Here is the NcR’s description of His Excellency:
The U.S. Catholic bishops on Nov. 11 elected Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley as the new president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during the conference's annual fall plenary assembly.
In addition to his diocesan duties, Coakley is also the ecclesiastical adviser to the Napa Institute, a conservative-leaning organization that often showcases a blend of piety and right-wing politics at its annual summer conferences.
In 2018, Coakley was among several American bishops who expressed support for Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò after the former Vatican ambassador to the United States accused Pope Francis of covering up sexual abuse and called on the pope to resign.
Viganò has since been excommunicated. Coakley has not retracted his statement where he expressed his "deepest respect" for Viganò's "personal integrity." In that statement, Coakley also called for an investigation and a "purification" of the church.
Coakley has also served as chairman of Catholic Relief Services and on several bishops' conference committees.
MY COMMENTS:
Heterodox, what some call progressives, will rend their garments over Archbishop Coakley’s election as the new USCCB’s President because of his involvement with the Napa Institute and that he praised the now disgraced and excommunicated, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, once the Papal Nuncio to the USA.
However, Cardinal Parolin also spoke highly of Archbishop Vigano. Thus the heterodox should temper their outrage:
64 comments:
"Heterodox, what some call progressives, will rend their garments over Archbishop Coakley’s election as the new USCCB’s President..."
Silly comment, equating "heterodox" and "progressive."
Be that as it may, I will not be rending my garments. You see, I knew Paul in the seminary - he was two years ahead of my ordination class. He's a holy man, a serious leader, and well-qualified for the position to which he has been elected.
His association with the Napa institute isn't that big a deal, if you know anything about it. At their 2024 Summer Conference, a speaker, Mene Ukuerberuwa, praised the "social justice warriors" among the Catholic clergy and religious who, "...marched alongside civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and participated in demonstrations and protests. Their involvement was a testament to the Church’s dedication to racial equality and justice."
You, on the other hand, lamented their actions.
That will really cause the heterodox to rend their garments that he went to your pre-Vatican II seminary!
Once again, your ignorance shows. Mount Saint Mary's hasn't been "pre-Vatican Two" since, well, the end of Vatican Two. I went to school there - you visited a few times. You know little or nothing about the school, and your comment reveals that.
I can’t say I give Abp Vigano really any credence, I hold a slightly less-low opinion of him based on Card Parolin’s view of him.
Nick
Don’t shoot the messenger, this was the message of my seminary’s theologians when I was there in the 1970’s. The general consensus then and now is that your seminary is pre-Vatican II! Sorry the truth disturbs you. Take it up with your pre-Vatican II seminary!
Your "seminary's theologians"??? All this time you've been stating here how shallow, how bereft of substance, how misguided, and how "heterodox" your seminary "theologians" were. And now you expect us to believe that you stand by their every word?
It is to laugh.
I know the truth about your seminary causes you anguish and embarrassment. I am glad you can vent your psychological distress on my blog. That is very therapeutic so kudos to you. But you should also vent with your spiritual director too. Good help is always beneficial.
Gio Benitez, Openly Gay ABC News Weekend Anchor, Joins Catholic Church and Reaffirms Faith with Husband by His Side
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/gio-benitez-openly-gay-abc-news-weekend-anchor-joins-catholic-church-and-reaffirms-faith-with-husband-by-his-side/ar-AA1QeFY3?ocid=BingNewsSerp
K who votes for Abortion as Healthcare should be lecturing no one. He shoułd start his own blog!
You don't know any "truth" about my seminary - what you've stated here you made up out of whole cloth. You've been called on the carpet about this lie numerous times. It seems you're the one who needs to consult your spiritual director.
Oh, dear, this is 2025, no need for you to be embarrassed by your pre-Vatican II seminary. Celebrate it with pride.
Don’t shoot the messenger, this was the message of my seminary’s theologians when I was there in the 1970’s. The general consensus then and now is that your seminary is pre-Vatican II! Sorry the truth disturbs you. Take it up with your pre-Vatican II seminary!
I think that’s what Francis called the demon gossip!
Let the garment rending begin because of Archbishop Coakley’s pre-Vatican II seminary ethos! This is copied from the NcR:
Massimo Faggioli, a church historian and ecclesiology professor at Trinity College Dublin, told National Catholic Reporter that the bishops' vote in Baltimore was "the single most important election to an ecclesiastical position of leadership" since the conclave elected Pope Leo XIV in May.
"The election of Coakley as USCCB president seems to confirm that a certain rift or distance between Rome and the USCCB does exist, and it was not because of Pope Francis," said Faggioli, who has studied and written about the American hierarchy.
"It remains to be seen what kind of dynamic there will be in the next three years between the USCCB, Leo XIV and the American political situation," Faggioli said. "All of this is not just American Catholics' business, but has practical and symbolic consequences far beyond the jurisdiction of the USCCB."
And Sean Michael Winters of the NcR is rending his garments over the election of Archbishop Coakley’s pre-Vatican II seminary ethos and support of Archbishop Vigano, as, of course, I predicted! You can read Winter’s winters outlook on the pre-Vatican II seminary educated Archbishop Coakley at this link:
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/depressing-result-us-bishops-conference-presidential-election
I went to Mount Saint Mary's in the 80's. While I would not call it pre-Vatican II, it was very conservative, markedly orthodox, and opposed to the excesses of the "Spirit of Vatican II," a few on the faculty being exceptions. It tried to keep the Second Vatican Council and the Council of Trent in harmony. It would align with Pope Benedict's ideal of reform in continuity. I believe, however, that many progressive Catholics would indeed describe this as pre-Vatican II, it being opposed to their agenda.
Thanks Anthony for your sober evaluation. When you compare my seminary, St. Mary’s in Baltimore, with Mt. Saint Mary’s in Emmitsburg, Maryland, about 45 miles away and in a rural area near Gettysburg and during the time I was at St. Mary’s 1976-80, my liberal seminary was considered what Vatican II wanted, whereas Mt. St. Mary’s at that time was described as pre-Vatican II, stuck in a conservative, traditional mode. My seminary had world-renowned theologians of the progressive school of Vatican II where as Mt. St. Mary’s as you properly describe it was “conservative, markedly orthodox and opposed to the excesses of the “Spirit of Vatican II.” In 2025 and for the reasons you indicate, Mt. St. Mary’s in the 70’s and 80’s can be described as aligned with ope Benedict’s ideal of reform in continuity. I’ve tried to assure FRMJK that that isn’t a bad thing and that he should take pride in what his seminary tried to accomplish in him which he seems to have rejected. Sad.
