SAINT JOSEPH CHURCH'S WEEK OF PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, OLD CITY FLOWER FESTIVAL, MAKES THE FRONT PAGE OF THE MACON TELEGRAPH!

You can read the front page article on THE OLD CITY FLOWER FESTIVAL in the Macon Telegraph by pressing this sentence. The pictures below are more that I took with my iPhone in dim lighting. I'm sure there will be some professional pictures that I can post later.

TO STIR THE EF POT AND CONTROVERSY EVEN MORE, READ THIS

The sole purpose of a "Reform of the reform" (Copied from the Rorate Caeli Blog, my comments below it)
From the interview granted by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, author of Il Concilio Vaticano II: una storia mai scritta (The Second Vatican Council – a never before written history), to Austrian Catholic website Kath.net:

[Kath.net]There is no renewal of the Church without a true liturgical renewal. What is the meaning, in your view, of the liturgy in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite which, with the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, once again enjoys full right of citizenship in the Church? Is it truly "a twofold use of the save and only Rite" (Benedict XVI, Letter on the publication of "Summorum Pontificum", July 7, 2007) or should the "form" that today is "ordinary" be considered a "phase" of that return to the origins in which the true future is found?

[De Mattei] The Holy Sacrifice is truly one, but the "Novus ordo" of Paul VI is, it seems to me, profoundly different, in spirit and in form, from the ancient Roman Rite. In this last Rite, I see not the past, but the future of the Church. Traditional liturgy is in fact the most efficacious response to the challenge of secularism, that attacks us.

Benedict XVI gave full citizenship back to the ancient Roman Rite. I am certain that it will go through a new development and a new splendor in the Church and in society. The "Reform of the Reform" which is mentioned makes sense and is worthy only as a "transition" of the "novus ordo" towards the traditional rite, and not as a pretext for the abandonment of the latter, that must be kept in its integrity and purity.

The essential question seems to me, though, that of recovering a theological and ecclesiological vision founded upon the dimension of transcendent and the holy. This means that it is necessary to reconquer the fundamental principles of Catholic theology, beginning with a precise view of the holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

It is further necessary that the idea of sacrifice shall permeate society in the shape, quite forgotten today, of a spirit of sacrifice and penance. This, and not anything else, is the "experience of sacredness" of which our society has urgent need. Without it, it is hard to imagine a return to an authentic Liturgy that has at its center the adoration owed to the one true God.

PRESS THIS TO READ FROM THE BLOG CHIESA ON "BENEDICT THE REFORMER" FOR A DIFFERENT SLANT ON ALL OF THIS AND THE CAMP THAT I WOULD MOST LIKELY ENDORSE, SINCE I'M A PAPIST AND ULTRAMONTANE!


MY COMMENTS: "The correct understanding of the Council – the instructions for the Year of Faith specify – is not what is called the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture," but what Benedict XVI has called "the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church."

The Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council was in need of reform and updating as it confronted and ministered to a very different world than that of the period of the Council of Trent which had dramatically shaped the Catholic Church of the 500 year period, in addition to the Church's reaction to the Protestant Reformation and anti-Catholic ideologies.

But what many now say the Second Vatican Council never intended is what has led to an even more urgent reform of the Post Vatican II Church but again going back to the Council of Trent, The First Vatican Council and yes, and most importantly The Second Vatican Council.

In reality the "Spirit of the Second Vatican Council" a spirit of rupture with the past not only in liturgy, but in the understanding of the Catholic Church herself, her priesthood, her laity and her spirituality and piety that flowed from a Catholic Culture that in many ways was universal in all the Catholic world although with variation in piety and devotions, was totally dismantled, torn down and only a remnant of her former self remained.

There has been rebuilding to be sure, but the new edifice is a shadow of her former self and glory.

One of the things that reformers lambasted about the Pre-Vatican II Church was her triumphalism. That may have been true, but it evolved from a very high Christology and the worship due to Christ and our unworthiness in His presence that led to silence in Churches, and a humble piety that was self-deprecating. All that changed with the 1960's and a jamboree attitude toward the Church, the Liturgy and her devotions and spirituality.

As well the great discipline of the Church in terms of prayer, fasting and almsgiving was nearly tossed out the window. Gone were meatless Fridays, Ember Days and a rigid Lenten season that only the strong could survive. Gone were indulgences, harsh penances and a strict Catholic piety at home, the praying of the Rosary was ridiculed as were all other devotions. The Mass became a mere shadow of its former self and church buildings were raped and reconfigured according to a flimsy theology and new churches looked cold and empty.

All this must be reformed and older and more time-tested forms of Mass and spirituality must be recovered and is being recovered, but it will take another 50 years or more.

THE WEEK OF PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY AT SAINT JOSEPH CHURCH IN MACON

A photo I just took and this is all flowers, like a carpet! You have to see what is being done--WOW!

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity began on Wednesday, January 18th and concludes on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul on Wednesday, January 25th. Saint Joseph Church in Macon has two grand ecumenical events to mark this occasion, one a miracle similar to the parting of the Red Sea.

The first event was event was on Thursday and a part of our Third Thursday Organ Interlude at 12 noon. Mr. Robert McCormick a Macon native and organist in Washington, DC perform a wonderful half hour organ recital which concluded with an "off the cuff" improvisation of two hymns suggested to him on the spot. What he did with these two hymns was truly remarkable. One of the hymns was "God's Blessing Sends Us Forth" and the other "I Heard the Voice of Jesus." He played both at first almost as single notes then molded them into an improvisation that actually brought tears to my eyes. It was fantastic.

There were almost 200 in the congregation and from churches all over Macon. The concert was followed by a luncheon in our social hall. We began the organ concert with a short ecumenical prayer which included the recitation of the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer and one of the new Collects for Christian Unity from our revised English Roman Missal.

The other ecumenical event is a miracle similar to the parting of the Red Sea. Last year Elaine Schmidt and Steve Gonser both of whom coordinate the decoration of our church suggested to me that we host the very first "Old City Flower Festival." What they would do is to contact as many of the downtown Macon churches and invite them to create a floral arrangement that would be placed in various areas of our church.

