For the life of me, I do not know how the Novus Ordo lost the reverence and dignity of the Mass that it changed. I don’t think the intention was to turn any Mass, in particular an ordination Mass, into a kind entertainment with hooping and hollering.
But this is what has happened. Pope Francis tried hard to suppress to the older Mass that Pope Benedict heroically liberated.
But nonsense at Novus Ordo Masses like this one, a priestly ordination, go unchecked and is encouraged. Look at the priests applauding over and over again, and the people hooping and hollering.
Is this dignity, devotion and awe and wonder?
54 comments:
I have been pondering why any bishop would suppress the TLM. I now realize that such a bishop is an ally of Satan. That is the only reasonable explanation since the Novus Ordo has been an unmitigated flop and has cost the Faith millions upon millions of Catholics and future converts!
Father, Wedding Masses are even worse. Confederate war cries; whooping and hollering after the vows are professed and later as couple process outafter the mass.Absolutely terrible.But it is the same after Christmas and Easter Vigil.People cannot stand being forced to conform or feel inhibited by reverence and holiness.Quite Demonic.
Oh yes! It all started by allowing what was suppose to be sober applause. But that led to “processes” which has become pep rally wildness.
I think it has much to do with the tone set by the priest during pre-Cana. I will be attending a wedding at a ICKSP oratory - my bet it that it will be quite reverent.
I’ve celebrated quite a few TLM Nuptial Mass and there is no worry whatsoever about applause, hooping and hollering at any Sacrament or Liturgy of the Church in the ancient form. There is no rubrical option about applause at a modern Nuptial Mass or Liturgy, but priests encouraged it at the end of the Liturgy and that has morphed into what is experienced in many places, and now at the time of the vows. I’ve eliminated the Kiss of Peace at Nuptials and that helps to avoid the enthusiasm of the audience at that point, but it still happens invited or not at the end of the Mass.
The other non-rubrical thing that has occured is the priest or deacon introducing the newly married couple at the end of Mass or maybe after the vows, “I introduce you to Mr. And Mrs. So and so. That brings on the applause right away and it takes only one person can start the riot of applause.
As far as ordination rituals, there is an option for applause prior to the actual ordination when the bishop accepts the testimony about the recommendation of those in charge of the seminarian’s formation. The first option is for all to say or sing “amen”. But then that dastardly option applause is there too, but it should be sober applause and only once. But today, the applause happens several times during the Ordination Rite—it is pure nonsense!
It just ceases to shock any longer! Perhaps, people have forgotten that Sacraments are supernatural and are not of our ownership.
Why you have applause at the Novus Ordo and not at the TLM is that the former is focused on the action of the gathered assembly while the latter is focused on the action Jesus Christ acting through the ministry of the priest. It is this change in focus that is driving everything else.
We had a peculiar understanding of what constitutes reverence at mass in that SILENCE was the only "acceptable" expression.
Well, a feeling of reverence also includes a sense of awe and honor toward a person, including God, a place, an ideal. Applause at mass, as shown in the video, to show respect and gratitude to God for the gift of priesthood AND to the young man who has responded to God's call is hardly irreverent.
Then, some people have no respect for the differing ways emotions are expressed in different cultures.
He, he, he,! You are funny and I love how you make a satire and caricature of yourself. You gave me a belly laugh!
Like kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue?
Off topic but I suggest Pope Leo focus on fake Catholics like Gov.Maura Healy of Massachusetts for signing this abomination into law.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-gov-maura-healey-signs-sweeping-massachusetts-bill-allowing-abortions-up-birth
When the Catholic Church was once powerful, Cardinal O'Connell of Boston defeated a law proposed in Massachusetts to allow the sale of birth control products. We've come a long way baby.
And the Church wonders why more and more Catholics walk away when they see politically powerful "Catholics" like Healy get a pass.