I went to Mount Saint Mary's in the 80's - 1981 to 1985 to be precise. The Mount was neither "conservative" nor "progressive." It was Catholic. The faculty ran from the right to the center to the left. One of the more "conservative" professors, Dr. Germaine Grisez, one of our moral theology professors, was decidedly "progressive" in some areas. One of his public lectures concluded with the assertion that it is 100% immoral for any nation to possess - not to use, but just to possess - nuclear weapons. Msgr. Carroll Satterfield, systematics, gave us the scriptural, patristic, medieval, neo-scholastic, and contemporary basis for our doctrine.
Sure, some people would call it "pre-Vatican Two." But, the fact remains, it was not.
What is pre-Vatican II or not, then or now is in the eyes of the beholder! Thus is the Church post Council….
I have no interest in debating the qualities of this or that seminary--my alma mater's football team gives me enough to worry about in that regard--but I can't debate that "what is pre-Vatican II or not, then or now is in the eyes of the beholder[.]"
For example, some people thought the post-Vatican II period could see widespread co-existence of the "pre-Vatican II" liturgy with the liturgy of ~1965 modified pursuant to Sacrosanctum Concilium. Alas, this was not to be.
Nick
No, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, you are still wrong.
Beauty, being subjective, is in the eye of the beholder.
Facts are not subjective. Unless you are one of those who think the 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump, that Trump is a very stable genius, and/or that Trump has reduced drug prices by, in his own words, "...1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%."
The fact is that Mount Saint Mary's Seminary - a school I attended and you did not - was not, in the 80's, a "pre-Vatican Two" house of formation.
Vigano is still an obvious embarrassment. How on earth did Benedict promote him to such an important post?
Just look at the lasting damage he’s done!
We must distinguish between actually being pre-Vatican II and being accused of being pre-Vatican II. To celebrate the new Mass in Latin, ad orientem, kneeling for Communion, etc., is not only in harmony with Vatican II, it is authorized by the new Missal itself. It is therefore definitely not pre-Vatican II. But how many priests who have attempted to celebrate the Mass in that manner have unjustly been accused of being pre-Vatican II? It is this rigidity on the part of progressives in defining Vatican II that has led many to question the Council itself. They are just accepting the progressives' own understanding of the Council and rejecting it.
I could ask the same question of the 2013 conclave!
Nick
Anthony: "But how many priests who have attempted to celebrate the Mass in that manner have unjustly been accused of being pre-Vatican II?"
Those who celebrate in that manner may very well be pre-Vatican Two in their thinking and understanding of the nature and function of the liturgy. And I think many are.
They wrongly think that the changes in the liturgy caused the departure of tens of millions from regular mass attendance, that the changes caused many people to stop believing in the Real Presence, that the changes caused the collapse of many religious orders, etc etc.
This is all nonsense, but it's what they think.
So, their simple solution to a complex issue is "If we celebrate in Latin, celebrate ad orientem, kneel for communion, etc, then all will be well again."
That muddled thinking represents a pre-Vatican Two mentality regarding the Church in the Modern World.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Your argument might have some validity except for the fact that the desire to celebrate the new Mass in this manner is presented as prima facie evidence of a pre-Vatican II mentality. The clear implication is that these options in the new Mass itself are contrary to Vatican II.
As for the judgment that the radical changes in the liturgy did indeed cause a weakening of the faith, this is a question of prudential judgment, not a rejection of the Council. Your outright dismissal of that judgment as being pre-Vatican II is precisely the rigid thinking of progressives that use "Vatican II" to cut off all discussion concerning the wisdom of those changes and force what are only options in the new Mass upon everyone.
And what precisely is a pre-Vatican II mentality? Contrary to how the Council is often portrayed, it did not change any Catholic teachings and only called for modest changes in the liturgy. The term is often thrown out without any definition, often aimed at those whose only crime is to want to maintain Catholic teaching and traditional liturgical practices.
Anthony - It may be "prima facie" evidence of a pre-Vatican Two mindset, it may not. That's why I said it did not apply to all who use Latin, ad orientem, kneeling, etc.
Those who judge that the changes in the liturgy caused the attendance decline, lack of belief, the collapse of religious orders are, prima facie, wrong. It is imprudent to arrive at a cause and effect judgment where no evidence is presented. You call it "rigid thinking." I, and most people who think clearly, call it clear thinking.
If the evidence is there, present it. You will discover just how un-rigid my. thinking is.
A pre-Vatican Two mindset is 1) a clerical mindset. "Father" knows best, even if he doesn't. "Father" isn't questioned, because, well, he is the cleric and you are not. (It's similar to the attitude people had about doctors in those not-so-halcyon pre-Vatican Two days.) The pVT mindset is that people are passive observers at mass, not participants in the liturgy. The pVT mindset doesn't buy into the Church's teaching regarding ecumenical and interreligious relations. The SSPX, about a pRT as it gets, explicitly rejects the Church's teaching in these areas, calling ecumenism a "deadly trap." The pVT mindset is prone to conspiracy theories about the infamous "Six Protestant Ministers" who, they claim, had undo influence on the Council especially as concerns the liturgy.
In the extreme, those with a pVT mindset claim that Quo Primum is the last word on changes to the liturgy. This claim is based on a woeful misunderstanding of liturgical regulations and traditions.
Father Kavanaugh,
You are going to have to excuse my frankness, but I do not think that you are being honest. You are ignoring the experience of many conservative priests over the years. It does not even have to be the desire for an entirely traditional new Mass that is required to bring down the wrath of a pastor or bishop. Even the desire to pursue one or two of the more traditional options in the new Missal is enough. Too many times have I heard suppression of these legitimate options defended by "Vatican II, Vatican II, Vatican II." Too many priests have been marginalized because they had wanted to use one or more of traditional elements of the new Mass. You may not have recognized this because it has not affected you, but talk to more traditionally minded priests and you will find out that it is all too real.
As for the causes for the decline in religious observance since the Council, the evidence is too apparent. In contrast, look at the large number of vocations in traditional orders. Only the blind will not see. It has been recently reported that 75% of priestly vocations in the Diocese of Charlotte come from parishes that use the altar rail. The collapse of religious observance after Vatican II did not just happen by accident. In my traditional Latin Mass parish we alone have six men studying for the priesthood.
As for the mindset that "Father knows best," it is well and alive in the progressive wing of the Church. I have worked with a number of liberal pastors who gave lip service to empowering the laity, but who ran the parish with an iron grip. No opposition to their agenda was tolerated. The only laity that they surrounded themselves with were those who agreed with them. Those who were of a more conservative or traditional mindset were excluded as "rejecting Vatican II." There is a reason for the old joke, "What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?" Otherwise, a traditional form of the new Mass would have been fostered along with the more progressive form that is the rule today.