I asked them, you're going to ask Protestant churches in town to come and decorate our church with flowers? I said good luck, thinking who in the world would participate. I thought it would take a miracle like that of the parting of the Red Sea. Well, the parting has taken place and the Protestants are rushing through to St. Joseph Church and placing their floral arrangements all over the place. It will be completed by Saturday, the 21st and remain until Wednesday the concluding day of the Prayer for Christian Unity.

These are the churches who are participating and the flower arrangements thus far are stunning. I'll post pictures when I get them:

1. Saint Joseph Church
2. Mulberry Street United Methodist Church
3. Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church
4. St. Paul's Episcopal Church
5. St. Peter Claver Catholic Church
6. The First Presbyterian Church
7. Vineville United Methodist Church
8. Christ Church Episcopal
9. Sacred Heart Catholic Church
10. The First Baptist Church, New Street
11. Washington Avenue Presbyterian Church
12. Vineville Baptist Church
13. The First Baptist Church of Christ, High Street at Poplar

All I can say is WOW!

FROM A SECRET THEOLGIAN?

The following is a four-part comment from the post I have below, "THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS MUST BE APPRECIATED AS THE NORMAL, ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS" from an anonymous writer and is self explanatory. I think it was well written and very thoughtful and deserved to be posted as a regular post. Who is this mystery writer anyway?

This will be a long reply to Pater Ignotus’s post reading “Marc--The Traditional Mass is offered every day in Catholic parishes.” So long, in fact, that I have to break it into four parts.

We have seen this disagreement over terms before. I would like to provide my take on the nature of a disagreement in the hopes that in the future we can have more in the way of good-faith dialogue here and less sniping, in keeping with the wishes expressed by Fr. McD in this blog entry.

Traditio, of course, means “that which is handed on.” And what was handed on from the Latin Mass to the NO Mass? Quantitatively, most things were _not_ handed on: Latin, the silent participation of the laity, the sanctuary and functions related thereto as the exclusive province of the clergy, Gregorian chant, reception on the tongue, kneeling for reception, ad orientum, reception under one kind, the strong emphasis on vertical sacrifice, the very light (if any) emphasis on the horizontal meal, and a bunch of other stuff. (I will not discuss here the irreverence and the liberties taken by many clergy—I will accept arguendo that they are perversions of what was supposed to be, although I _would_ argue that the NO has propagated those things more than the EF does/did.)

So what _was_ handed on? What is it in the NO that is also in the EF that continues to make the NO a valid Mass? Note that even the words of consecration—the very liturgical core of the Mass--were changed—for you and for _all_--pro omnes, not pro multis. So on first—and even on second—inspection, it seems that precious little got “traditio’ed,” if you will. The celebration by a priest and the use of wine and unleavened bread sometimes seems to be just about all that made it unscathed.

With this as background, then, there are three possibilities:

1) The NO mass is valid based on the dictates of reason—its adoption was inherently reasonable. But given all the aforementioned changes—more and faster change that has ever been seen in 2000 years of Catholic history, making this situation unique--reason by no means dictates this conclusion. Reason becomes even shakier when the parallels between the NO and Protestant liturgies are so obvious. Catholic history is full of examples of heretical ideas infecting the Church and even being accepted by large numbers of bishops before being stamped out. Is there a truly ironclad, unassailable reason why this _cannot_ be the case today? Especially since the Church has just issued corrections to the English NO? Anyone who says that there is such a reason, I submit, is guilty of hubris, of a sort of snobbish temporal provincialism that says “Our generation is smarter and knows better than any other generation that has ever lived.”

2) The NO Mass is valid because of its continuity with earlier forms of the Mass that were/are valid. Again, given all the aforementioned differences, very little continuity is apparent. The claim that the essentials were retained, to my ear, sounds disturbingly like the usual Protestant/Modernist least common denominator argument: “You may be Catholic and I may be Protestant, but at least we agree on the fundamentals.” No, Mr. Protestant, we don’t. You threw out fundamentals, and claimed what you threw out weren’t fundamentals. I repeat: In the NO even the words of consecration were changed. That’s pretty gosh-darned fundamental.

3) The NO Mass is valid because the Church says it is. But why does the Church say it is? Could the Church go still further and have a deacon(ess) celebrate Mass and still declare it to be valid? Could it change the elements to coke and potato chips and change (even more than it already did) the words of consecration—e.g., “This is my Frisbee that shall be thrown for you”--and still declare the Mass to be valid? Perhaps so. But in that case it would be a matter of naked authority—potestas, not auctoritas--unsupported by reason or history. _This_ is the reasoned fear of many pro-EF people today: that the adoption of the NO Mass, and the changes within it, were unprincipled, supported by neither reason or history but only by potestas. AKA, the Emperor’s clothes.

People who know their liturgy and their church history and their theology can make some very persuasive arguments on this point (i.e., it’s valid not because of continuity or reason but because of a declaration by the Church that it is valid—and this declaration seems in fact to _contravene_, at least to a degree, both history and reason). Since the Church herself has made, in recent decades, a big deal about giving reasoned arguments for why it does things (look at the long pastoral explications in the Vatican II documents, compared to the flat assertions common in earlier councils), the sudden reversion to “shut up and obey” is incongruous, and even gives the impression of duplicity, or at the very least that the hierarchy has something to hide—that the emperor has been caught naked.

In fact, the Church herself opened the can of worms called public opinion. She made changes—forced great changes—on the laity and gave reasons for the changes. Now, when people reply in the mode she herself chose—i.e., through reasoned argument—and when their reason is at least as sound as hers, she suddenly eschews reason for potestas.

The proponents of the EF are often vocal. Sometimes they are argumentative and intransigent (e.g., “The EF is the only true Mass.”) But I think it needs to be realized that folks who talk this way are often—indeed, usually—doing so because they are confused and even fearful at all the ill-explained, ill-advised changes of the last 40 years. As Edmund Burke noted, three ways to upset people are to mess with their system of government, their money, and their religion. By any imaginable standard, the post-Vatican II church in America messed big time with people’s religion—whether for good or for ill is irrelevant.

The NO Mass, with its defects—defects explicitly recognized by the Church in its promulgation of the corrected English translation—was forced onto the laity, who in very large measure neither desired nor were consulted about the changes. Yet, the general tone of most clergy in America today, when asked for more EF Masses, often give as a reason for their refusal that the laity, when implicitly “consulted,” don’t desire to swap NO attendance for EF attendance. The double standard is obvious.