Here is a pithy summary of the Church of the late 1960s and 1970s in Chicago:
I’ve endured the Church in Chicago for some seventy-something years. CTU was the worst. Loyola a close second. DePaul right up there in the running. Wacko feminist nuns running around all over the place, vulgar and political, like Pfleger on steroids; Black liberation theology, Hispanic liberation theology, Native American liberation theology, Minority Women liberation theology, LBGQ liberation theology, Name Your Flavor liberation theology, touted from lecterns in homilies by Fr. So Hip; South American liberation theologians celebrated as if they were persecuted saints, spouting Marxism even at Mundelein Seminary, BIG EVENT!!! Gustovo Gutierrez, the MAN himself, is in town and scheduled to speak to seminarians, and others by invitation only, with Cardinal Bernardin making his entrance in grand fashion, but sitting in a common auditorium seat (because he is humble, doncha know,) front row.
Leftist political animals posing as religious and priests unleashed en masse into parishes against unsuspecting middle class Chicagoans, assigned as pastors or associates, hired as DRE’s and liturgical directors, so they can tell wide eyed middle-aged moms running parish CCD programs that Adam and Eve in the garden is a myth, and prevent any semblance of, or opportunity for, any display of piety, by orchestrating liturgical antics like children sitting around the altar on the floor during the homily, and music so loud and banal (and usually badly performed) that it shuts down any possibility of entering into reflection of God.
Anyone talking about Jesus Christ in non political language? Not a chance. Anyone talking about salvation of souls? Even less of a chance. Just like now in Rome.
"...Adam and Eve in the garden is a myth..."
Yes, the Creation Accounts are mythology. "A myth is an imaginative story that uses symbols to talk about a reality, but a reality that is beyond human comprehension." - from the book "And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms" by Margaret Nutting Ralph.
The truths taught by the imaginative, symbol-using story told by the Creation Accounts us four-fold. 1) God created everything ("And God said...." 2) Everything God created was perfect (Eden is a biblical earthly paradise without sin/suffering) 3) Through human choice, sin/suffering entered into God's perfect creation ("The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.") 4) Humans cannot undo the harm caused by sin ("The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.")
In this Account we also find the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel."
There is a variety of types of literature in the Bible - mythology, poetry, letters, Gospels, historical narrative, apocalyptic, prophecy. It is necessary to know the type of literature in order to understand what Truth that literature reveals as God's word to us.
Now when you read this about the Bishop Kohlgraf of Mainz remember that the SSPX and the TLM folks are an impediment to "unity!"
“In practice, however, it has become customary for lay people to preach,” Bishop Kohlgraf said. “If I learn of this, I will not intervene disciplinarily or impose canonical sanctions.”
So if people are disobedient and have lay (=women) preaching, he has announced openly that he won’t exercise his role as bishop."
There is no doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church declaring any part of the Book of Genesis’ creation accounts to be myths!
Death didn’t enter the world until the Fall…
"There is no doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church declaring any part of the Book of Genesis’ creation accounts to be myths!"
Did you figure that out all by yourself? How precious...
There's no doctrine or dogma declaring the color or ordinary season to be green, the advisability of ringing bells at the elevations, or what the wording of the Collect for the Feast of St. Saint Temecula or the Tabernacle Door Half Open should be, but guess what....?
For generations Catholic High Schools have been indoctrinating students that the Bible is full of myths and that even the miracles of Christ are made up by people who didn't have the scientific knowledge of today. No wonder so many people left the Church. Why believe myths and call them the Word of God? Sometimes Church people are their own worst enemies. Instead of encouraging faith they teach the glories of doubting. "O ye of little faith; why did you doubt."
I love your self deprecating humor. Thanks for clarifying that there is no Catholic teaching calling the creation account myths, that you were expressing your own silly, unpastoral opinion.
Nor any doctrine or dogma on why the practices of the TLM should be suppressed.
Daniel - I doubt anyone says the Bible is "full of myths." There ARE myths, as there are poems, songs, laments, letters, apocalyptic writings, Gsopels , etc. all of which God uses to make His revelation known to us.
There are people, famously Thomas Jefferson, who discounted any miracle, any "supernatural" event in the bible. But that's not what those who know the meaning of "myth" - Fr. ALLAN McDonald isn't one of them - are doing.
