Friday, June 4, 2021



As everyone who reads my blog knows, I love both forms of the Mass when both forms are celebrated well. The EF Mass is sublime in its dignity, history/tradition and the reverence for the Almighty that it enables within both the clergy and laity. That is truly sublime.

But as you, who read my blog know, the ridiculous thing is that so many who attend the EF Mass, while appreciating its dignity, stability, predictability and reverence, define themselves not so much in terms of all of the positive attributes about being a Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite, but by that which they hate or despise both religious and political. 

They despise the OF Mass even when celebrated by the book with its options and the laity taking specific roles not allowed in the EF. 

They despise priests and bishops who promote the Church’s social teaching when that teaching challenges their political opinions and affiliations. Immigration, ecology and pastoral inclusivity which calls for conversion and reconciliation come to mind. Taking care of one’s body, property and the planet are not political issues but at the heart of Catholic morality!

There seems to be contempt for the Pope, bishops lower clergy and laity who might be a bit more progressive, prefer the Ordinary Form celebrated by the book with all its options and promote social justice and love for all people including the most heinous sinners, like those on death row. 

Anger is the fire in their belly and fear combined with that is their source of energy. 

A parish that celebrates both forms of the Mass well and there is interaction between the various Masses of the parish is the way to go. Social justice and inclusivity which enables repentance and conversion should not be the enemy of those who attend the EF Mass.

And more actual participation in both forms, meaning internal and external should be the common goal of both forms and enabled by the clergy and laity who celebrate both forms.

It really isn’t that difficult 

And finally, the most ridiculous and far fetched aspect of those who love the EF Mass, live delusional lives if they think the EF Missal will become the norm of the Church again and the OF suppressed by a future pope. IT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. The OF Mass may well be revised in a way I have described many times before to make it more like the EF Mass but the OF Mass will remain and it will remain the normative Mass of the Latin Rite. PERIOD!

And my second final point is that while many younger Catholics are attending the EF Mass and there is growth, the number attending the EF Mass is minute compared to the number of Catholics who still attend Mass. The EF Mass is not winning back fallen away Catholics. They, for the most part, despise the Church, her sexual teachings and Humanae vitae. That’s why they no longer practice the Faith not because of how poorly the OF Mass is celebrated. 


William said...

Father, sorrow rather than anger is the source of our angst. A faithful Catholic is his late 70s has suffered long, great abuse and you should be more understanding, more peaches and cream, more sweetness and light.

Pierre said...

I would be interested in Father McDonald's take on the personality of those who attend the OF. My own take is the majority go because it is their obligation, and that's about it. The typical OF is certainly not sublime or particularly uplifting. Unless the celebrant is in the mode of a Father McDonald. The standard OF runs the gamut from the boring and banal to the silly

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Pierre, prior to Vatican II with the extremely high percentage of Catholics who attended Sunday Mass, I would say that about 80% attended because it was Church law, an obligation that if not accomplished would be a mortal sin. And we must also remember that there were early Masses and most Sunday Masses in parishes with multiple Masses were Low Mass in order to get it over with. It was an obligation to be endured even then.

Today, as I have offered before, the EF attendees are a "bouquet" group who are very intentional about finding an EF Mass and attending it as regularly as possible. They normally prefer a sung Mass or a solemn Sung Mass, the majority of them, not the Low Mass that the majority of Catholics prior to the Council preferred.

And like charismatic communities of Catholics, this intentionality brings with it a great zeal and sometime fanaticism or to be more fair, and elitism.

Anonymous said...

Wow Father, you've almost jumped the shark with this post. There are so many distortedly broad characterizations and cartoonish stereotypes, not to mention the over-reliance on words like "hate" and "despise", I just have to ask: Are you using Mark Thomas as your ghostwriter?



Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

William, many EF adherents are converts and know nothing about the liturgy wars of the post-Vatican II period and the ridiculous and sacrilegious ways the "new" Mass was celebrated and how a grotesque iconoclasm of the Faith and our churches by those who were "spirit of Vatican II catholics" occurred causing great grief, consternation and even anger, a righteous anger.