And to characterize those who want a traditional liturgy as seeing the laity as passive observers and not participants is false and highly insulting. It completely misses the experience that they have at the Mass. Participation does not have to be external to be real.
As for ecumenical and interreligious relationships, you are again confusing legitimate critiques of their implementation with rejection of Vatican II. The Council called for us to respect non-Catholics; it did not, however, call for practical indifferentism.
And please do not characterize the entire traditionalist movement with the SSPX. They are a small and isolated part of it. What you are doing is practicing guilt by association. The vast majority of traditionalist Catholics do not hold their extremist views. I too, if I wished, could point towards extremist elements in the liturgical reform movement to delegitimize the entire reform movement.
Anthony - You will excuse my frankness or not - that is up to you. I am aware of five "conservative" priests who were in seminary at the time I was who have faced disciplinary action from their bishops. These men were "conservative" in the sense that they preferred the "T"LM, opposed COVID restrictions, voiced partisan support in national elections, and would not, under the vow of obedience to their ordinaries, obey his directives.
The wrath of pastors and bishops often comes down when the "conservative" priest forgets that 1) he is not the pastor and 2) he is not the bishop. It often has little to do with Latin, Lace, and Kneeling Laity.
Another time this "wrath" comes down from a pastor or bishop is when the "conservative" priest wants to mix rites, injecting into the Novus Ordo various elements of the old rite such as making multiple little signs of the cross with the sacred species at various moments, resting the forearms on the altar mensa with speaking the words of institution, uncovering/covering/uncovering/covering/uncovering/covering, uncovering the chalice with the pall, refusing to all females to serve as "his" masses, etc.
No one is suggesting religious indifferentism. I have heard from "conservative" priests in my own diocese a disdain, not a legitimate critique, for ecumenical outreach. I have heard what almost amounts to misogynism regarding female clergy, including bishops, in other denominations.
And please do not characterize "conservative" clergy as victims of unfair or unjust treatment from the ecclesiastical superiors. Pastor and bishop don't want to have to waste their time dealing with some relatively recently ordained upstart who thinks he is God's gift to the Church and the source of redemption from all the terrible things done by the terrible priests in his diocese for the last 50 years.
As for the seminarians inspired to answer the call to priesthood by an Altar Rail....well, you can surmise how impressed I am by that. Let's see if they are still around in 5 or 10 years.
Thank you for illustrating the very rigid and intolerant authoritarianism that I mentioned. "I am the pastor and I don't like it, so you can't do it!" So much for the claim that "father knows best" is a sign of a pre-Vatican mentality. True authority is of service, not just pushing your own agenda. And while a parochial vicar may not be a pastor or a bishop, neither are pastors and bishops the pope. The Church in the new Mass has authorized options of a very traditional form of that Mass. It is an abuse of authority to suppress it or punish priests who would celebrate in such a manner. Contrary to the claim of some, parochial vicars have rights more than just a Christian burial.
And let us not pretend that all would be well for conservative priests if it were not for their extremism. The desire for a traditional form of the Mass itself is treated as if were extremist and unacceptable. There is no dialogue, no accommodation, just a blanket refusal to allow it.
I also find your elevation of obedience somewhat suspect. I remind you that Communion in the hand and altar girls were both brought about through disobedience before they were deemed acceptable. The same is true for the routine use of Special Ministers of Communion which persists to this day despite multiple instructions to discontinue it.
I would also bring your attention to the question of ad orientem worship. In a rescript the then Congregation of Worship stated that both orientations at the altar enjoy the favor of the law, and explicitly stated that a bishop could not forbid nor mandate either option. I have shown this letter to many bishops, and while they acknowledge its authenticity, to a man they all responded, "Not in my diocese."
Let us be honest, a traditional form of the new Mass has been suppressed for its own sake, and not because it is a sign of extremism or disobedience. Nor does this only affect some recently ordained upstart priests. Twenty years of ordination does not protect a priest.
As for those attracted to the priesthood because of the use of altar rails, you know very well that it goes deeper than that. The use of an altar rail in church is usually a sign of much more traditional and reverent (yes, I have used that word) form of celebration.
Is not 50 years of liturgical war enough? Is it not time to reach across to your fellow priests and accept the legitimacy of their desire for a more traditional form of celebration?
Anthony - A pastor exercising his rightful authority is not rigidity or authoritarianism. That includes the celebration of the liturgy in the parish to which he, the pastor, has been appointed by the bishop. A traddie priest has no authority to demand, for example, no altar girls or women lectors at "his" masses, a pastor is not obliged to acede.
The same goes for a bishop. A traddie can argue all he wants with his bishop behind closed doors. When the doors open, however, the bishop's decision stands, unless it is contrary to faith or morals. Liturgical regulations are rarely, if ever, move to the level of faith and/or morals.
Communion in the hand and the use of Extraordinary Ministers is allowed. "Disobedience" can be, at times, necessary and, ultimately, beneficial.
No, I don't know that there is more than the "use of altar rails" in the motivations of the. As I have stated above, the motivations of too many traddies is superficial, based on a false belief that re-creating the liturgy of the 40's will, almost by magic, re-create the Catholic ethos of that era.
"Reverence" is not a virtue limited to the manner in which a person receives communion. There were lots of Confederate slave owners who knelt to receive communion and lots of Nazi Catholics who did the same. How did their "more traditional and reverent" manner of receiving express itself after mass was over?
Lastly, the Novus Ordo masses I celebrate are traditional, as traditional as any "T"LM.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You cite a pastor exercising his rightful authority, but he does not have the authority to restrict what a pope has authorized. In particular on the question of altar girls, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in a letter dated July 27, 2001, stated:
In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See, such an authorization may not in any way exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar" (circular letter, 2).
And if a bishop cannot require a priest to use female altar servers, a fortiori neither can a simple priest. So yes, you are obliged to accede.
So, " 'Disobedience' can be, at times, necessary and, ultimately, beneficial." I see, obedience for thee but not for me. How convenient.
Thus, despite all your insistence on accepting Vatican II and being obedient, in the end your real complaint is that these priests do not agree with you.
And if you think that the motivations of "traddies" are superficial, then you do not know those motivations. You are just creating a straw man to justify your prejudices. And nice try at an ad hominem attack. There were many heroic Catholics, including saints and martyrs, before Vatican II and the introduction of the liturgical changes. Virtue was not an invention of Vatican II.
All that being said, I am afraid that you are standing against the tide. Polls have shown that priests are getting more conservative/traditional every decade. There are hardly any progressive priests left among the newly ordained. The day of the progressive/liberal church is coming to an end. Soon there will be no one to enforce it.
Bravo, Anthony. You nailed the guy who votes for intrinsic evil, hardly a “virtuous” act!
