Catholic teaching on the Real Presence and eucharist as sacrifice come into their own. Such teachings flesh out, at a second-order level of intellectual reflection, how to think correctly (and not say anything false) about transformation of bread and wine and about the relationship between Christ’s action on Calvary and in the Mass.

If one were to start instead with abstract doctrine, and to see the liturgy as merely a production machine to effect a liturgical sacrifice and the transformation of bread and wine, the form of the liturgy wouldn’t matter that much. But the Second Vatican Council saw a need to reform the liturgy so that it would better express the nature of the true Church (SC 2) and more readily draw participants into the mysteries celebrated. The form matters.

The liturgy is more sacrificial when the community participates actively, when the peace is exchanged before Communion, when Communion is offered under both forms, when the congregation sings during the reception of Communion. These better enable worshippers to share in Christ’s sacrifice by their communal piety, so that the liturgy embodies worshipers’ intention to give their lives in self-offering.

Then there is a comment where the one commenting points to what St. Pope Paul VI said about the reformed Mass which eviscerates  the 1970’s failed teachings Fr. Anthony writes and I post above:


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

As for the complete failure of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, which Fr. Ruff calls the reformed Mass, Cardinal Parolin preaching at an Ordinary From Mass in Mexico where the Ordinary Form as here is the Mass most offered, the good Cardinal offers a stinging criticism of those celebrating the reformed Mass in Mexico:

“Mexico needs to reconcile with itself, to meet again as brothers, to forgive each other, to unite as a society, overcoming polarization,” he said, calling for a country that “knows how to look at its history so as not to forget the great richness of its roots.”
The cardinal, who arrived on Thursday, said that believers must recognize that the encounter with Christ has been the “most valuable and transcendent gift for the peoples and cultures of this nation and the American continent,” and the way towards a better future is consolidating and deepening the faith.
“A deep faith, a convinced faith, a coherent faith, an operative faith, a faith that becomes a testimony of life, because we know that the separation and perhaps the contradiction between faith and life is one of the most serious scandals that Christians can give to the world,” Parolin said.

John Nolan said...

For the time being congregations in England are forbidden to sing at Mass (ridiculous, absurd, but nonetheless a fact).

Since the Mass I attend most Sundays is Solemn and in Latin, with a professional choir who deliver all the Gregorian Propers plus a polyphonic Ordinary, motets &c., one might think that this would not matter too much.

Yet I find being relegated to being a silent spectator irksome.

Tom Marcus said...

I am afraid this will probably unleash a firestorm of criticism, so I will begin with the caveat that I do not necessarily believe this--at least not without questions or reservations--but I found this one night about a year ago and I found it absolutely fascinating. I only share this here because of the comment from Paul VI.

Evidently, the exorcism of Annalise Michel, which was the basis for "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" was recorded and transcribed. A translation of the recordings in English is available in book form and several places on the internet. Evidently, the demons, being forced to speak to the exorcising priests, admitted several things that might shock most Catholics today. Among these claims was one demon taking "credit" for the implementation of Communion in the hand. But what intrigued me was the assertion by the demons that Paul VI (the pope at the time) would dump the New Mass and return to the older form, but there were forces in the Vatican that had him locked into a place where he was helpless.

Is this true? I don't know and make no definitive claims. But at some point--maybe it won't be until our last general judgment, we will discover the veracity of these claims. However, I would caution against reading this kind of stuff--just like many of the films that cover this side of the spiritual world, much of it is sensationalized and appeals to our more base instincts. My cousin refers to such stuff as "spiritual pornography". I tend to agree.

Tom Marcus said...

Your mention of other rites reminds me of a question I have meant to ask for some time.

How does a priest become "bi-ritual" (is that the term?)?

For instance, if you wanted faculties to offer the Byzantine Rite as well as the Latin Rite, what would you need to do? Can you request it for no specific reason, or do you have to have a tangible reason, such as being assigned to a Ruthenian community or something like that? What would be involved in getting such faculties/certification? What about the pope? Since he is the head of the entire Church, is he entitled to offer the Liturgy according to any of the approved rites?