Today, there are ideologies motivating some older and some younger adherents to the EF which are schismatic, such as outright rejection of an ecumenical council where the pope and bishops combined exercise an extraordinary magisterium. They reject too papal teaching post-Vatican II promoting the proper implementation of the revised Mass.

Everyone, though, has a right to personal tastes, but no Catholic is infallible in their opinions--that would be heretical and bordering on the Baptist mentality as it concerns each individual's interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Tom Marcus said...

Not sure what you mean by "bouguet" group, but I guess you could label me as part of a "crabgrass" group. I'd always prefer to attend the "extraordinary" form (for 1600 years it was normative--"extraordinary" is a man-made designation to justify its de-facto prohibition during the 70's). But I always prefer Low Mass. Why? I'll admit it--I'm LAZY! And I'll even admit this: My main reason for attendance is the fear of mortal sin. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the graces and benefits of attendance, but if you went to the list--well, who in his right mind wants to go to Hell?

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

You still have not addressed my question about the mindset of the typical OF Mass goer. For example, there is Susan from the Parish Council who will fly into rage if the priest at the OF uses ANY Latin. There are also people like me, who prefer the EF, but who cannot always attend the EF, who have little patience for the many liturgical abuses I typically see at the OF and I walk out of Mass angry. And then there are those who attend because it is an obligation. I see a "bouquet" attending the OF as well.

ByzRus said...

My experience with the EF has been peculiar. I felt "welcome" probably because I carried myself confidently and knew what to do. Did I find some of the groups particularly welcoming? No. I'm not talking about grinning greeters etc., it just felt like I was invading a closed society with many trying to out-Catholic each other. There was also a percentage that was just outright socially awkward when trying to interact politely on the way in/out. True, these folks have been through the mill and even more so, the priests that are brave enough to serve them but, I can't help but wonder if traditionalists aren't their own worst enemies in SOME, not all instances. Again, and to be fair, after so many years of mistreatment, the OF side, including clergy SHOULD expect mistrust, fear and any other behavior that characterizes a marginalized group. Despite having SP, the Church should examine its actions regarding normalization and integration seeing if they have truly treated the fringe in a welcoming/mainstream manner. Aren't all Catholics welcome in the "field hospital", or, just the ones that HH wishes to invite in?

Tom Marcus said...


I agree with a good bit of your observations, but your use of the word "fringe" got me thinking.

"Fringe" normally means "outside the mainstream:.

I think we've reached a point of fragmentation as both a Church and a society that there no longer IS a mainstream.

Anonymous said...

If Father McD were to post this over at Crisis in reply to a current article on possible attempts to suppress the TLM, he would be downvoted mecilessly and this blog post innundated here with hate mail.

And Crisis is NOT a flagship trad site.

And entirely proving the point Father is trying to make.

Pierre said...

Well, here's another take on how some traditionalists Catholics feel, and the statement has many truths woven in:

Bergoglio is planning to restrict access to the Traditional Rite? Surely not! This would be an act of "rigidity" and he who constantly fulminates against "rigid" Catholics would never do such a thing, lest he be accused of hypocrisy. And anyway, where's our "accompaniment"? We get to be accompanied too, right?.........stuck as we are in our Luddite world, slowly trudging towards Novus Ordo enlightenment. Are we not deemed worthy of the same pastoral care as those living in adulterous relationships, Pachamama devotees and homosexual activists? I think so!

Anonymous said...

Father 9:48

Vatican 2 history written by liberals is one thing, and the actual facts are something else. I recommend you read a very through analysis of the events, the documents of the council, and the major personalities involved in a book: Iota Unum by Romano Amerio. It came out during the Papacy of Benedict XVI.