Anthnoy - Since you've joined up with Fr. ALLAN McDonald's silly game . . . there is no doctrine or dogma that says a pastor MUST allow the TLM or the NO with "TLM Sensibilities" to be celebrated in the parish he serves.
I love your self-deprecating humor.
Not dogma but instruction:
GIRM 24. These adaptations consist, for the most part, in the choice of certain rites or texts, that is, of the chants, readings, prayers, explanatory interventions, and gestures capable of responding better to the needs, the preparation, and the culture of the participants and which are entrusted to the Priest Celebrant. However, the Priest will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.
The celebrant, not the pastor, makes the call. Of course the celebrant should discuss this with the pastor but the pastor does not have the authority, which you thinks that he has, to dictate to the celebrant how he is to say the Mass. The pastor has no authority over the priests under him other than to ensure that the Mass is celebrated according to the Missal.
Bravo, Father Anthony!
The average layperson is not as well-versed as you are. To most people "myth" means simply a story like Aesop's Fables with a meaningful message. It is not seen as the divine Word of God. Sometimes the clergy live in ivory towers and presume the laity think like them.
Anthony - Tell "Not dogma but instruction" to Fr. ALLAN McDonald.
There is more to pastoral authority than following the rules.
You are truly a laugh 😂 riot! You keep on giving! Who knew!
Pope Leo should be focused on the Diocese of Speyer in Germany where 5.1% of "Catholics" attend Sunday Mass and the Diocese (even though it is awash with tax dollars) is consolidating 70 parishes down to 9. Springtime!!!! Vatican II "success story!"
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/weigel-spiraling-down-speyer
Are you claiming the right as a simple pastor to forbid what the popes have authorized? Do you not see that in your rejection of papal authority that you are no better than the SSPX?
Anthony - I am claiming the right the exercise pastoral judgment.
If you honestly think my actions rise to the level of the SSPX's, then you need to revisit both questions with a serious tutor to assist you in your understanding of both.
You are claiming the right to disobey the pope and forbid your priests what the popes have expressly authorized. If you do not have to obey the pope, why should a priest under you obey you? If you do not think that this is not the same as the SSPX's disobedience then it is you who needs further instruction. You are merely a pastor and have not the authority to legislate on the liturgy. Exercise your own pastoral judgment as is your right but recognize the right of other priests to do the same.
Anthony - Your example is akin to comparing the theft of a stick of gum to a mass murder. It is absurd - and you know it, but you're gonna stick with it come hell or high water. An associate pastor does not have the authority a pastor has in his parish - you know that, too. If you've forgotten your canon law regarding pastors, see canons 510 to 558 .
The restrictions placed on papally approved options in the new Mass that suppress a form of that Mass that resembles the old Mass is hardly the theft of a stick of gum. It has led to the loss of faith by many Catholics and leading us to schism. If you think that these issues are so minor, why are you insistent on forcing your preferences on others? If you want to know who is responsible for the present schism by the SSPX and suggest that you look into the mirror and see one of the culprits. In your disobedience to the popes you are just as guilty as the SSPX and are the last person who should lecture anyone on obedience.
Nothing in Canon law suggests that the pastor has the authority to restrict what the pope has authorized. I also suggest that your appeal to pastoral care is false and self-serving. There are many Catholics who just want a form of the Mass that reflects our liturgical tradition and is fully authorized by the popes. (And please let's not get into a debate about what tradition means. You know exactly what I and most Catholics mean by it.) Where is your pastoral care for them? Your motivation is not pastoral care but your private opinion and preferences for the liturgy.
Anthony - Yes, it is no more than the theft of a stick of gum. The actions of the SSPX impact the whole Church at its ecclesiastical and sacramental core.
If people are addicted - rather, attached to a particular form of the liturgy such that if that can't get what they want (sounds like a three year old's behavior to me) they throw a tantrum and leave, those people are not exactly what I would call "faithful."