No, Anthony, my "complaint" is that making the liturgy look, sound, and smell like it did in the 40's - that can be the 1940's, the 1840's, the 1740's, or the 1640's - is not the remedy traddies think it is.
I disagree that that a traddie priest may overrule his pastor on the use/non-use of female altar servers. (Of course, when the pastor asks for the associate's transfer and the bishop has difficulty finding a pastor who will accept him, you will cry, "PERSECUTION!") In the same way he cannot change the furnishings in the sanctuary, such as placing six candles on the altar and removing the four candles standing at the sides of the altar when he celebrates mass, to suit his liturgical preferences. The same would hold true for the music chosen for the liturgies at the direction of the pastor, the style of pall used for funeral liturgies, or the placement of the creche during Christmas season.
If you are opposed to ad hominem attacks, why do you use them? You have accused me and others of "rigidity" and "intolerant authoritarianism." You have accused me and others of having a selective understanding of Vatican Two. You have accused me of dishonesty.
Polls are interesting things. Pew Research asked former Catholics for the reasons why they were no longer practicing. (Pew Research - Leaving Catholicism - Revised February 2011) Among the LEAST cited reasons was changes in the liturgy. That's one of the main reasons my "complaint" is as I stated above.
Or, regarding polls, you might just adopt the attitude of Sarah Palin: "Polls? Nah...they're for strippers and cross country skiers."
Fr. Kavanaugh,
First, you are belittling the reasons that some want a return to a more traditional style of worship, focusing on only on the externals as if all they were interested in was some sort of cosplaying. People are drawn to traditional forms of worship for deep spiritual reasons. You might not share them but they are real nonetheless. In any case, this form of worship is authorized by the Church. Why do you see the need to suppress it? You do not wish to worship in that manner? Fine. But why must you prevent others from doing so? Most parishes have multiple Masses on Sundays. Would it really kill you to set aside one of these for a traditional form? Would the walls of the church collapse? Where is your pastoral care for those who would wish to worship in such a manner? You cannot point to Vatican II or to the new Mass. So in the end, it does come down to the fact that you do not like it and so you will not allow it.
So you believe that a pastor who is a simple priest has more authority over the liturgy than the bishop? Rome has explicitly stated that a bishop cannot mandated altar girls, but you can? You cannot, or rather will not, make any accommodations for those who disagree with you? And yes, if a priest is removed from pastoral ministry just because he wants to utilize the options in the Missal approved by the Pope for a traditional form of the Mass, that is persecution.
In my home diocese there were 250 parishes, which translates into around 1000 Masses on Sunday. You cannot tell me that no accommodations can be for those who want a more traditional form of the Mass. This is the definition of intolerance.
As to the question of ad hominem attacks, I am characterizing your own actions. It is you who have made it plain that as a pastor "it is my way or the highway." Notice that I have never called for an elimination of more progressive forms of worship or that all Mass be in a traditional form. All I have asked for is a place at the table. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to discredit the entire traditionalist movement and justify suppressing traditional forms by appeals to the most extreme members or even making association with the Nazis. You thus avoid addressing the reasons we disagree on the nature of the liturgy.
Regarding a selective understanding of Vatican II, we disagree on its meaning. Your very use of the term "pre-Vatican II mentality" implies a rejection of Vatican II by traditionally minded Catholics. So yes, I do believe that you misunderstand the Council just as you believe that I do so.
Anthony: You say, "...you are belittling the reasons that some want a return to a more traditional style of worship..." No, I am saying that the basis for their desire to return is misguided. They have misdiagnosed the problem and are proposing a cure that will not be effective.
You say, "...People are drawn to traditional forms of worship for deep spiritual reasons." Well, they may be - or they may not be. They might have selfish reasons. They might be ideologues who would, in their own words, "Not cross the street to piss on a Novus Ordo church if it was on fire." (I've seen that posted here.) They might be agnostics but lovers of chant and have no regard for the deep mysteries being celebrated.
You say, "Would it really kill you to set aside one of these for a traditional form?" As I have said before, the Novus Ordo I celebrate is as traditional as any "T"LM. As the great historian of Christianity, Jaroslav Pelikan, has stated, "Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition is the living faith of the dead."
You say that I engage in ad hominem attacks by commenting on the behavior of others, including yourself. But when do it you can call it "characterizing your own actions" and then is it fine and dandy. Convenient that.
Not once did I associate traddies with Nazis. CLEARLY I was speaking to your point about kneeling being more reverent when receiving communion.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
If you think that traditionalist Catholics are motivated by a desire to use a traditional style liturgy to return to a lost past, you do not understand their motivation. Their motivation is not instrumental but rather the conviction that a traditional style of worship better reflects the Catholic faith and because of an appreciation of the tradition as an expression of our connection with the faith of past generations. In any case, it is clear the liturgical reforms have also not been the cure to what ails the Church. Should we abandon them then?
I see that you are still building theoretical straw men to disparage and deny the actual motivations of your fellow Catholics. Do you have the same skepticism for the motivations of the liturgical reformers?
You claim that the Novus Ordo that you celebrate is as traditional as any TLM. Is that so? Your Masses are celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian Chant, sung/recited propers, exclusive use of the Roman Canon, ad orientem, exclusive use of properly vested all-male ministers, no Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, Communion kneeling at the altar rail and on the tongue? I am glad to hear that. Then what are we arguing about?
Do you not see the difference between our styles of argumentation? I object to what you actually say. You bring up extremists and fringe elements to disparage all who desire a traditional form of worship.
Nice dodge on the Nazi attack. Who today wants to receive Communion while kneeling? Traditional and conservative Catholics. Why make the allusion to Nazis if you did not want to associate those wanting to kneel for Communion with the Nazis? There were plenty of Nazi Catholics who went to Mass; how else could they kneel for Communion? Should we also discount the value of the Mass?
In the end, why do you object to Catholics using options approved by the popes and included in the reformed Missal that allow for a more traditional form of worship? Why cannot a traditional form of the new Mass coexist with a more progressive form? Both are authorized. Why do you insist that others must worship only in the way that you prefer?
Your comment: "The use of an altar rail in church is usually a sign of much more traditional and reverent (yes, I have used that word) form of celebration."
My comment: ""Reverence" is not a virtue limited to the manner in which a person receives communion. There were lots of Confederate slave owners who knelt to receive communion and lots of Nazi Catholics who did the same. How did their "more traditional and reverent" manner of receiving express itself after mass was over?"
I dodged nothing. You read into my comment what is not there.
The comparison was about the effects of receiving communion in what you assert is a "more reverent" manner. Did this "more reverent" form of receiving communion lead them to a holier life? Did they reject the Nazi "final solution," or did they participate in, support, or otherwise enable the Holocaust? Did this "more reverent" manner of receiving communion lead Confederate slave owners to become abolitionists and conductors on the Underground Railroad?