Michael A said...

I'm not sure what you find interesting about Father Ruff's comments? Little of them ever have much substance which is the usual product of liberal theology - lots of water. His last comment about what creates a deeper belief in the Real Presence is the only thing I see that might approach a clear thought. But, do we actually get formed into the Body of Christ? I would want to hear from someone for whose theological instruction I have respect to teach me whether we are in fact formed into the Body of Christ. Maybe we become a part of the Body of Christ? Ruff should also accept the titles that Pope Benedict gave to the Ordinary Form and EF and leave it at that. His pride is revealed in his lust to insult a Sacred Liturgy that was practiced for centuries by thousands of great saints much smarter them him. I would never insult the Novus Ordo like he insults the EF, but what I do insult is the irreverent Ordinary Form Masses "presided over" by priests like Ruff. What percentage of Novus Ordo Masses are actually celebrated properly? It's a freighting thought. This is why we know that strict rules in religious practice are required to keep the devil from getting his nose under the tent. Once the devil gets his whole head under the tent you'll see "REFORMER" tattooed on his forehead.

rcg said...

Fr Ruff makes claims concerning the New Form in a way that imply that it is unique from the Old Form in what it does, not merely in how it does it. For example, “ The end point [of the reformed Mass] is that worshipers are transformed to be the Body of Christ, to offer themselves to one another, to live sacrificial lives for the sake of the world, to be Christ’s presence in the world, to witness to the coming Kingdom which is already present in transformed lives of Christian disciples.” Yet the EF ends with this, “Let us pray.
Grant, O Lord, that we who have been fed with the food of angels may lead angelic lives, and, following the example of him whom we honor today, may we spend our days in unceasing thanksgiving.” The Latin is passive, I believe, imploring. The end of the EF assumes we are humbled before our Lord and changed to asking for help and guidance to do His will. Aside from residual hubris in the New Form as explained by Fr Ruff, what is the difference?

Chip said...

You should read the priest commentator for CNN writing how taking Communion is only a matter of personal conscience if you would like to wince. Me, I flinched.

Pierre said...


Victor said...


The EF Mass and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy both have as their primary goal the theosis of the individual worshiper. When the worshiper becomes God-like, divinised, at the divine liturgy, there also flows from this the moral context of imitating Christ in one's daily life in the world which is what Fr Ruff seems to praise the most and find primary (eg social justice community stuff). To be divinised, however, is by hearing the silent voice of God in one's heart in contemplative prayer that through grace transforms the heart of the worshiper. Yes, despite the liturgical movement and Fr McD, even reciting the rosary to oneself at Mass is prayer which opens the heart to God's presence within onseself. God speaks to the worshiper in silence, as Cdl Sarah has noted, in prayer. The problem is that SC fails to distinguish properly between the sacrament, the Eucharist, and the liturgy that clothes the sacrament, verging on heresy when it implies that the liturgy itself is a source of grace, even seemingly treating it as an idol. But that is the direct influence of the liturgical movement which bordered on heresy in any case.
This is to say that active participation through tavern style singing of songs at Mass may be great for some, but what is much more important is the beauty that flows from heaven into the liturgy, such as in the music. It is through beauty that the worshiper becomes aware of God's presence, inviting Him into one's heart, where His beautiful silent voice is heard to move the soul to unite with Him. The liturgical movement's idea of a silent spectator at Mass as something always bad is pure nonsense. One does not sing along with the singers of Madame Butterfly to get more out of it, to be moved more with tears at the end. One silently gazes and listens to the beauty.

Prof. Kwasniewski's latest article in Cris Magazine is of some relevance here:

Chip said...

Well, Pierre, you can laugh, but many/most Democrats get their only idea of what is "catholic" thought and teaching from such soundbite news on CNN, and they have the House, Senate and Presidency.

And such priests and bishops who espouse such teachings also are the majority in those same major population centers, and have taught their flocks the same party line and flocks believe them, flocks also consisting of those politicians and their voters who put them there.