Another worthy recorder of events, especially on how the OF was put together by the Bugnini group and Bugnini personally, is Louis Bouyer, Memoirs (Ignatius). He recalls the process as being throughly manipulated by Bugnini even lying to Pope Paul VI that the proposed draft reform was unanimously recommended by the group working on it.

Bugnini died a sad individual. Not as sad as the rest of us who inherited a badly put together affair, NO.

Anonymous said...

Well it seems to true about Francis killing Summorum Pontificum it's all over the place from Crisis Magazine to GLoria TV and Rorate, he is intent on crushing the TLM.

Anonymous said...

Francis may succeed--for a while. But, if the reports are true, he is trying to kill something that cannot be killed. He may enjoy success for a season, but that season will be short.

ByzRus said...

Interesting conversation here as well. Shawn Tribe's new FB page. I guess we wait and see if Benedict XVI will now be proven wrong in that the two forms of liturgy will be considered at odds with one another. Strange approach given the McCarrick/Germany problems within the Church - alienate a dedicated percentage of those who are left while force feeding them the mandates of a pastoral council.

Anonymous said...

As Father noted, so much reaction is ordered to rage, which is counterproductive, and feeds right into the hands of those against the old Mass.

The point being the Latin fan club lashes out at anybody and everybody not exactly on the same sheet of music, including lashing out at each other on a regular basis with "your traditional is not traditional enough, you heretic!"

Look at the infighting between 1961 Missal and any and every version between Trent and never stops. It shows ZERO sign of unity, only further division spiraling into a fracture every bit as multiphasic as anything the protestants can muster.

Again, it reminds me far more of sadducees and pharisees in-figting whioe they ignore Jesus amongst them, than anything else.

Folk are dreaming if they thing that today that bishops in Africa, Asia, South America, the Middle East, etc are going to side for a minority of Westerners and back them to bring back a Mass even westerners today cannot understand whatsoever without the translated missals which the west does have and which the majority of the rest of the world does not, and will not, until they are as wealthy as the west.

Milosz said...

I think Father wrote something extremely important.
Now we have a tendency to prise everything what happened before the V2.
The Liturgical Movement didn’t existed for itself. Even Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated the Mass according to the 1965 order. So he found it good enough.
When talking about the Church before the Council we are not impartial.
Suddenly, I think the Father was right saying that then like now most Mass-goers do so because they have to.


Pierre said...

Anonymous K at 4:50 PM,

It is fascinating that the lefties forget the scorn they heap on traditional (faithful) Catholics. It is human nature to fight back, particularly after being scorned and vilified by clergy who should be “accompanying” them and acting with charity. I just saw on the New Liturgical Movement’s website today the first Mass being offered by a newly ordained Benedictine. It was a Solemn EF which should be the case for rejoicing, not throwing a nutty like some bishops and priests do. I think the left needs to clean up their act before telling others how to behave. In 10 years there will be very few lefties left in the clergy and that is what the left is terrified about

Православный физик said...

A (relatively) outsider opinion

To some degree, the suspicion of those in the traditional movement is rightly justified. I can speak to my former time in the Archdiocese of LA, where prior to SP the TLM was placed in one of the far corners of the diocese very impractical for most people. The amount of coverup for abusers within the archdiocese as well makes many suspicious if their backs will be stabbed this time. To some degree the us against the world mentality can be understood.

At the same time, there are extreme elements that are a turn off for many towards the traditional movement. As I often hear many say, Love the EF, not so much the people. As others have said, sometimes it is a holier than thou attitude, or a great case of scrupolisity towards sinfulness.

A point that I keep bringing up, and I'll bring it up again, until Liturgy is relearned to be something that is received versus something that can be tampered with, nothing will change.

As your resident easterner (Orthodox) who occasionally comments here...The laxity in Liturgy is a scandal. When the politics of church matters, and the stress of whether the Liturgy that will be encountered will be a temptation for sin, that seems to be a problem. For many that have come east, their comments have been something to the degree, it is impossible to pray at the modern Liturgy...and to some degree even at the TLM. (For different reasons obviously)...