No, I did not compare traditionalists to Nazis.
Nonsense. You knew exactly what you were doing. It is a continuation of your habit of trying to disparage all traditionalists by making allusions to the worst extremists. Your critique of Communion while kneeling could also be applied to Mass attendance itself and Christianity in general. Let me ask you, has Communion while standing and the other liturgical reforms produced the perfect Christian that you seem to demand from traditionalists? But the truth is, kneeling is more reverent. Kneeling is a universally recognized sign of reverence. Why do you object to it?
No, Anthony, I did not compare traddies with Nazis.
What's the good of being "more reverent" in receiving communion if, after mass, the communicant goes out and supports the Nazi "final solution?" What's the good effect brought about by being "more reverent" in receiving communion if the communicant goes out and enslaves more human beings?
I assert that value of reverence is not to be found during communion at mass and then, dissipates as the communicant walks out the doors of the church.
The truth is, "reverence" at mass is useless unless it is lived outside the church building. How many Mafiosos reverent knelt for communion then left the church to perpetrate terrible crimes? Now, I know you're going to complain that I have equated traddies with nazis and slave owners and mafia hit-men, but you'll be wrong again.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
What you were doing was equating support for kneeling with support for the Nazis. But why not say the same thing for the Mass itself? But as a fact, support for the Nazis was remarkably lower in Catholic areas of Germany than in Protestant areas. The old Mass has also produced countless saints over the centuries.
But why even bring this up? Have the liturgical reforms produced the perfect Christians? And why question the sincerity of traditionalist Catholics and not the same for those who attend your typical Novus Ordo Mass? Christian charity was not an invention of Vatican II. The truth, even if you do not admit it, is that those who attend the traditional Latin Mass show a markedly greater adherence to Catholic teachings than those who go to the Novus Ordo. And you have no cause to question their commitment to Christian charity.
Our Lord said blessed are the peacemakers. Will you not be one of them and put aside your animosity and accept that a traditional form of the new Mass is completely legitimate, and embrace traditionally minded Catholics as your brothers in Christ?
No, Anthony, I am not "equating support for kneeling with support for the Nazis."
I am pointing out that what you say is the "more reverent" form of receiving communion doesn't appear to have had much, if any, impact on the behavior of those who practice(d) it. So, I wonder, why is it desirable in terms of how it changes the lives of those who choose it. Or, more to the point, since it didn't change the lives of the Confederate slave owners, the Nazis, or the Miafiosi who practiced it, what is the effect of the "more reverent" form?
Liturgical reforms will never produce "perfect" Christians. Neither the "T"LM nor the NO can have that effect. The truth, even if you do not admit it, is that MANY who attend the "T"LM and MANY who attend the NO are exceptional members of their communities. They exhibit virtue in every aspect of their lives. They work tirelessly to build up the kingdom of God.
I bear no animus toward the "T"LM. I do question. (I do bear some animus toward those who refer to the "T"LM as "traditional" and who, by default, consider the NO non-traditional, but that's another argument.) To say I do bear such animus would be akin saying that I bear animus toward the Model T or the steam locomotive because I recognize that they are not best suited to transportation in our day and age.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You state: "Or, more to the point, since it didn't change the lives of the Confederate slave owners, the Nazis, or the Miafiosi who practiced it, what is the effect of the "more reverent" form?" But could you not say the same thing about the Mass itself? Why focus on only one aspect of it. And can you not say the same thing about the liturgical reforms and the evils of today?
What you have consistently done is point to extreme cases in an attempt to belittle traditional liturgical practices and those who prefer them. They are not perfect so they should not be allowed to worship as they wish and as the Church permits.
If, as you say, both the TLM and the NO produce good Catholics, why not allow both? But more to the point, if you review my postings in this thread, you will see that I am not advocating for the TLM but for a traditional form of the new Mass, one that you seem not to want to allow.
Yes, the new Mass could have a traditional form. That is what I have been advocating all along, and what you seem to oppose. But do not believe that is what you mean when you claim that the new Mass is just as traditional as the old. The novelties of the way the new Mass is typically celebrated go back no further than 60 years. How can this be considered traditional? You might argue that they are the more ancient (a proposition that is doubtful form most and outright false for others), but that does not make them traditional. Traditional is what has been handed down. These claimed more ancient practices stopped being handed down 1000 years ago.
And no, your position is more than you do not think that these older practices are not best suited in our day and age. You have expressed the desire to forbid them in your parish, even though they are approved by the Church. You have also consistently pointed to extreme elements in order to disparage those who prefer a traditional form of worship.
The conflict between us could end if you were just to acknowledge that a traditional form of the new Mass is authorized by the Church and is welcomed in your parish. Let the more modern form and the traditional form of the new Mass exist side by side.
Anthony - You may insert any non-extreme case you like into my argument if that makes you feel better.
Again, I have not belittled traditional practices nor those who prefer them. I have, as I said above, "To say I do bear such animus (or belittle) would be akin saying that I bear animus toward (or belittle) the Model T or the steam locomotive because I recognize that they are not best suited to transportation in our day and age."
The new mass is a traditional form of the mass. Your understanding of "traditional" needs broadening in my view. You use it in the sense of if some practice has been long-standing, that gives it lasting value. Maybe, maybe not.
Also, "what has been handed down" is the Truth that is proclaimed and celebrated each time mass is celebrated. Damask vestments, Latin, papal flabella, multiple covering/uncovering the chalice are not part of the Truth that is proclaimed and celebrated in the mass.
You said earlier: "Most parishes have multiple Masses on Sundays. Would it really kill you to set aside one of these for a traditional form?" There are four weekend masses celebrated here. Why would set aside one of them - 25% of the weekend liturgies - to celebrate a style of liturgy that no one here has ever requested? Pastoral judgment tells me that is wholly unnecessary and, for those who attended the one "set aside" who did not want to "T"LM, disruptive.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You can try to walk it back as much as you want but your postings have reeked with contempt. As for my understanding of "traditional," this is the common understanding. You are trying to shoehorn recent novelties into the term. These may, or may not, reflect the traditional Truth, but they are not in themselves traditional.
Of course no one has ever requested because you have made it clear that such requests would be met with hostility and denial. There has always been a section of the Church that has been upset with the liturgical changes. For 60 years they have been met with universal scorn. Today more and more, especially among younger adults, are being drawn to a more traditional form of worship; and this does not necessarily mean the old Mass. For many, if not most, it could be satisfied by a traditional form of the new Mass. It is not reasonable to think that they are not present in your slice of the Church. You do not see them because you do not want to see them. And if you want to play NIMBY, then it is incumbent on you to work with the bishop to find a home for them. But the first step is for you to acknowledge that such a form of the new Mass is, indeed, valid; then to look at those who desire it with charity.