I think that the vast majority of faithful Catholics who prefer the EF nevertheless accept the validity of the NO. (Those who don’t probably left their parishes long ago for FSSP or SSPX or some other such group.) But they do often feel slighted and condescended to, even—perhaps especially—when they can back up their position with very solid arguments in the form of reason, magisterial documents, and liturgical and Church history. In short: they speak out of fear. Being dismissed, or worse, sneered at, isn’t going to do anything to calm those fears. Again: the clergy should respect that these people, for the most part, are going to be the most faithful Catholics that they’ll ever see. Surely that is worth some degree of respect and honest attempt at dialogue, if nothing else. And dialogue, as a mutual search for the truth as opposed to scoring points off the other side, means a willingness of both sides to accept correction and even to change positions.

In short, Pater Ignotus, just waving a magic wand and uncritically calling the NO a “traditional” Mass ignores common sense, reason, history, and the emotional and pastoral needs of some Catholics who are very upset at changes that can appear to be—and perhaps are—simply unprincipled. And belittling them for their small numbers is bad too—Jesus never made this a numbers game (good shepherd, one lost sheep, etc.). and finally, remember that it cuts both ways: if the NO is just as good as the EF, then the EF is just as good as the NO, right? Why all the objection, then, to more EFs?

Respectfully submitted.

January 19, 2012 12:09 PM

I AM CLAIRVOYANT AFTER ALL! ANOTHER MISSAL TO REPLACE BOTH THE 1962 MISSAL AND THE 2010 MISSAL, BUT WHEN O, LORD?

I think I must have posted this way back in May when it was printed by Catholic News Service on May 14, 2011,but I can't remember, so I'm not only clairvoyant but also amnesiac. Go figure!

Cardinal Says Pope is Launching Liturgical Reform Movement

Surprising news, or at least surprisingly blunt news, from CNS:

Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says
Catholic News Service

By John Thavis

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. --CNS

MY COMMENT: NOW I ASK YOU, AM I A PROPHET OR WHAT?

THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS MUST BE APPRECIATED AS THE NORMAL, ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The readings may be in the vernacular in the ancient Latin Tradition. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

No matter how much one is attached to the EF Mass, the OF Mass is the norm, the EF is, well, extraordinary. How do parishes and their pastors guarantee that the OF Mass unites the parish and is loved in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the Liturgical directive?

I'm a practical person and I despise people inserting their "feelings" into what should be allowed, or their personal likes and dislikes. The Roman Missal both of 1962 and 2010 do not lend themselves to feelings but give practical norms, instructions and rubrics for the celebration of the Mass.

Some dislike Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, yet these are allowed and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal clearly allows Communion under both kinds in the 2010 missal, although this is not the case with the 1962 missal. So one would have to take their personal preference concerning this off the table in both forms of the Mass and appreciate both forms for the criteria that is present.

The Holy Father and the bishops in union with him are the pastors of the Catholic Church and they model the way the liturgy should or may be celebrated including all the legitimate options. I can count on on hand, maybe one finger a bishop that celebrates the OF Mass ad orientem and allows his priests this option as a matter of fact. The vast majority of bishops, including the Holy Father, celebrate Mass facing the people and only rarely ad orientem.

One might like ad orientem more, but there is no basis to mandate this when the practice today is to face the people and this is legitimately approved by the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him.

In terms of the new translation of the English Mass, I know of no bishop, not even the pope, who will celebrate the previous translation. To request the old when the new is now the norm would be foolish. But maybe another pope one day will allow the older English for a stable group attached to it and say that it was "never in principle abrogated." Who knows?

But all of this is to say that we follow legitimate authority in celebrating the Mass and should be very careful not to denigrate either form of the Mass although we might have personal tastes and prefrences.

THE HELP--THE OLD SOUTH'S ODD SEPERATE BUT EQUAL AND INTEGRATED BUT UNEQUAL RECENT PAST

I watched the movie "The Help" on Monday; it is a must see for all southerners a little bit young than me and older than me who grew up in the period of this movie. While the setting was Jackson, MS the scenery, ranch style home and countryside could have been in Atlanta, Augusta, Macon or any other southern town. And the story told would have been the same.

I hope everyone who saw the pie scene understood its connection with the desire to have in homes where maids worked in the south a restroom that was separate for them and the anxiety that was caused if the "help" used the boss's restroom in the home. The rectory in my former parish in Augusta which was a 1950's ranch style house (which I had torn down about 10 years ago) had a separate toilet in the utility room with the washer and dryer (not heated or cooled) off the carport which could only be accessed by going outside using the kitchen door.

I'm old enough to remember segregation, separate counters for eating at Woolworth's and others places,seperate restrooms, water fountains and places of business, and blacks sitting at the back of the bus. I rode the bus in Augusta frequently as a child and was told by a bus driver when my friend and I on the way home from a downtown movie sat on the long seat at the very back of an empty bus that "ya'll must be "niggers" sitting back there!" I must have been 10 or 11 and yes my parents and my friends' parents allowed us to go downtown on the bus by ourselves! It was another time in many ways! And the buses at that time were exactly like the ones used in the movie! Oh what memories, good and bad! It was the best of times and it was the worst of times to say the least.

Another time, and this was in Atlanta, my mother, her friend and I (I was about 4) took the bus downtown with my mother's friend's maid. We sat at the last seat for the whites and the maid in the first seat for the "Negroes" so that they could converse. The bus driver stopped the bus when he noticed the conversation and made them stop talking to one another. This was around 1957 and there was a lot a fear amongst whites concerning Negroes uppity behavior in buses--think Birmingham and Rosa Parks only two years earlier!

Our family didn't have "help" (my Italian mother was the "help" and that's a novel in itself!) but we knew plenty of families that did and I have friends today who identify with being "reared" by the "help" as was depicted in the movie. Southerns were integrated with blacks; they lived in our homes, prepared our meals, reared our children,took care of us when we were sick and drunk but they were not equal. But there was love in a twisted sort of way for each other. The movie captures that sentiment too! Early on in my ministry when I was at predominantly black St. Peter Claver Church here in Macon as a deacon, I went to many black funerals in black Baptist, Pentecostal, AME and CME Churches and found whites there grieving the most over their beloved "help" who had passed! The movie captures that too.

