WHERE-IN I DISAGREE WITH FR. Z…BUT NOT ENTIRELY…

 As everyone knows, I love both forms of the Latin Rite Mass as long as both are celebrated well, reverently and with actual participation of the priest and laity present. 

I believe the two forms can coexist and enrich the Church in their diversity, even their ecclesiological diversity. 

In red are some comments Fr. Z made about another article which you can read HERE. . However, I want to focus just on what Fr. Z is writing and not to what he is reacting. My comments are in black embedded in his reaction:

 [This is exactly the position of many diocesan bishops and others who think that people only want more “cow bell”, i.e., incense, ad orientem, lace, Latin, servers in cassocks, bells, a certain style of vestment, etc.  Hence, they should be perfectly content with the Novus Ordo dressed up in all those things.  This is wrong of course, but they are too ignorant of the differences in the rites to know that.] It is a grostesque mistake not to be in favor of the reform of the reformed Mass bringing back to it what was purged by Bishop Bugnini and his committee, ultimately approved by Pope Paul VI. If the Vetus Ordo can be reformed into something not resembling it, so too can the Novus Ordo be reformed into something not resembling its original. 

Most Catholics, who still practice their faith by Sunday Mass attendance, would have a problem with an all Latin Mass in the Vetus Ordo, but not a Modern Mass in the vernacular but looking like the Vetus Ordo—it would help to bring liturgical peace to the Church and avoid elitism of those who only want the Vetus Ordo and look down their noses at those who don’t want it and are as good of Catholics as any Vetus Ordo Catholic might or might not be!  

And most Catholics would not have a problem with an all vernacular TLM!

 [Liturgy is doctrine.  But if you oppose the Vetus and Novus you have to hold that the goal of the reform was blatant discontinuity.]  Yes, Fr. Z, we know both rites are different. The vernacular facilitates an inculturation that is good, using one’s language rather than a dead language, facilitates not only inculturation, but actual participation in the Mass, both contemplative and vocal of the laity. The NO Mass also illustrates not only that all must actually participate in the Mass, but that the laity also have role in the Church, particularly bringing our Faith and Good Works to the secular world of home, work and play as well as the public  political square. Thus laity taking on  liturgical ministries of acoyltle ( to include Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) and reader makes visible the refined reality of the ecclesiology of the post-Vatican II Church. The TLM and other liturgies associated with it aren’t  wrong and also can include a more modern expression of ecclesiology by allowing lay lectors and active singing and speaking of the parts of the Mass by the laity. 

But the liturgy, Fr. Z, although doctrinal is more than a teaching tool! It is about worshipping Jesus Christ truly present in a sacrament way at the altar and in Holy Communion. While instruction is important, liturgy is spirituality, worship and experiencing in the present the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and His Glorified Risen Presence in the Liturgy and the Church. It is about the Risen Lord’s personal relationship with each Catholic individually and collectively! It is private and communal at the same time. It is about salvation! An atheist can know everything the Catholic Church teaches and remain an atheist, even if he loves the older Mass over the newer Mass. Knowledge of doctrine does not necessarily lead to conversion and a personal relationship with Christ Who transforms our life!