The "victim" status you adopt would lead you to see my objections as contemptuous. They're not.
Every "traditional" element in liturgy was, at one time, novel. These can change - and have changed - through the ages. This is the traditional reality of the liturgy.
Every Traditional element in the liturgy is eternally true.
I have never indicated in any way in any parish in which I have served that I was "hostile" to the "T"LM. I have stated that I would not celebrate it and I explained why, as I have, in part, in this conversation, to you. I have always, in every parish in which I have served, celebrated the traditional form of the NO as given to us by the Church.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Yes, the liturgy has changed over time, but these changes have been minor and on the peripheries. The Roman Rite has shown remarkable stability for over a millennium and a half. It has never known the massive changes that happened after Vatican II. It is simply false to use the minor changes that occurred over the centuries as a precedent for what happened after the Council.
If you celebrate the new Mass with all the traditional elements that I noted above (Latin, Gregorian Chant, ad orientem, etc.) then I applaud you. But if what you mean by "the traditional form of the NO" is the typical way that it is celebrated in most parishes, then no, that is not the traditional form. You are just playing word games and trying to expand the meaning of "traditional" beyond recognition. The typical NO Mass may be authorized, it may be appropriate, it may be expressive of the faith, but it is not traditional.
And why do you keep going back to the TLM? I have not advocated that in this thread. Rather, all I have called for is acceptance of a traditional form of the new Mass as given to us by the Church.
Let us see if we can get down to the basics. Will you acknowledge that a traditional form of the new Mass, as I have outlined above, is legitimate, authorized by the Church, and faithful to Vatican II? Will you state, although you will not celebrate such a Mass in your parish, that you nevertheless respects those who wish to worship in such a manner and that the bishop should make provisions for priests and the laity to do so?
Anthony - I celebrate the new mass with the traditional elements - the Liturgy of the Word, the Liturgy of the Eucharist - according to the norms given in the Missal and General Instruction. That, alone, makes it a traditional mass.
As for expanding "tradition" beyond recognition - nonsense. The idea of "Tradition" - not the capital T - has a very specific meaning in Church usage. When people speak of the "traditional" mass there is a co-opting of that specific meaning. One might use "customary" or "conventional" or "classical" in its place.
When Latin was introduced, it was not traditional in the sense you want to use. Neither were Gregorian chant or ad orientem. That they remained a part of the liturgy for a very long times makes them historical.
Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc., are elements that can - and did - change over time.
Any mass authorized by the Church, including the Novus Ordo, is a traditional for of the mass. A bishop should do what he deems best in his particular diocese regarding "making provisions" for his flock.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
What complete nonsense. Tradition is what is handed down from past generations. This is what everyone, other than you, understands by the term. But let us put that aside. For the sake of discussion will you acknowledge that the new Mass celebrated with the "pre-Vatican II" elements (elements included in the new Missal) that I have laid out is legitimate, authorized by the Church, and faithful to Vatican II? This form of the Mass has been authorized by two popes. Why are you hostile to it and those who wish to celebrate in this manner?
What do you mean "faithful to Vatican Two?" Do you mean faithful also to the Concilium, a commission set up promptly by Pope Paul VI through the apostolic letter Sacram Liturgiam of Jan. 25, 1964, and called the Council (Consilium ) for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy?
I have explained to you previously while you are in error when I say I am "hostile" to the NO celebrated with "pre-Vatican II" elements. Yet, you continue to express this calumny.
As for you other questions, when you review this thread and answer the question I have put to you, I will consider offering you further answers.
Will you acknowledge that those who, in the 1980's, referred to Mount St. Mary's as "pre-Vatican Two" were wrong in their evaluation?
Will you acknowledge that I never, not once, equated traddies with Nazis?
Will you acknowledge that your "victim" mentality colors your perception of the NO, of me, and of all bishops who do not agree with your expectations?
Will you acknowledge that it would be an unwise choice for me, or any pastor, to devote 25% of the weekend masses in parish for a celebration that would live up to your expectations, especially when no one in his parish is requesting such?
No, I do not mean the Concilium. I mean Vatican II, the council itself. While I acknowledge the authority of Paul VI to set up the Concilium and promulgate the new Mass, this is not Vatican II. They went beyond the mandate given by the council, which called for a modification of the liturgy, not a complete rewrite. As for the Concilium and the new Mass, obviously the traditional/"pre-Vatican II" elements are faithful to it since they are included in the Missal itself.
Concerning hostility towards "pre-Vatican II" elements, you say one thing but your actions show another. Not only will you not celebrate Mass in this way yourself, you have indicated you will not let any priest under you do so or introduce elements that you do not like. You seem happy with the situation where a "pre-Vatican II" style of the new Mass is effectively suppressed in the Church today. You also have a habit of disparaging all those who want such a Mass by referring to the most extreme elements.
Oh yes, I agree whole heartedly that those who called Mount Saint Mary's "pre-Vatican II" were wrong. In fact I think that the whole category of "pre-Vatican II" is false, as when you speak of those with a "pre-Vatican II mindset." I do not think that Latin, Gregorian Chant, ad orientem, etc. are "pre-Vatican II." But you must admit that there are those who have claimed that the Mount was "pre-Vatican II" no matter how much they were wrong.
No, you did not equate "traddies" with Nazis but you did try to associate them with the Nazis. But why single out kneeling. Your same critique could be made of the Mass as a whole. And there are plenty of serious sinners among those who stand for Communion. Why reference the Nazis at all?
I do not have a "victim" mentality. I, as many other priests, have been subject to unjust actions because of my conservative/traditionalist leanings, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. This has been going on for 60 years. All that I ask is that it stop. Why will you not join me in that call?
No, I do not acknowledge that having a traditional form of the new Mass would be an unwise choice. There is a growing number of Catholics who would welcome it. Nor would have to be all-or-nothing. Traditional elements could be gradually introduced. They have found favor in many places where they have been introduced. You might be surprised how they would be welcomed at your parish.
I find it hypocritical for you hide behind "no one in the parish is requesting it." The laity did not request the multitude of changes that have been introduced over the past 60 years. They were forced upon the laity by clergy with an agenda. And while many welcomed them, this was not universal. There were plenty who were not pleased by them. They were universally dismissed as being "pre-Vatican II" and told that the Council required these changes when the new Mass itself did not. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who were disillusioned by these changes. How much turmoil could have be prevented if a traditional form of the new Mass had been allowed side by side with the more modern form?
And whether you like it or not, these are members of your parish and you have an obligation to care for them. If you truly think that their numbers do not justify a dedicating a regular Sunday Mass to their needs, then you have an obligation to work with the bishop to see that their needs are met. You cannot just blow them off because you do not like that form of the Mass.