This movie is a must see whether you are my age and live in the south or not.

THE CAPTAIN ABANDONED THE SHIP AND IS READ THE RIOT ACT, HEAR IT IN REAL TIME!

This is a rather dramatic conversation in Italian between the head of the Coast Guard in Livorno,(Leghorn) Italy, my mother's hometown and the derelict captain of the ship that capsized. I've heard that tone of voice before! The Coast Guard captain on the left speaks my mom's type of Italian. I've heard those explicatives before too!

THERE ARE FEW ACTORS TODAY WHO WITNESS TO THEIR CATHOLIC FAITH, BUT THIS ONE IS TRYING TO DO SO!

I also saw him on the CBS Morning Show and he spoke about going to Mass regularly and doing his homework to prepare for the new translation of the English Mass!

USING ONE'S WHOLE BODY IN THE MASS AND INCULTURATION

St. Joseph Church has a new associate pastor (parochial vicar)Fr. Godfred Boachie-Yiadom from Ghana, West Africa. He should be with us for three years. His style of Liturgy at least here at St. Joseph is very western and he loves the solemnity of the manner in which we celebrate the Mass. I had a conversation with him about the style of Mass in Ghana. He said that a Sunday Mass could last up to three hours or more. There is much more singing and taking one's time with the Liturgy. Time stands still.

He also spoke of the resistance to inculturation, bringing some of the culture of Ghana or West Africa into the Roman Liturgy. However, with time this has changed and the Church is booming and liturgies are packed; vocations are strong! This video gives some insights into what has transpired there:

Peter Kwesi Sarpong, Ghana--Pioneer in making church African. from james ault on Vimeo.

AT SAINT JOSEPH CHURCH IN MACON, THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CELEBRATED AD ORIENTEM! THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CELEBRATED AD OCCIDENS "WESTERN"!

The great basilicas of Rome like Saint Joseph Church in Macon have the celebrant of Mass facing the geographical east which means that the altar faces the nave of the Church and the people who are gathered there so that the Mass is both Ad Orientem and Ad Populum (facing east and facing the people) at the very same time.

At Saint Joseph Church the reform of the Mass after Vatican II allowed the parish to revert to the early tradition of facing the geographical east or ad orientem and at the same time face the people.

In the pre-Vatican II missal, the Mass at Saint Joseph Church was not facing the geographical east but the west and thus Mass had to be celebrated with the priest's back to the people what would be called "ad occidens." Fortunately after Vatican II we were able to recover ad orientem worship at St. Joseph Church in Macon.

Mass at Saint Joseph Church in Macon facing the geographical west (ad occidens) away from God! (Currently this unusual way of facing away from God who will return from the east, only occurs during the EF Mass at St. Joseph)

Mass at Saint Joseph facing God who will return from the geographical East, this form currently is celebrated only with the Ordinary Form of the Mass at St. Joseph Church in Macon!

I am personally grateful that we are able to celebrate Mass at Saint Joseph Church towards the East for the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Maybe one day I will find the courage to celebrate the EF Mass at St. Joseph Church Ad Orientem too! Time will tell!

MARRIAGE EQUALITY?

When I read this article on MARRIAGE EQUALITY, I thought at first it was written by a very conservative Catholic who disagreed with the bishops of Washington State who were using secular arguments against same sex marriage rather than religious arguments. Then I realized that the writer was mocking the bishops stand on heterosexual marriage and would have done so whether or not the arguments were secular or religious. It is just more Catholic bashing and bigotry but politically correct bashing and bigotry, the kind that political and religious liberals like.

I think bishops and all Catholics have to use reason to promote the Church's understanding of marriage which has also been secular society's understanding of marriage for thousands of years. I don't think secularists are going to be persuaded by religious arguments and what God wants or what God's laws are. But they might be persuaded by secular logic if that secular logic is good. I think a combination of both are necessary.

However within Church settings, Catholic bishops, priests and deacons should not use only secular arguments but the full force of the faith and morals of the Church including divine law revealed in natural law and Scripture as well as the Tradition of the Church. If that doesn't convince Catholics, then we have a whole set of other problems, the loss of Catholic identity and the secularization of Catholics in the pews, what one might call their being "born again" not as Catholics but as heathens. That's a problem, boys and girls!

We might not be successful in this spiritual battle with secularists who wish to remove God from the public square to promote their twisted vision of utopia, but we are called as Catholics, both clergy and laity, to be faithful to God and His Holy Church and avoid utopian ideologies at all costs. The dictatorship of secularism is promoting marriage utopia as they once promoted communism as utopia and fascism as utopia. Obedience to God and Church anyone?

CONTINUITY CAN BE GOOD AND I CAN PREDICT THE LITURGICAL FUTURE!

Just to be clear, I like the reform of our calendar and the classification of solemnities, feasts, Memorials with a capital "M" and memorials with a little "m". The Roman Missal after Vatican II has a greater variety of prayers and a fabulous daily Mass lectionary. There is almost no lectionary for daily Mass in the EF Mass. There are very few Masses in the EF Missal. While one may like the EF Mass's order, the OF Missal is far richer than the 1962 missal in the variety of prayers and Masses offered; in fact there is no comparison.

As well, when there is no particular feast to be celebrated in the OF Mass one can either used the prayers for Sunday or some other Mass that ties into the readings of the Mass for that day. This is not the case in the EF Mass. If there is no particular feast on any given day, one uses the readings and prayers of the previous Sunday although there are a few votive Masses the priest could choose.

Now what I don't like about our current calendar is the term used for "Ordinary Time" and the elimination of the three pre-Lenten Sundays and the loss of ember days. I am also sorry that the week before Holy Week is no longer called Passion Week although the Passion Prefaces are used the last two weeks of Lent and technically it is still there but not called such.

The cycle of the year above captures very well the intent of the calendar even the reformed calendar and it could easily be adapted for the reformed calendar. We are in the Sundays after Epiphany now and after Pentecost, wIll be in the Sundays after Pentecost. While it is a mouthful, one could still say Ordinary Time after Epiphany and Ordinary Time after Pentecost with the post-Vatican II calendar. Liturgical Time after Epiphany or Liturgical Time after Pentecost anyone? Or how about Time after Epiphany or Time after Pentecost? Or how about Sundays after Epiphany and Sundays after Pentecost?