One day, Rome is either going to have to get itself together, or, what probably should actually happen, return more local usages that are actually in line with the tradition of things prior.

I can't think that any saint of the past would attend a Liturgy and recognize where they were. Which that there speaks to a problem much bigger than this post gets to.

My prayers that Pope Francis decides to not use that pen of his.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Father and others. This is something that really does need to be discussed. I have long had the feeling of "love the EF Mass, can't stand the EF attendees." They truly tend to be closed-minded to the point of being unapproachable.

It's sad, honestly. As truly faithful Catholics, they could do great things for Holy Mother Church if they weren't so hellbent on destroying Her.

Pierre said...

Anonymous at 9:26 PM,

Here is an example of the modern "closed" mind in academia. I think you should be worried far more about this, than your assumptions about EF attendees:

A New York City-based psychiatrist told an audience at the Yale School of Medicine in April that she had fantasies of “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way.”

Dr. Aruna Khilanani spewed the race-hating virtual remarks — in which she also said she’d walk away from the shooting “with a bounce in my step” and that white people “make my blood boil” and “are out of their minds and have been for a long time” — at the Ivy League institution’s Child Study Center on April 6.

It is beyond belief that an Ivy League school would invite such a person to speak. I guess today, that would have invited Adolph Hitler

Anonymous 2 said...

As is so often the case when biased media sources (on the Left or the Right) try to score political points rather then seek to report facts and discover the truth about a matter, the outrageous statement Dr. Khilanani is ripped out of context. Put into context, her outrageous remarks in no way illustrate the “closed” mind of academia—unless that closed mind is evidenced by Yale’s disapproval of her remarks and refusal to make them public due to that disapproval. Here are links to Yale’s statement and a Newsweek’s article about the matter:

Anonymous 3 said...

Anonymous 2,

LOL! “Newsweak” is not a credible source, hasn’t been for decades. That’s why it could be only sold for a dollar!

Anonymous said...

Father hits the nail on the head that suppression of the OF: "It ain't gonna happen." In the league with other things that ain't gonna happen--shall we list a few?
(1) Trump is going to be "reinstated" as president by this August;
(2) The Episcopal Church is going to stop ordaining women priests and bishops;
(3) Richmond Hill will have a nighttime temp in the 30s (Farenhait, not Celsius) in July;
(4) Atlanta will go an entire month without a murder or even a shooting (heck, we had a drive-by shooting in Buckhead today, just up the road from me---in broad daylight);
(5) Joe Biden is going to balance the federal budget in his first term; and
(6) a Republican is going to win the congressional seat held by the late John Lewis here in Atlanta---even though the district voted 86 percent for Biden last November. (Yes, 86 percent---twice the percentage Biden got in the 1st CD that includes Savannah and Richmond Hill.)

But, levity aside, there should be room for both rites. Each side needs to accept the validity of the other. I prefer the OF but don't view the EF as invalid or bad. The Eastern Orthodox can live with different rites and while the 1979 Prayer Book is the liturgical norm of the Episcopal Church, some bishops have sense enough to allow parishes to use the older 1928 form.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous 3 TJM:

I assume you are engaging in your usual tactic of distraction because as usual you have no response to the substantive point. Why are we not surprised?

Question It First said...

I've seen this "Trump says he's going to be reinstated..." story floated several times. Say what you like, but, personally, I find this to be fake news at its fakest. I don't believe he ever said such a thing and anyone with an IQ over 20 should be able to figure out that this is just the work of some very biased "journalists" to try to make Trump look bad now that people are starting to see Biden for what he is (and isn't).

Anonymous 3 said...

Anonymous 2,

Your sources are all leftwing, so why bother with someone living within the faculty lounge cocoon where reality is continuously denied? Like the view that abortion is healthcare?

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous 3 TJM:

Everyone understands your pathetic little game and what you are trying to do. And your signature mode of discourse betrays who you are every time, however hard you try to hide your identity. The substance is what matters, not the source it is in. You are clearly not interested in truth. As the famous saying has it: “You can’t handle the truth”; and so, you resort to distraction and ad hominem attacks.

