Tuesday, November 30, 2021


 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:


Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Canon entirely silent (reinforces sacrifice, transubstantiation, priesthood, continuity)"

Those are, it seems, some pretty amazing claims for wich there is little support.

How does "entirely silent" accomplish this "reinforcement?"

TJM said...

Fr. K,

Well we do know that the OF does a miserable job of instilling belief in the Real Presence. Does that bother you, at all?

TJM said...

Pope Benedict's statement from 1990 rings ever so true:

"The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)"

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Regarding the liturgy, Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms, Ratzinger's words ring true:

"Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject the reforms of our century wholesale."(The Spirit of the Liturgy 81).

TJM said...

Sorry, Charlie, Pope Benedict was referring to the OF. You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The text of my post at 2:58 refers to the changes in the liturgy and, indeed, the necessity of changes over time. "It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, itwas right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made it possible to recover thetradition of having the altar at the crossing, the meeting point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of theWord from the place for the properly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word isabout speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer andhearer does make sense. In the psalm the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes itinto himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response."

Ratzinger goes on to lament the loss of turning to the east in the canon, suggesting that this common orientation is "essential," a point o find debatable.

I am simply pointing out as Ratzinger did that simply replicating the past is not a solution to the struggles we face in the Church today.

John Nolan said...

The table published is factual; it doesn't explicitly denigrate anything. A Prayer Book Anglican would agree with Cranmer's changes; most modern Catholics would approve what is in the third column.

TJM and MJK should beware of using selective quotation; what appears to be contradictory is by no means so when put in context.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The table published, in making the comparison between Cranmer and the Novus Ordo, is a plain attempt at denigrating the reformed rite. It is meant to be understood as "The NO is Protestant, not Catholic."

Johnny Nolan should be aware that it is foolish to attempt to deny the obvious.

Jerome Merwick said...

"A plain attempt at denigrating the the 'reformed rite'"

"It is meat to be understood as..."

Father, before shouting "J'Accuse!" at the publishers of this chart, I have to ask: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

I have nothing but respect and veneration for your priesthood and your good service to the Church, but I believe it is a bit presumptuous to declare the MOTIVES behind this chart. Whoever compiled it, in my view, has done us a service, inasmuch that a point of comparison has been provided. Your response suggests we are not permitted to take even a cold, objective comparison between the rites or we are guilty of mortal sin as are those who provide us the means to do so. Now I haven't heard as many confessions as you--mine consisted mostly of listening to my children own up to certain misdeeds--but to complain that everyone who expresses dislike of the Novus Ordo is doing so from pridefulness?

No Father. That's not fair. Nor is it accurate.

rcg said...

Just had time to read the table. What is denigrated? Those same words I have heard used by NO priests to explain the differences. I think the contrast in the glorification of vertical versus the horizontal is possibly embarrassing.

Spoiler alert: the Old Form is dead. It is cut off from life support and will be silenced in the next year or two. Its return will depend on how the schism plays out. But as of now it is mortally wounded. I do not think the form, the Latin, alone distinguishes it or makes it valid, but rather its focus and content. The existence and fight for primacy by the New Form denounces all previous expressions of Catholic Faith. Even in its most devout expressions the New Mass abruptly divorces itself from the past and protests a new way. It is a distinct divergence carrying us what it claims is only milliradians away from the arc of the previous Mass but actually on an angle that, over a similar number millennia as the previous Mass, will carry us completely out of sight of our Goal.

TJM said...

Fr. K,

LOL - Pope Benedict took direct aim at the OF: "a fabrication, a banal product of the moment." That was the point of Summorum Pontificum, to have the EF liberated to show how bad Brand X is and hopefully fix Bsrand X to be more like the EF, you know, the Roman Rite that promotes belief in the Real Presence. Too bad Pope Benedict was not a dictator like Paul VI. If he had been, he could have shelved the OF and started the reform over again. And this time make changes that are for the good of the people, not the clergy.

TJM said...