The SSPX is responsible for this schism. Their choices, their actions and no one else's brought about the penalty they face.
I've already told you what tradition means to the Church. Let's revisit that explanation for those who might not have seen it, shall we?
CCC 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."
Tradition has a particular connotations in Catholic usage
It denotes Authentic
That Jesus is divine is AUTHENTIC Catholic teaching
It denotes Essential
The belief in the divinity is Jesus is ESSENTIAL to be a Christan
The word “Tradition” carries these connotations even when it is not capitalized. There is, in Catholic parlance, a difference – a world of difference – between Tradition and traditional, between Traditional and traditional.
That’s why I am particular about describing elements of the mass such as Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc as “traditional.”
Those elements are neither authentic nor essential. The mass existed without them for centuries,
In Catholic usage "Traditional" and "traditional" have more nuance than you might allow. As you use it, "traditional" mean historical. Elements of the mass that are historical - and the history is very long - are the use of Latin, celebration ad orientem, Gregorian chant, exclusion of women from serving, etc.
I employ the more nuanced, deeper understanding of "traditional" which includes the connotations of what is traditional being both authentic and essential. The NO in the vernacular, versus populum, with hymnody, and including female altar servers flows from the same well-spring, the Divine, as the style of mass you prefer. This It is authentic in that it is authorized by the Church. And it is essential in that the sacrifice of the mass, that is it a true sacrifice, that it is an unbloody representation of Calvary, that, as true worship, it is the source and summit of Christian life.
With that richer understanding of "traditional" I maintain that the NO is, in every sense traditional while being different in historical elements from the mass you prefer.
That attitude of yours and others is what has contributed to the SSPX schism. What they, and others, want in regard to the liturgy is nothing but to worship as our ancestors have for over 15 centuries, something that Vatican II never contemplated eliminating. You do not just oppose the old Mass but any compromise by opposing those papally approved options that allow for a TLM style of the new. It is you and your fellow travelers who insist in always getting your way. You cannot blame dog who is constantly beaten for snapping back. None of this conflict would have happened if not for the rigidity and intolerance of the radical reformers. Nor are you in any place to complain about the disobedience of others when you are just as disobedient.
With regard to the meaning of tradition, you are being purposely pedantic and dishonest. You know very well that words can have multiple meanings. Your quotation from the Catechism speaks specifically of "Sacred Tradition." The Church has always distinguished this from simple human tradition, something you know very well. This distinction is made clear by the practice of capitalizing the former and not the latter. I direct you to John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei to see this practice and the two different meanings of the word in the same document. "Tradition" does not always mean "Sacred Tradition." In speaking of the traditional Latin Mass and traditional usages, it is this latter meaning that is meant and which everyone except you, it seems, understands. So no, in the common understanding of the word in everyday speech, even by the Church, the Novus Ordo is not traditional, especially when those elements that reflect the old Mass are suppressed.
Anthony - The schism took place because the SSPX chose to go into schism. No one made them do it. And those who disagree with you are not communists, as much as you and the president want to believe.
Words can have multiple meanings. CONTEXT is what gives them precision.
When you say "traditional mass" you mean that other forms are not traditional. To see why this is an error, see above.
I never denied that the SSPX made the choice on their own, nor do I agree with it, but that choice was not made in a vacuum. That they are mistaken in their choice does not mean that all those who acted against traditional worship are without blame. It is not always the case of "If you are wrong then I am right." Both sides can be, and often are, wrong in a conflict.
In all of our discussions you have never given a reason why the faithful should be denied both the TLM and a TLM style Novus Ordo. If you are going to insist on obedience to the Church then you must admit that the latter is completely acceptable and should be available to the faithful. Otherwise, you are just guilty of special pleading.
Other forms of the Mass may be in accordance with Sacred Tradition, but they are still not traditional in the ordinary understanding of the word. To see why this is correct, see above.
Anthony - The choice the SSPX made is 100% their own responsibility. A bank has lots of money - does it bear ANY responsibility when it is robbed? No, the choice was 100% that of the criminals.