If you are who you claim to be (which I doubt actually), you are a disgrace to the legal profession.

Anonymous 2 said...

I should probably be more charitable. You may be struggling with some type of distress or dysfunction. If so, please go get help. This will get you started:

I am serious about this.

Anonymous 2 said...

Question It First:

So, you don’t take the Trump reinstatement stories lying down. Or at least you have a pillow:

Anonymous 3 said...

Anonymous 2,

LOL - a person who hangs around a faculty lounge is far more likely to be unhinged from reality than someone who has actually practiced law at the highest levels of the profession. Maybe you should take your own advice and seek help. You disappear from this website for long periods then re-emerge. Lonely?

Anonymous 2 said...

No, busy. How about you?

Anonymous 2 said...

Oh, and don’t think we haven’t noticed—you still have not responded to the Yale Medical School statement disavowing Dr. Khilanani’s outrageous remarks and explaining that they originally refused to make her talk public, restricting it for internal consumption only, contrary to their usual practice (Yale only made the talk public when their hand was forced). In fact, you have done everything but respond to that statement and that context. What’s the problem—too much reality for you?

Now, perhaps there is a rational argument explaining away or countering Yale’s statement. But simply ignoring the statement is irrational because it ignores part of reality. But you don’t seem very interested in rational argument, or indeed reality, do you, just in hurling insults and spinning fabrications like your little tin god Trump. Odd that, in a lawyer who has practiced at the very highest levels of the profession. As I said before, if you really are not unwell, then you are a disgrace to the profession, however high a level you claim to have practiced at.

But if you really are the consummate lawyer you claim to be, then start acting like it and exhibit some professionalism. And yes, I am calling you out and calling you to account because the reputation of our profession is at stake. Being a good lawyer involves far more than technical knowledge and expertise, as you know or at least you should.

Question It First said...

Yeah, looked at your click-bait news story link. More boilerplate "He said..." stuff. Big whoop. There's still no real verification that TRUMP actually made such a claim, but no matter--so long as the media can make it LOOK like he did, we've got instant, made-to-order megalomania, sure to sell to the MSNBC/CNN low-information crowd and their self-righteous pundits. Enjoy spreading your rumors. Come back later when you have facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2,

What would you know about being a lawyer? All you do is hang around a faculty lounge with like minded folks who repeat the latest leftwing rants from the New York Times as if it is the Gospel truth. In the profession, we call law faculty "pretend lawyers."

As for Yale, do you think a person would have been invited there to give a talk about how they would like to shoot black people in the head?

Anonymous 3 said...

Anonymous 2,

The talk was “Psychotic Problem with the White Mind.” Why then not a talk about the “Psychotic Problem with the Black Mind?”

Anonymous 2 said...


I do not know what Trump said or didn’t say about reinstatement. We do know what his Fantasy land supporters such as Mike (He Probably Got It From Me) Lindell, General (Walk Back) Flynn, and Sidney (Should Be) Powell have said about the prospect because we can see and hear them saying it.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous TJM and Anonymous 3 TJM:

You’re right. You got me. I know nothing about being a lawyer. All I do is hang around the faculty lounge repeating left-wing rants. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

You pose an interesting question. I have now actually taken the trouble to listen to Khalanani’s entire talk. It turns out she was responding to a claim about black rage evidencing the psychotic black mind. Ironic, no?

Also, I must make a correction. I was wrong about Yale making the talk public under pressure. Although the original talk was open to the public, Yale did not make the video public even though I believe Khalanani wanted them to do so. Instead, an audio of the talk was made public by Katie Herzog on Substack in an interview with Khalanani. Here is a link to the interview and the talk (although the audio quality is not great):

Having heard the talk, I have revised my opinion of the matter. I too easily bought into the notion that Khalanani’s remarks should be condemned. And I now think Yale was cowardly in not making the talk public. This does not necessarily mean that I agree with what Khalanani said or how she said it. What it means is that both should be honestly and openly discussed.