Fr. K,

Johnny Nolan? Should we refer to you as Mikey Kavanaugh? Your puerile response does not change the fact that he appears to be your intellectual superior

TJM said...


The old form is dead? No way. The new form is dead, millions no longer come and the demographic sinkhole is gathering momentem. TC is the last gasp of the doubleknit dinosaurs. Commited Catholics are not going to allow an irascible old man deprive them of their religious patrimony.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Let me offer a couple of defenses of praying the Canon "silently" -- i.e., in a low voice (it is not prayed completely silently).

1. While there is certainly value in people knowing and hearing the words of the Canon, there is a mistake in thinking this is obviously or absolutely better. This reduces the liturgy to being about teaching, and also, to being about "comprehension."

The liturgy is a mystical reality, and one problem with the New Mass, I think, is to obscure this reality. And, of course, the criticism of the Traditional Latin Mass comes from the other pole: that there isn't enough comprehensibility, and for some people -- who either don't choose to use missals, or who for whatever reason this approach doesn't work for them -- this is valid.

I recall someone complaining once about using the Latin "Sanctus," saying, "I don't understand it." Setting aside the point that it isn't hard to figure out what the Latin words correspond to, the more fundamental question is, who actually understands what it means to call God "holy"? This is the peril of the vernacular. All the merits of the vernacular notwithstanding, it does lead us to think they understand more than they do.

Praying the canon silently does help put the brakes on immediately approaching the most central part of the Mass on a pedestrian level.

2. Another reason to pray the canon silently is for the benefit of the priest. As one who offers both the traditional Latin Mass and the new Mass -- and I do the latter 3 times every Sunday, and twice every Saturday -- I can say that all the talking in the Mass is wearying. I find offering the canon silently enhances my own prayer, and creates a real intimacy between me and the Lord, which is fitting at that moment, don't you think?

Thomas Garrett said...

The "old form" is immortal.

It's important for us to remember that popes don't live forever.

I cannot help but think of the late Fr. Malachi Martin's assessment of the SSPX as a "fishbone in the throats of modernists". We owe them thanks for preserving this rite during the insipid 70s and 80's.

We should also remember that those excommunications--if they were ever even valid--were LIFTED. Even before they were, no less than Cardinal Castrillon, one-time Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship--said that Catholics COULD attend Mass at an SSPX venue, so long as it was not with the intent to separate from the Church.

Bigger men than Jorge Bergoglio have tried to end the Mass. All failed.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jerome asks loudly: "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?"

Well, I KNOW THAT the same whay I knew without ever having anyone tell me, that C. S. Lewis' Narinia series was a retelling of the Christian story of salvation in Jesus Christ.

You see, we Catholics are not textual literalists. It's not "just" a chart anymore than a yellow badge with a star of David on it is "just" an image of an object we see in the night sky.

Fr. MARTIN Fox. Comprehension is, in my book, a very good goal, even if it is not the only goal of liturgy. Yesterday's reading from Romans contained the line, "And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" Now, I know this does not refer to the liturgical regulations of 2021, but I think it does encourage becoming as fully cognizant of the content of our faith as we can, insofar as that is possible on this side of the tombstone.

It seems the origins of the chart are with a website called "Whispers of Restoration" which many here would find all-too delicious. From that website: "Above all, we maintain that this restoration will rise or fall in direct proportion to the reclamation of right worship in the objective Catholic liturgical tradition." PLAINLY, this "Whispers" does not think the N.O. is an example of "right worship." So the chart is PLAINLY a denigration of the N.O. in favor of the E.F. If you agree with them, all well and good. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

TJM said...

Fr. “Mikey” Kavanaugh is a Mark Thomas retread.

TJM said...

Father Fox,

Have you noticed Father K NEVER addresses the fact that the OF is not doing its job of instilling belief in the Real Presence!

John Nolan said...

Who's the insolent cleric who's as dumb as dumb can be?

M.I.C. K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E!

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

This made me laugh. Thanks! I am sure Mikey is preparing his response to you in Latin!

TJM said...

John Nolan,

He’s working hard on his Latin response