People can have the TLM or the TLM-style liturgy. What I am not going to do in allow a priest to assert his "right" to the style of mass he prefers when the vast majority of the congregation here does not want it.
The NO is traditional in the Church's understanding of the word. Words have a particular meaning in the context of the Church. Ask 100 people in your congregation what "justice" means and they'll say "Criminals get caught and go to jail" because that's the "ordinary" meaning. In the context of the Church and Sacred Scripture, the meaning is very different. "Symbol" ius another good example. Even some devout Catholics get their shorts in a knot when someone says the Eucharist is a symbol. That's because they are operating on the "ordinary" meaning of the word. Anyone who has studied theology knows that "symbol" is a perfectly acceptable word to use to describe the Eucharist.
"Symbol (from the Greek symbolon) is a visible sign or material object that unites an earthly, visible reality with a transcendent, spiritual truth. Far from being a mere empty sign, a theological symbol truly participates in and mediates the divine reality it points toward."
Zzzzzzzzzzz - intellectual dishonesty on steroids. It’s all about what you want!
Suppose a woman who is constantly abused by her husband decides to divorce and remarry. Of course she should be encouraged to remain faithful to her marriage vow, assuming the marriage was valid, and not enter into an adulterous second marriage. But this does not mean we should ignore the abuse of the husband and just focus on the divorce and remarriage. Traditionalist Catholics have been abused for 60 years, for years before the SSPX ever ordained a bishop. Indeed, the only reason the SSPX exists is because of that abuse. That does not justify their actions but we need to stop pretending that the abuse never happened.
And no, the faithful cannot freely have the TLM or a TLM style. Both have been ruthlessly and needlessly restricted. And you, Father, are a part of that abuse. As for allowing a priest to celebrate the new Mass in a TLM style, he does not need your permission; he has it from the pope. The last time I looked, the pope outranks you. You complain about the disobedience of the SSPX but justify your own. How convenient.
You have correctly stated that the meanings of words can be known from their context. The context of the traditional Latin Mass or traditional liturgical practices is what has been historically handed down through the ages, not what is a part of Sacred Tradition. When I use the term you know very well that is what I mean. You are the only one who is trying to force it into the meaning of being in accordance with Sacred Tradition, deliberately ignoring the context in which the term is used in ordinary speech.
Anthony - I suspect you consider telling a visiting traditionalist priest he can't refuse female altar servers "abuse."
SSPX is now 56 years old. The objections of Lefebvre to various aspects of Vatican Two - it's far more than just liturgy - are older.
I know very well that when you say 'traditional' you are casting aspersions on the NO. The NO is as traditional as any mass you celebrate not because it has certain elements added, but because the Church says it is.
Fr. Kavanaugh, yes, telling a a visiting priest that he cannot refuse females altar servers is an abuse because you do not have that authority:
In accord with the above-cited [1994] 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 to the Priests of the Episcopal (bishops) Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 2]. Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well-known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future vocations. (CDWDS, Protocol number 2451/00/1, July 27, 2001)
But of course I am sure you will come up with a reason that you can disobey this instruction.
I am not casting aspersions on the Novus Ordo when I use "traditional" for the old Mass nor am I deny that the new Mass is in conformity with Sacred Tradition. It is just a description of the old vs. the new. You can claim that the new Mass is as traditional as any Mass but that is not true as the term is.generally used and understood, and yes, even by the Church. Contrary to your claim, the Church herself does not use the term "traditional" to always refer to Sacred Tradition.
Do I prefer the old Mass over the new? Yes, but I recognize the validity of the new and I am more than willing to say the new Mass as I have told my bishop. All I ask is that I be allowed to say it as the Church says that I can. You place great emphasis on the validity of new elements added to the Mass because the Church has authorized them.. Why can you not also respect the validity of old elements in the same way because the Church has authorized them?