One would hope that any future reform of the Roman Missal would reform the calendar slightly to bring back the three Sunday pre-Lenten season, ember days and the designation of the Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost. It would be wise also to return the Octave of Pentecost to the calendar, for some strange reason it was eliminated in the reform.

And as you know I am clairvoyant but maybe not, but I predict that the future reform of the Missal will bring us back to only one Roman Missal for the Mass in the Latin Rite and it will be the current 2010 Missal with two forms of its order, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form with either form celebrated in Latin or the vernacular or a combination of both. Of course this new missal would adjust the calendar as I have suggested. The reformed lectionary will continue with a year "D" which will be the pre-Vatican II lectionary for Sundays.

IS GOD CONFOUNDING THE SPIRIT OF MERE MORTALS?

THE SPIRITUAL BATTLE OF CONTINUITY VERSES DISCONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH RAGES ON

The Second Vatican Council didn't happen out of capriciousness. The ground work had been laid beginning with the First Vatican Council in the 1870's. It's work was not completed.

But as the 20th century began, there was a great deal of liturgical foment going on in different countries trying to make the Mass more accessible to the laity, more comprehensible and more actively participative in the external forum. There was also a move to make the spiritual, contemplative aspects of the Mass more participative. The laity were encouraged to follow the Mass and the priest; missals were developed for this. No longer were the laity ignored in their homemade spiritualities during Mass, such as praying the Holy Rosary or other devotions while the priest and the altar boys did what was inaccessible to the congregation.

There was a call for active participation in the Mass, not in private devotions. There was also a call for the Mass to be celebrated facing the people so they could see where the priest was at any given time rather than having bells to remind those who were focused on the Mass rather than they prayer beads.

There were other things going on too. The Church in Europe was examining its history and Christians, both Catholic and Protestant were wondering how in the world Christians could participate in the Holocaust and support dictators like Mussolini and Hitler, just to name a few. How can so-called Catholic countries in Europe and Central and South America support right-wing dictatorships that suppress human dignity? How can Catholics in the USA support Roe V. Wade and pro-choice politicians without a blink of the eye?

The Second Vatican Council set forth a marvelous vision for the Church but gave few practicalities and no admonitions about the right or wrong way to implement that vision. I would suspect that very few bishops at the Second Vatican Council would foresee a collapse in the authoritative way in which teachings of the Church were received by clergy and laity and that clergy and laity would make it up as they go.

There are many symbols of the collapse of Catholic identity. The first was the manner in which the reform of the Mass occurred. What started as a reform in continuity, even with the 1970 Roman Missal, simply became the "yeast" that caused the Mass to become something altogether different than the 1962 missal, especially in its implementation on the local level. This came about not by following the rubrics of the 1970 missal but by local priests and congregations, not to mention bishops, dismissing the rubrics and creating liturgies of their own with only a broad outline of the 1970 Roman Missal. We are in a the process of recovering what the Mass should be; but much work yet needs to be done.

Two other important events crumpled the vision of the Second Vatican Council and turned it into something that was not intended by the Council Fathers. The loss of priestly identity occurred rather quickly once the Mass was changed and priests no longer found their cultic ministry to be important. More important was being a social worker and identifying with the laity. Priestly spirituality rooted in the monastic tradition of cult and prayer as well as a regimented daily prayer routine were thrown out the window, not reformed for modern practicalities but discarded.

Religious life also was discarded for something altogether different, so different in fact that it never caught the imagination of the laity but only of those in religious life at the time who had grown tired of the true and tested and began to prefer the novel and radical. This has led to the diminution of Religious Orders, the collapse of many and what some fear as an extinction of religious life in the Church. This has led to the decline in Catholic education and hospitals and social ministries.

For both religious life and the priesthood, the promises or vows of obedience, celibacy/chastity as well as poverty or Gospel simplicity were redefined in a way that made these promises the antithesis of what they once were, almost polar opposites and many who promoted this "break" did so with a straight face.

Finally the loss of Catholic identity amongst the laity has been staggering. In many places only 20 to 25% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday and fewer celebrate the other sacraments of the Church including Penance and Holy Matrimony.

Amidst all the confusion there are those pushing for a Catholic Church that is far more Protestant than most mainline Protestant Churches are. They are pushing for a Catholic Church that looks, smells and feels like the modern day Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church in America). These progressive Catholics think that Lutherans and Episcopalians have done a better job at implementing the spirit of Vatican II than the Pope and bishops in union with him have done.

There are two important articles showing the tension that exists now between those who want a Catholic Church that isn't and those who want a Catholic Church that is. I think the "continuity" people will win the day.

READ THESE TWO ARTICLES BY PRESSING EACH SENTENCE BELOW:

IS DOCTRINAL BREAK TIME OVER FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

POPE BENEDICT THE XVI IS BIGOTED AND BIZARRE!

To be sure, there are many clergy, religious and laity that agree with the sentiments of both articles and therein lies the spiritual battle that is ensuing in the Catholic Church. Which army will win the battle?

RESERVE JUDGMENT UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT IN PERSON

San Francisco's St. Mary's Cathedral

Crystal Cathedral, Orange County

Los Angeles' Cathedral, Our Lady of the Angels

Christ the Light Cathedral Oakland: outside

Inside

I have a confession to make. I am fascinated by modern architecture. I actually like it. However I have mixed emotions about it when it comes to building new churches. Most modern parish churches are disasters.

However, I've just returned from a vacation to California and visited several cathedrals there briefly, all of them modern. When I saw these cathedrals in pictures, I was not bowled over but seeing them in person changed most of that.

My favorite is St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco. In person it is marvelous. It has wonderful art work in it and places for private devotions prayed in a public space. I loved it. But pictures don't do it justice.

My next favorite one is the Cathedral of Light in Oakland. I hated it when I saw pictures of it, but in person it won me over. I don't care for the altar and I think it could have had a better look to it, but overall it works, but one needs to see it in person. These cathedrals are more than churches, they also include gathering spaces and crypts. This cathedral has a stunning crypt for entombments.

