RIGID, DOCTORS OF THE LAW PROGRESSIVES WHO THINK THE ANCIENT LATIN MASS ISN’T A TRUE MASS…

On another post…

Joseph Johnson said...

I agree with you, Father about what needs to be done with the post-conciliar Mass. The Mass needs to be re-regulated as to its rubrics and details, just as it was (and is) regulated in the 1962 Missal. If we are Roman Rite Catholics then our liturgy should carry through the characteristics and externals of the classical Roman Rite. This goes a long way to ensure a more uniform way of celebrating the Mass and its ethos and externals. People have a right to expect a dependable uniform style and way of praying (celebrating)the Mass that reinforces the way we believe.  

A lot of the problem today is not just a lack of uniformity but also the bald-faced statements by people like Massimo Faggioli (who, along with Andrea Grillo and Austin Iverleigh are perceived to have a lot of influence on the Church, despite the fact that they are laymen) who say things like the older form of Mass no longer being Catholic or no longer representing what we believe. They take the "lex orandi, lex credenda" maxim and turn it around on traditionalists saying that only the new Mass is Catholic and that we, somehow, no longer believe as we once did. I see that as undercutting the Church's legitimacy and Truth claim. Our Faith is "always and everywhere" not we used to believe one way in the past and now we believe something different. 

Just as some “Trads” think the Modern Vernacular or Latin Mass isn’t the true Mass and comes from a Church that isn’t the true Church, there are some progressives who think the Ancient Latin Mass is no longer a true Mass or represents in any way the true Church. Both sides of this coin are wrong, dead wrong and represent what Pope Francis calls a neo-Gnosticism or a neo-Pelagianism. Both are rigid too, which as we know from Pope Francis that rigidity hides something deeply wrong with the person, deeply wrong.

So let’s call out the doctors of the law, those rigid progressives, who think the Ancient Latin Mass isn’t a true Mass any longer.

1. They worship ecclesiology and what is called “active participation” of the laity. They worship the laity’s role in the Mass especially women’s role. They worship the order and intelligibility of the Mass and despise mystery or mysticism as well as contemplation, silence and order. 

2. They are rigid literalists too, Biblical fundamentalists as it concerns the Mass. They think it represents the Last Supper and the congregation the 12 Apostles. Thus a literalist approach to the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer has the “presider” physically gesturing toward the congregation, especially at the consecration and reading the prayer as though it is a speech to those in front of them. It is play acting. 

3. There is a focus on what the bread and wine look like, taste like and chews and drinks like. It is especially important that one loaf is used and then broken, a literalist approach to the Fraction Rite to make literal that though we are many we share the one loaf. Not that we are many who share the One Christ. 

4. Music too must be of the feely touchy variety that causes that soaring joy and a physical response from those listening or singing. The orthodoxy of the words is unimportant, what is important is feelings. 

What to do? What to do? Oh, what are we to do? Especially what are we truly liberal and flexible liturgists to do?