Anthony - So a visiting priest can walk in, say to the altar servers, "No girls at my mass," even though they are on the regular parish schedule? He can walk in and tell the sacristan, "I'll be celebrating this mass ad orientem, so re-arrange the altar"? He can walk in and tell the organist, "I'll be doing all the chanting of antiphons, so no hymns needed"? All because HE wants to do it HIS way?
And you think a pastor doesn't have a right to object?
A visiting priest may rightfully have to bow to custom of the place, but a gracious pastor would also be considerate of the sensibilities of a visitor. And what about a parochial vicar serving under you?
Anthony - "A visiting priest may rightfully have to bow to custom of the place..."
Whoa. And thank goodness.
A parochial vicar serving under me might also have to bow to the custom of the place.
A parochial vicar is an integral member of the parish—he is not an outside visitor—and has the right to do what the Church says he can do. It is you who do not have the right to forbid what the popes have authorized. You have the obligation to respect his rights. But I guess you want to keep that curtain up and hide your disobedience and intolerance.
Anthony - If a visiting priest should bow to local custom so should an associate pastor. Who is integral and who is not is not germaine.
Why should I respect the right of one priest and not another?
As for hiding, well, my comments are here for all the world to see.
Because the parochial vicar is a member of the parish and not a visitor. He is not just your servant. Why should your preferences be the only ones that matter, By what authority can you overrule even popes and restrict what a priest does?
Because he is the All Highest K, pastor of a shrinking parish!
Anthony - How jesuitical of you - a visiting priest has no rights to celebrate as he prefers and should bow to local custom, but a priest assigned to the parish has rights and the local customs should bow to him.
My "preferences" is too weak a word. It is pastoral judgment based on over a decade of service in this parish, not just "preferences." If that WRRE the case, I would make the associate wear the vestments I prefer, use the prefaces I prefer, forbid his from using notes for his homily as I prefer, etc.
It's not simply "preferences."
As for who is a member of the parish, I thought you said everyone in the geographical boundaries of this parish were my parishioners.... They are or they aren't?
It's not that a visiting priest has no rights but should be gracious to accept local custom. A parochial vicar is not a guest; he is a resident, a member of the parish, just as much as the pastor.
And no, "preferences" is not too weak a word. The Church has legislated what is acceptable at the liturgy but you have placed your opinion above that. Nor are you the only one with pastoral judgment. The priests who serve under you also have it. When you disobey what the popes have said is permissible at the Mass how do you answer a priest who disobeys you, especially when you seek to exercise an authority that the Church explicitly says that you do not have?
But let us address what is driving this conflict and the liturgical wars for the past 60 years. Will you, or will you not, acknowledge that the papally approved options for a TLM style Mass that are included in the new Missal are legitimate?
Anthony - Yes, a PV is just as much a part of a parish as the pastor, but there is a difference. One is the pastor, one is not.
You've not explained - and I suspect you cannot explain - why rules apply to one priest, the PV, who is in every way the same as the visiting priest. The PV should get what he prefers but the visitor should not. Local customs apply to one priest but not to another.
And who says, "a visiting priest has no rights"? Don't all of those quotes you post apply to ALL priests?
ANY papally approved option is legitimate." "But," as my college philosophy professor Dr. Anselm K. Min used to say, "that so not to say" that all options ought to be exercised just because they are the "preferences" of an individual priest.
I did explain but you do not want to hear. It is not that the visiting priests has no rights but that he should be gracious and exercise restraint as a visitor. This does not apply to a parochial vicar. As a member of the parish he gets to form local custom.
I am afraid that you have a too exalted view of the authority of a pastor. He does have authority but he acts as an agent of the Church. The authority that he exercises over the liturgy is that which has been delegated to him. It is not plenipotentiary. Options authorized by the popes cannot be restricted just because they are not the preferences of an individual pastor.
And you have not answered two questions:
1) When you disobey what the popes have said is permissible at the Mass how do you answer a priest who disobeys you, especially when you seek to exercise an authority that the Church explicitly says that you do not have? and
2) Will you, or will you not, acknowledge that the papally approved options for a TLM style Mass that are included in the new Missal are legitimate?
Post a Comment