Then I saw the Crystal Cathedral. It will continue to be used by Shuller's ministries for the next couple of years. There was no sign that ownership had changed and it would soon be a Catholic Cathedral. Again, the cost of the property includes not only the church but a great deal of wonderful land and office building. It is a campus. I like how it looks from the outside and fits into the culture of the area. I will be fascinated to see how it will look when it is renovated for Catholic Cathedral liturgies. There are all kinds of beautiful brass sculptures outside that are very "Catholic" looking. There is also a cemetery that is very well done and the list of donors on sidewalk plaques. I think these people may be turning in their graves. I'm not sure how all that will be handled.

Finally there is Los Angeles Cathedral. I did not like it. I did not like the location. I loved the crypt though. The altar area is cluttered. I did love the tapestries though. But again, one has to see it to make a critique. There are some nice aspects to it, but overall it was disappointing.

MARRIED PRIESTS, PERSONAL SALVATION, BEING NICE, CHILDREN AT CHRISTMAS AND VACATION

I'm on vacation until January 13 and will only have my iPhone and I haven't posted from it which I think I can, but I need a vacation from this, so we'll see if I post anything between now and January 14, but I can easily post comments from my iPhone if I don't delete them by accident (all I have to do is enlarge the image and then the post comment is easier to hit than the delete with my big fat finger.

As you know disaffected Episcopalians are coming into their very own Ordinariate under a seperate nationwide "diocese." Many married Episcopal priests are coming over too with their wives and children and will function as Catholic priests, but will have to be re-confirmed and re-ordained as the Catholic Church does not view Anglican orders as valid, so even their confirmation is invalid, but not their baptism.

When I was in Augusta at Most Holy Trinity from 1991 to 2004, my parochial vicar was Father Dan Munn (RIP). He was married and had a slew of children and grandchildren and his wife was a lector and sometimes lectored when he was celebrating the Mass. We also had Fr. Miguel Grave de Paralta a married former Episcopal priest who was ordained a Melkite Rite priest and has bi-ritual faculties in the Latin Rite. He has two children.

How well would you accept a married priest in your parish. Most Holy Trinity is a very traditional, conservative parish and they loved their married priests. I loved having them too.

Yesterday I entered the world of on-line banking and bill paying. The banking representative who was Baptist asked me how Catholics are saved. I said we are saved by Jesus Christ who in time become incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and eventually suffered and died for our salvation. We are saved by God choosing us to be a part of His Church through Baptism and then our response to that grace as we participate in the sacramental, moral and faith life of the Church.

I think it was too much information for him. I think he just wanted me to say that I had accepted Jesus Christ (which I have) but I told him it was more important for Jesus Christ to accept me, which He has!

And finally being nice on line and in comments, please read the following written by Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture. Please keep in mind that we should engage people in a friendly way even if they provoke us to be ugly, we should just state our case and if you don't want to engage the individual, just don't; don't be ugly:

Hilaire Belloc wisely wrote that the grace of God is in courtesy. Nobody likes being ignored, ridiculed, insulted or otherwise abused. Everybody appreciates being treated with respect and listened to as if his ideas matter. And while not everyone has good ideas, everyone’s ideas do matter. They give us clues to the personality, to the strengths and weaknesses of a particular character, and—perhaps most important—to the needs of a brother or sister in a family that ultimately belongs to God.When I reflect on my own interaction with critics over the past year, I recall those occasions when I was decidedly not conciliatory. And in surveying various discussion groups, including some consisting only of dedicated Catholics, I’ve overheard my share of vitriolic exchanges. We’ve come to expect a low level of social discourse in political discussion, led by political advertising and the verbal maneuvering of televised debates. But there is something wrong—something spiritually wrong—when the same problem afflicts religious discussions.

But the Christian’s call goes far beyond the mere appearance of courtesy. Our Lord requires of us a courtesy motivated by something deeper, namely charity. We all know this, yet again and again, as soon we find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue, we tend to plug our ears and hold our noses—when we should be opening our ears and biting our tongues.

Sometimes, of course, we find ourselves under deliberate and even malicious attack. At CatholicCulture.org, we receive numerous messages through our Contact form in which “unregistered visitors” simply open fire on the Faith, the Church and those who write for the site. Sometimes it is wisest to ignore such messages, especially if the nature of the correspondence and the available time suggest that we will not be in a position to make a positive impact. Similarly, there will be times when any Catholic will have little choice but to extricate himself as politely as possible from an unpleasant personal confrontation.

But often we are faced with disagreements caused by approaching similar questions from different directions or backgrounds, in which animosity, if any, is largely incidental. In such cases, both charity and good sense demand that we hold our fire long enough to understand the values and principles which have led to a contradictory statement. We need to determine, first, whether we’ve missed something significant in either our own thoughts or, as is quite likely, in our own brief comments on the subject at hand. Second, we must discover the strengths and weaknesses of this rival point of view so that we can address the comments reasonably, and even generously.

And third, precisely as a matter of charity, we are called to discern the motivation of our would-be opponent so that we can figure out whether there is something incomplete, weak or broken which cries out for help and healing. Who knows if Our Lord might choose to bestow a grace here through an unworthy servant—through you or me—if we can but hold ourselves open for the task.

This readiness to be used as a means of grace is admittedly difficult to maintain. We are proud, which translates into an excessive attachment to our own ideas, along with a corresponding contempt for contrary ideas and those who express them. And because we are proud, we are also very prickly, taking offense easily, and prone to unseemly distress when contradicted. We seem to be able to recognize the absurdity of such reactions only when we have no stake in the game.

Those of us with dogmatic personalities—and that includes many who take the Faith seriously in a hostile culture—have an additional spiritual hurdle, because we so often confuse our commitment to God’s principles with our own self-importance as God’s spokesmen. This can lead to a habit of self-righteous indignation, as if we must denounce others in defense of Christ, though to be sure He has already indicated His complete willingness to suffer disrespect in order to win hearts. This is usually a case of the servant not really following the Master.