The episode confirms me in my view, previously expressed on this Blog, that the only way forward is honest and candid conversation in which we truly listen to one another.

To be sure, Khalanani makes me uncomfortable. But I think that’s the point. The Old Testament prophets made the ancient Israelites uncomfortable too.

By the way, you might be interested to know that Khalanani is harder on “liberals” than on “conservatives,” whom she regards as more honest.

So, once again, the episode is not as simple as the biased media make it out to be.

Anonymous 3 said...

Anonymous 2,

The larger point is, if Blacks, not Whites, was the subject matter, the speaker would not have been allowed on campus and the New York Slimes would have gone into high dungeon.

FYI, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer without setting one foot into a law school, and by all accounts was an excellent and highly regarded lawyer. We should consider going back to that model. The price of a legal education is ridiculous particularly since law schools have morphed into leftwing indoctrination centers.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous 3:

I normally steer well clear of Hitler and Nazi analogies because they are typically a cheap shot. But I will use them in this case because it throws a point into sharp relief. (Of course, I am by no means suggesting that conditions in the contemporary Unites States approach those of Nazi Germany—at least not yet, and if we remain vigilant, hopefully never.) So, as a thought experiment, imagine two lectures in Nazi Germany, one titled “The Psychotic Problem with the Jewish Mind” and one titled “The Psychotic Problem with the Aryan Mind.” Do you see a difference?

Regarding Abraham Lincoln, yes, he practiced law in the populist and anti-elitist era of Jacksonian Democracy when many states eliminated any formal legal training (which, when it existed, overwhelmingly took the form of apprenticeship). Back then, of course, law was much less complex than it is nowadays. You could be armed with your copy of Blackstone (usually Tucker’s edition), Kent, and possibly Story’s treatises, study cases, and after being admitted to the Bar, hang out your shingle. But for every Lincoln, how many ill prepared lawyers were there? It is perhaps difficult to know. What we do know is that states later reinstated formal training requirements and over time the training moved predominantly (and then almost exclusively) into law schools.

I agree completely about the ridiculous cost of a legal education (and it is not because law schools, or more accurately universities) are paying law faculty huge salaries—at least not at my university. I don’t agree that we should return to the unregulated days of Jacksonian Democracy, but I do think serious reforms are required. For example, it is astounding to me coming from England where I was required to serve a pupillage before being permitted to practice as a barrister, that there is no formal apprenticeship requirement for lawyers, as there is in other countries and indeed in other professions in the States. That is why I am proud to supervise our legal externs at my law school and would make at least one semester’s of full time externship a requirement if I ruled the world (which of course I don’t).

Mark said...

To underscore the law faculty salary point: I now earn in real terms 67% more than I did when I started in 1980 despite being a full professor who has taught for 41 years and is now the second most senior faculty member. So, why the great increase in tuition, which was $4000 per year when I started? A 67% increase in $4000 would be $6,680? Go figure.

Anonymous 2 said...

I am not sure my previous comment posted properly, so here it is again:

To underscore the law faculty salary point: I now earn in real terms 67% more than I did when I started in 1980 despite being a full professor who has taught for 41 years and is now the second most senior faculty member. So, why the great increase in tuition, which was $4000 per year when I started—a 67% increase in $4000 would be $6,680? Go figure.

Anonymous 2 said...

Sorry, I omitted to do the tuition calculation in real terms (that is why I teach law, not mathematics). The real term 67% increase in tuition would be approximately $20,000.

Anonymous 2 said...

Actually, it is probably an even greater disparity because I was comparing my salary with tuition when I should be comparing the average, or possibly even staring salaries where they has likely been no, or at best very little, increase in real terms.

But again sums are not my strong suit.

Anonymous 2 said...

Nor, it seems today, is typing, given the typos in these posts!