Well, the Concilium was authorized by the pope. And what the Concilium presented was approved by the pope. So, who are you to reject that which the full authority of Holy Mother Church has approved?
The NO is not a "complete re-write" as you assert. The elements of the mass that are Traditional remain.
I choose not to drive a Model T Ford. Does that make me "hostile" to the Model T? No, that is nonsense.
No, I did not associate traddies with Nazis. I asked a question about the impact that kneeling for communion had on the way the Nazis (and slave owners and Mafiosi) lived their lives once mass was over.
Why would I gradually introduce elements of the pre-Vatican Two mass if they are not needed, if they do not serve the celebration of the liturgy?
Did any of the laity ask for Latin to be the language of the liturgy when it replaced Greek? Did the laity ask for the pope to wear a fanon? Did anyone among the laity ask for the so-called fiddleback chasuble which, by the way, St. Charles Borromeo decried as a violation of tradition(!), to replace the fuller cut chasuble? No. So this, "The laity did not request the multitude of changes" is nonsense. That's not how this works.
There are members of my parish - and probably many others - who would like no homilies at daily mass, who would like a weekend liturgy with no music, who would like no incense used - ever, who would like me to ban noisy babies from the church, who would like me to make the church warmer, who would like me to make the church cooler, who would like the US and Papal flags removed from the church, who would, well, you see, this is silliness. I have no obligation to see that these, and other "needs" are met.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You are putting words into my mouth. I said that I accept the authority of Pope Paul VI to establish the Concilium and to promulgate the new Mass. I am also very willing to use the new Missal. But I will turn the question around on you. All I have asked is that priests be able to use those options in the new Missal that many view as "pre-Vatican II" and have been effectively suppressed. Who are you to reject that which the full authority of Holy Mother Church has approved?
You are doing more than just choosing not to drive a Model T. Your are preventing anyone else from doing so. Give the priests under you the Mass schedule and the Missal, then step back. Stop micromanaging how they say the Mass and what options they choose.
Nor has standing for Communion eliminated the major sins of our day. So why bring up the question of Nazis?
Just because you do not like "pre-Vatican II" elements of the Mass does not mean that they are not needed. There more and more Catholics that feel a spiritual need for them. That is reason enough to allow them.
You are the one who brought up the question of no one in the parish requesting a more traditional Mass. But the Church has authorized these elements. Who are you to restrict them?
Again, you are showing disrespect for those attracted to a more traditional form of worship. This desire is not trivial nor silliness. Its suppression has led to much unnecessary conflict and divisions in the Church. Why not be a peacemaker and embrace them as your fellow Catholics? Where is your Christian charity?
Anthony - I have never suggested that priests cannot use the options in the new missal.
I'm not preventing anyone who thinks it is preferable to drive a Model T from doing so. I, however, and not going for that ride. Despite what you think, that does not mean I disrespect or am hostile to a Model T.
It wasn't a question about Nazis.
I don't agree that more Latin, Gregorian chant, or kneeling for communion is needed for a traditional celebration of the mass.
When all of the people who attend one (25%) of our weekend masses ask for the things you think they want, I'll think about doing so for that mass.
So, you then do not have a problem if a priest under you refuses to use altar girls? And what if he wanted to say Mass ad orientem? Gregorian Chant? Latin?
If said priest can tell me how celebrating the mass ad orientem, singing Gregorian chant, or using Latin can enhance the full, active (not "actual"), and conscious participation by the laity I might be convinced.
If he can tell me how excluding females from being altar servers does not violate the understanding of females as being, "...human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God's image...", how this does not violate the Church's teaching on the, "...essential equality of man and woman from the point of view of their humanity...."; how this does not, "...diminish the true dignity of the man..."; how this does not run contrary to the Church's teaching on, "... total equality with respect to the gifts of the Holy Spirit..."; then, I might consider it. (All quotes taken from Mulieris Dignitatem.)
If, on the other hand, he says, "Well, these are the "traditional liturgical practices, " or that these are part of a "traditional form of worship," or that these represent a "traditional mindset, " I would tell him a little story about traditions.
To wit:
"A young girl was watching her mother bake a ham for the Thanksgiving gathering and noticed her mom cutting off the ends before placing it in the oven.
“Mom, why do you cut the ends off before baking the ham?” she asked.
“I think it helps soak up the juices while it’s baking. I’m not sure, though. That’s just the way your grandma always did it, so I’ve just always cut them off. Why don’t you call grandma and ask her?”
The little girl called her grandma and asked “Grandma, mom is making a ham and cut off the ends before placing it in the oven. She said that it’s probably to help soak up the juices but wasn’t sure. She said you’d know because she learned how to cook from you.”
“That’s true. I do cut off the ends of the ham before baking. But I’m not sure why either. I learned how to cook from my mom. You should ask her.”
So, the inquisitive little girl called her great grandmother and asked “Great grandma, mom and grandma said they learned how to cook a ham from watching you. Do you cut off the ends of the ham to help it soak up the juices?”
The great grandmother chuckled. “Oh, no sweetie. I just never had a pan big enough to hold a whole ham, so I always had to cut off the ends to make it fit.”
I would love to have a prolonged discussion on these issues. There has been plenty written to defend traditional Catholic beliefs and practices, if you were inclined to read them. So you can put away your snide remark that they are only supported because of an ignorant traditionalism. But I doubt you would be convinced in any case. But in the end it is not your call. These practices are approved by the Church and, even as a pastor, you have no right to prevent another priest from using them. So you claim that you have never suggested that priests cannot use the options in the new missal turns out to be rather hollow.
Anthony - There are some liturgical practices the origins of which are, as they say, lost in the mists of time.
There are many practices whose origins are well-understood. These are the essentials. And then there are externals, the non-essentials. These essentials, which express, or you might say symbolize, our dogmatic/doctrinal understanding of the significance and the singularity of the eucharistic liturgy form the framework, the skeleton which gives meaning to the “externals.” They are the doctrinal and liturgical DNA – the genotype - that passes from generation to generation.
There are others that are the result of cultural realities and influences. These are analogous to the phenotype, the visible expression of the essentials. Many traditionalists want to say that that these culturally conditioned visible expressions from pre-Vatican Two times must be restored and maintained. It sounds something like, “To look like a Catholic church, the style and architecture of the building has to be Italianate or Gothic or Romanesque. It has to have stained glass and/or several statues of Saints and/or pews arranged in a classical pattern, all facing the same way. The organ console and pipes have to be in a choir loft.” Or, “To sound like a Catholic mass, Latin should be used, Gregorian chant should be used, and bells should ring three times at the elevations.” (more...)