Moreover, we have a tendency to assume that because we know we are right about some things—namely, the dogmas of the Faith—therefore we must be right about everything. But because we have the privilege of accepting the truths of Catholicism, it does not follow that our pastoral preferences are infallible, or our political insight, or our social theories, or our ability to separate truth from falsehood in other fields, or even our spiritual perception. Why then do we pronounce as Catholics on virtually everything under the sun with the same certainty which we ought to reserve for the most basic precepts of the catechism? How easily do all men and women assume the rightness of their own judgments! But in Catholics, who ought to know that they depend at all times on the most generous gifts of God, this belief in our own perfection is a particularly offensive fault.

Here’s a sobering thought: The next person to contradict us (or to contradict the Church) may actually be at an early stage of his own interior journey home. Now it just so happens that, for better or worse, in almost every discussion we ourselves represent home. A harsh word now may drive this person away. A good rule of thumb is that we need to know someone extremely well and have a pre-existing relationship with him if we are to be in any position to speak harshly, and then only as a last resort. We dare not break the bruised reed or quench the smoldering wick (Is 42:3; applied to Christ in Mt 12:20). But I know I have done it. Have you?

Therefore, as we begin a new year and consider our own resolutions, I’d like to recommend that we all strive to discuss the issues that animate CatholicCulture.org with greater charity. I don’t mean so much on the website itself, for we have precious little opportunity for discussion here, except for just a bit of it in Sound Off! or via email. I am referring instead to the deliberate and persistent cultivation of charity in our discussions with those who are not part of the CatholicCulture.org family.

Our purpose—the purpose of all those who take seriously the issues presented through CatholicCulture.org—is to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture. These tasks are, inescapably, oriented toward others. None of this can be done without love and, in most cases, the first opportunity to show love is in how we talk with others.

Charity in discussion: This could easily be the most important thing we accomplish in 2012 and beyond.

Jeff Mirus



And Father Dawid at the Christmas Family Mass:

TOP DOWN AND BOTTOM UP CHANGES, GOOD OR BAD?

The Second Vatican Council was imposed upon the Church in a very clear and totally pre-Vatican II way of authority. It was top down. The laity did not ask for Vatican II or the revision of the Mass--it was a top down change.

The same is true with the revised English translation. Certainly there was some concern about the style of the English translation by an elite group of laity but its revision and implementation was top down.

However, the return of the EF Mass first under limited circumstances and then later in a more broad way was from the bottom up although the permission is from the top down. But polling of parishes on the desire to have the EF Mass was requested before the Mass would be allowed in the EF to determine a legitimate need of a stable group who desired it.

On the parish level, the wise pastor knows not to impose that which is not mandated without some input by the laity in terms of consultation and usually through the pastoral council.

For example, let's say my bishop gave me permission to take one of the Sunday Masses and make it very traditional. Let's say I proposed to him that our 12:10 PM Mass be celebrated ad orientem with kneeling for Holy Communion (although those who wish to stand would still be able) and that at this very same Mass, on the first Sunday of the Month it would be an EF Mass. Should I then consult with the pastoral council to the real need for such an option at St. Joseph Church. Should I not also survey the 12:10 Mass after some catechesis about the reason for it before I imposed it from a top down method?

This is all theoretical, but shouldn't that which is not mandated be decided upon in a more democratic way?

MY KRYSTAL BALL SAYS TO REVISE MY LAST THREE PREDICTIONS FOR 2012!

3. The Krystal Cathedral will be consecrated under the name of The Katholic Krystal Kathedral of Our Lady of Waterford Krystal on 12/21/12 and using the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to do it:

2. Pope Benedict will mandate the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass only throughout the Eastern and Western Rites of the Church to make the Mass truly universal and Traditional and he will concelebrate the EF Mass with con-celebrants mandating that only Roman Chasubles be used henceforth and the first EF Mass by the Holy Father will be on 12/21/12:

1. The end of the world will occur on 12/21/12, my birthday:

OF COURSE I'M NOT CLAIRVOYANT, BUT MAYBE I AM SO HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS FOR 2012 IN REVERSE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

10. An election will be held for the presidency of the USA

9. The Democrats and Republicans will have conventions

8. The state of Georgia will continue to have two dioceses

7. Saint Joseph Church in Macon will still be referred to as a Cathedral

6. Catholics will come home and Anglicans will come home

5. Southern Orders will continue to go worldwide and Italians will catch on

4. There will be an EF wedding and an EF Requiem and and EF Solemnity at St. Joseph

3. There will be an EF weekly at St. Joseph and an EF High Mass monthly

2. Pope Benedict will mandate kneeling for Holy Communion and the Benedictine Altar arrangement, but not mandate ad orientem, simply allow to a stable group who wants it

1. The world will not end on Fr. McDonald's birthday, 12/21/12

REFORM OF THE REFORM AND REQUIEM MASSES, I MEAN, FUNERAL MASSES

Today at the Rorate Caeli blog there is a lament about the slowness of the reform of the reform on the parish level. The author has many good points. Where I disagree with him is that progress isn't being made. This is what he had to say and I'll make some comments at the end:

Last week I traveled to the American Midwest for the funeral of my aunt. Roughly one year ago, I was in the same region for the death of another aunt, which prompted me to start the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society. Why? Because my aunt was "canonized" from the pulpit -- even after I pleaded with the priest in private not to -- and robbed of the prayers she deserved.

But this year would be different. So drastically different than before because of the new-new translation of the Novus Ordo, which has been so hailed by conservative Catholics, that I probably wouldn't even recognize the disastrous Mass of my youth.

If you believe all the hype of the new-new translation, then you must believe that my aunt's Requiem Mass would be very different from the last one. Gone, I was sure, would be all abuses that made me more sad than her death itself.

Gone would be the priest turning his back on Christ and now facing liturgical east; gone would be the tabernacle hidden off to the side; gone would be the "Eucharistic Ministers" and women holding their hands up on stage, I mean, the altar, telling us how to sing; for that matter, gone would be On Eagle's Wings, Here I am Lord and Amazing Grace and back would be the classical settings Requiem Mass, or the graceful silence of a low Mass; gone would be the abomination of Communion in the hand; gone would be women in the sanctuary and girl altar boys; gone would be married deacons sermonizing; gone would be the priest as mere presider and back as an Alter Christus; gone would be talking and laughing in the church before and after Mass; gone would be men in sneakers and jeans and women in miniskirts and uncovered heads; gone would be the long lines for Communion by those same Catholics who do not go to confession; gone would be the heresy of proclaiming the dead in Heaven simply because they died.