I am not laughing.

Chip said...

Victor, you get the unofficial gold star comment of the day award. I had struggled to come up with words much the same and had given up mainly as too much work for something read by so few, but you stepped up to the plate and hit a home run.

It is only the Body of Christ when the assembled believers allow Christ to be their all, individually. The scriptural meaning of "name" such as "wherever two or three are gathered in my name", is an intimate profound knowledge of a person. When scripture says God knows my name, it means he knows ALL about me. We are similarly required to know God in Jesus as intimately as possible.

Putting the gathering ahead of the person is putting the cart before the horse, and it goes nowhere or even backwards.

And I see I was not the only one totally put off by the arrogance of the priest statement saying the prior Mass form did not allow union with God. Too many saints from before any change testify otherwise, and likewise too few saints after the change also testify otherwise.

Anonymous said...


In my parish I look at the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood (BOB) and Invincible ignorance ( I.I) as being only hypothetical, they exist only in our mind - but for the Brazilian priests, Italian catechists and the parishioners, they are objective, known people, non Catholics, saved without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.So for every one else they become practical exceptions to the old teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation- but not for me.
The Athanasius Creed says all need Catholic faith for salvation and this Creed does not mention any exceptions but for the parish there are exceptions.There are exceptions since BOD, BOB and I.I are wrongly made into exceptions.So the parish has rejected the original Athanasius Creed and made it obsolete.This is approved by the bishop and the priests.
They have also changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed and rejected its original meaning.This is a sin of faith, it is a mortal sin of faith.
We are also obliged to believe in the First Commandment of Moses which says “I am the Lord your God you shall have no other God but me”.After the Coming of the Messiah and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus as prophesised by the Jewish prophets,God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Church is Jesus’ Mystical Body and it is like the Ark of Noah that saves all from the flood, that saves all from going to Hell.Outside the Church there is no salvation( AG 7,CCC 846).The Jews were waiting for the Messiah but he came and they did not know it. He will come again.
So only in the Catholic Church there is true worship(UR 3) and Catholics are the new people of God(NA 4), the new Chosen People.But when BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted with a false premise( invisible people are visible examples of salvation outside the Church,people saved in Heaven are also physically visible on earth) the dogma EENS is rejected. So the parish believes outside the Catholic Church there is salvation and so there is true worship in other religions,non Christian religions and among pagans too, like in the Amazon.
This is first class heresy.It is also schism with the past popes and the Magisterium over the centuries.It is a rupture with Catholic Tradition created by intepreting BOD, BOB and I.I with a false premise and then extending the error to LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.The parish would then claim that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition (Athanasius Creed,EENS etc).

So Catholic children are not taught in parish-Catechism that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics.
To be politically correct with the Left the Brazilian Joselitos Christo priests and the Italian Catechists,re-interpret the Creeds,Commandments, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Catechisms and Vatican Council II with a fake premise and create a fake rupture with Tradition.
They reject de fide teachings of the Catholic Church which cannot be changed and in which all need to believe in.They offer Holy Mass with this scandal and I have to go up to them to receive the Eucharist.
When the Comitato dell Immaculata, which oversees the parish property, permits all these non Catholic, doctrines and theology in the parish of Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti,Rome,they condone sin and are part of the problem.

John Nolan said...

The bit about congregational singing during the reception of Communion is in the GIRM (para.86) as a way of highlighting the 'communitarian' nature of the so-called communion procession. They even coined a Latin word for it - 'communitariam' (accusative case).

But what to sing? The preferred option (para 87) is of course the Antiphon from the Graduale Romanum, with or without the psalm verses. I can just see the congregation trooping forward, singing in unison and in Latin from their chant books, and then tucking them under their left arms in order to receive in the hand.

The least favoured option (a suitable song) would still require a hymn book to be carried. Waiting for everyone to receive and then return to his place before singing a non-liturgical hymn would appear to defeat the object of the exercise.