(cont'd)
When, however, the externals are considered to have consequence in and of themselves, then some transference of significance has taken place, then those lesser elements are viewed with inappropriate solemnity.
We don’t maintain liturgical traditions for the sake of maintaining traditions, no matter how long they have been around. Following the Protestant Reformation, our Church adopted the stance that most everything the Protestants complained about in the Church was perfect or nearly so. From Latin to laity, from Saints to symbolism, from Dogma to daily mass, we had it all right and the Protestants had to all wrong. The Reformation caused us to circle the wagons and to resist many, many legitimate calls to re-evaluate ourselves.
It took the arrival of the Modern World, a “Gaudium et Spes” moment, for this circling to be understood and counterproductive, at least in part. Yes, keeping ourselves apart offered some protection. But it also kept us from growing and evolving. A hundred years before Vatican Two Church leaders began to understand this. Serious ecumenical discussions and dialogue – vigorously forbidden – actually began to take place in the 1920’s. They were probably underway in a less structured for before that. Angelo Roncalli (b. 1881) encountered a world outside the circled wagons when he was posted to Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. That experience led him to begin the long overdue uncircling of the wagons.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You are working with the false, and frankly arrogant, assumption that traditionalists are motivated only by an ignorant intransigence. Much has been written on why they support traditional practices beyond just "that is the way we have always done it." And while you argue that practices change over time, you give no argument of why more modern practices are better than traditional ones; you just assume it.
With regard to ad orientem worship in particular, while I was always traditional in my leaning, when I was in the seminary I had no problem with versus populum worship. I had accepted the notion, now generally rejected by scholars, that this was the original orientation. It was only when I celebrated my first Mass and began the Eucharistic Prayer that it hit me: I am speaking to God the Father, why am I looking at the congregation? I have now come to believe that the change in the orientation is the single most important change that has occurred after the Council. Whether intended or not, versus populum gives the false impression that the Mass is primarily a re-presentation of the Last Supper in isolation from the sacrifice of the Cross, primarily a communal meal shared among the faithful rather than an act of worship directed to the Father. This is so important that if the theoretical choice were between the old Mass celebrated versus populum and the new Mass celebrated ad orientem, I would choose the new Mass. It has nothing to do with just maintaining the appearance of meaningless traditional forms. I could go on in a similar manner defending other traditional forms. There were, after all, reasons that they became traditional beyond just custom and lethargy.
In the end, however, the real question is that as a simple priest, even as a pastor, you have no right to forbid to other priests what the popes have authorized. By suppressing these legitimate options you are replacing the judgment of the Church with your own and are rejecting the new Mass that contains these options just as much as the most die-hard member of the SSPX.
Anthony, No, I am not making the assumption, "...that traditionalists are motivated only by an ignorant intransigence." I am stating a fact - we humans do things, many things, in customary ways without always knowing the reasons we do them. Some of those reasons can be known - we can call great-grandma to ask why she cut off the end of the ham. The origins of some of our traditions and customs are, as I said, lost in the mists of history.
I have always, from my first mass on 13 April 1985 to the mass I celebrated yesterday, known that I am speaking to God the Father, regardless of the direction I am facing. I never asked myself, "... I am speaking to God the Father, why am I looking at the congregation?" I understand that God is omnipresent and whatever direction I face, He is there.
The people in the congregation who will hear me say tomorrow in a language they understand, "Father all-powerful, your gifts of love are countless..." know that I am speaking to the Father. They will know this again when I say, "God our Father, from whose hand we have received generous gifts..." Again, when I say, "Therefore, Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration,..." there will be no doubt about to whom I am addressing the prayers.
From the Congregation for Divine Worship: “Whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as his instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the eucharistic synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is towards the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Iesum Christum (towards God through Jesus Christ), as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum (towards God) as its first spiritual movement.”
No, scholars do not "generally reject" the notion that versus populum was the original orientation. Scholars generally state that 1) we don't know much about the specific details of the earliest eucharistic celebrations, and 2) that there was a mixture of ad orientem worship and versus populum worship in ancient Christian communities.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
No, it is not a fact. There have been many apologies for traditional practices that go beyond "that is the way we have always done it." Your argument might have had some merit right after the Council but does not hold today. I now serve in a parish that celebrates the old Mass. In the ten years I have been here the congregation has doubled. This is mostly from young adults who have no prior experience with the old Mass. For them the customary way would be the typical Novus Ordo Mass. But they have discovered the old Mass, something that was new to them. They put aside what for them was customary to embrace what for them was new, the traditional Latin Mass.
With regard to the letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, it is true that the orientation of the priest is verus Deum in both orientations and that "it would be a grave error to imagine that the principle orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community." But this does not rule out that it can be perceived as such. I hold that the priest and the congregation facing in the same direction towards the altar gives a stronger impression of addressing the Father than being arranged around the altar. This opinion is based on my own experience and that of many of the new people who have discovered the old Mass. It is not just based on mere traditionalism or "doing what we have always been doing."
I would also point your to the opening lines of the that letter which you skipped over:
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.
Both orientations are valid and approved by the Church. I would also add the final line:
Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance.
This applies as much to those who insist only on versus populum as it does to those who insist only on ad orientem. I respect your decision to celebrate versus populum and I ask you to respect the decision of those who wish to celebrate in the equally valid ad orientem orientation.
Anthony,
Save your breath. K is "clericalism on steroids' and is impervious to reason. After all, do you think a "priest" who votes for the Party of Intrinsic Evil has any intellectual honesty?
Anthony - You say, "But this does not rule out that it can be perceived as such." I say, "Anything can be perceived wrongly."
Some Protestants see a crucifix in a Catholic church and wrongly perceive that Catholics "keep Christ on the cross." Some people hear, "Holy Mary, Mother of God,..." and wrongly perceive that we think that Mary existed before God. Some hear, "Take this, all of you, and eat of it..." and wrongly perceive that everyone is welcome to receive communion.
It is impossible to prevent erroneous or invalid perceptions.
I hold that the priest facing the people and using the vernacular language rightly emphasizes the role of the congregation in the celebration of mass in a way that ad orientem does not. The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” states that “the celebration of the Eucharist is the action of the whole church.”
I hold that the versus populum rightly emphasizes the mystery of the Incarnation as it is expressed in the person of the priest who, with and for the congregation, offers the saving sacrifice of Calvary to the Father.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
We are not going to agree on this. It is, after all, a matter of prudential judgment. But what we should agree on, and what should not be debatable, is that both orientations are legitimate and authorized by the Church. That being said, all I ask of you is to respect the authority of the Church and your brother priests. As a simple priest, even as a pastor, you do not have the authority to forbid what the popes have permitted.
Post a Comment