Back would be the priest facing the altar of sacrifice and the true Holy Sacrifice on Calvary; back would be Communion on the tongue while kneeling; back would be incense and bells and the Real Presence believed by all; back would be lines for confession before and during Mass; back would be the masculine sanctuary where altar boys are acolytes and vocations in the making; back would be the faithful kneeling during the Sanctus and the Angus Dei; back would be the tabernacle in the middle of the sanctuary because back would be the high altar that was torn out during the dark days when Vatican II was simply "misunderstood"; back would be the priest denying Communion to those at Mass whom he knew for sure to be Protestant; and, thankfully, back would be the priest instructing those at the Mass to pray for my aunt, because back would be the authentic theology believed by all, the teaching on the Four Last Things and the possibility she is in Purgatory.

But, alas, back was the same old Novus Ordo with so little change that I could barely notice a difference from when I was a child well over 30 years ago. Because this new-new translation is so utterly worthless, and because changing a few words here and there do nothing to re-form a poorly formed priest possibly preaching heresy from the pulpit, another member of my family was robbed of her right for prayers to be said upon her death.

We wrote here a while back that the new-new translation of the Novus Ordo was "irrelevant." Now that I've witnessed it in person, and have seen first-hand the rotten fruits that come from it, I'd use another word for it, for deceiving many of our friends into believing things have really changed: dangerous.

My comments: The revised English translation of the Funeral Mass is far superior than the older one. The problem with our current Mass, whether funeral or otherwise is that the propers are optional in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

By propers, I mean, the official Entrance Chant (Introit) and Offertoy and Communion chants. These can be substituted by other hymns and here is the problem the hymns that are chosen can be quite horrid,like Eagle Wings and Be not Afraid and even worse "Old Danny Boy!"

All it would take is for the Holy Father to remove the options and mandate these chants either in Latin or the vernacular.

Now that doesn't mean venerable hymns have to be dumped altogehter but they should not supplant the official chants.

At Saint Joseph Church, we chant the official Introit during the sprinkling of the Body at the Entrance of the Church and as the pall is placed on the casket and then we sing a metrical hymn. The Offertory and communion chants are chanted as well and then additional songs are sung.

This is what we do for Sunday Mass too. The official Entrance antiphon is chanted as the procession begins and then this leads into a metrical hymn. Also the offertory and communion antiphons are always chanted then other music is sung.

Now as far as canonizing the deceased, that really needs proper catechesis and concern from the bishop.

THE WAY TO TRUE REUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Anglican Use Catholic Mass at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, New Jersey (they like ad orientem and don't freak out at kneeling for Holy Communion, Holy Communion from the Chalice and married clergy. PRESS HERE FOR MORE INFO

The "spirit of Vatican II" ecumenical theologians despise that Pope Benedict establishED the Anglican Ordinariate to bring into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church disaffected Anglicans and Episcopalians. If you know anything of the direction of the Episcopal Church in terms of doctrine and morals, you will understand quite well why so many Anglican and Episcopalians are disaffected. Just read my post on birth control.

But the spirit of Vatican II form of ecumenism was to water down as much of traditional Catholic identity, liturgy, architecture and piety as possible to help Protestants feel at home with the Catholic Church.

But these theologians didn't really want a substantive reunion with the Catholic Church, they wanted all the denominations of Protestantism to feel at home in the Catholic Church and Catholics feel at home in their denominations and pretend that there was unity through Baptism alone as though Baptism in and of itself is some sort of ecumenical panacea. They wanted inter-communion at all times even when there was no organic communion between these denominations ant the true Church.

Pope Benedict has confounded this spirit of Vatican II form of ecumenism by showing that true unity between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations is by them accepting the fullness of the Catholic Church but also recognizing how the Holy Spirit has preserved elements of "Catholicity" in their spiritual and liturgical heritage. This is something indeed that Vatican II opened the door.

What is also very interesting is that former Episcopal priests who are married are being ordained Catholic priests and former married Episcopal bishops are being ordained priests. They cannot be ordained bishops due to their marriages, but these former Episcopal bishops are going to be allowed to be "Ordinaries" in these Anglican Ordinariates which means that they will have all the administrative authority of a bishop, be able to wear the insignia of the bishop including the miter and staff!

Read the following good news:

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington
Cardinal Wuerl was the Vatican’s representative for the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus in the United States

It is with great joy that I welcome the establishment of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, and the announcement that Reverend Jeffrey N. Steenson, DPhil, has been appointed its first Ordinary.

Today’s events are the fulfillment of the hopes of many Anglicans in the United States who have longed and prayed for reconciliation with the Catholic Church while retaining cherished elements of the Anglican patrimony.

The establishment of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter is the culmination of careful preparation and much consultation with Vatican officials and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I am especially grateful for the generous assistance and fraternal welcome that many local bishops have extended to those Anglican clergy and groups seeking to join the Ordinariate.

As the former Episcopal Bishop of the Rio Grande, Father Steenson brings to the position of Ordinary great pastoral and administrative experience, along with his gifts as a theologian. Under his leadership, and through the intercession of Our Lady of Walsingham, the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter will both flourish and be a rich blessing to the Catholic Church in the United States.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston
Cardinal DiNardo has been very supportive of the ordinariate, which will be based at Our Lady of Walsingham parish in Houston.

I welcome the establishment of the ordinariate and the appointment of Father Steenson, whom I have known since 2009.

He is a wise and prudent administrator who will bring a vibrant intellect and humility to his role as head of the ordinariate. He has a very deep sense of the meaning of Church. Father Steenson is not only an outstanding patristic scholar, but a priest with a strong pastoral sense and an abiding respect for all people. He will surely be an effective, kind and joyful leader who will love and guide God’s people with the attitude of Christ.

TASTES, SPIRITUALITY AND PASTORAL SENSITIVITIES, THE ORDINARY FORM AND THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM

Pope Benedict made it quite clear that there are two forms of the one Roman (Latin) Rite and he stated it in a rather novel "spirit of Vatican II" way: The Ordinary Form, meaning the normal manner in which the Latin Rite is to be celebrated in parishes and institutions throughout the world, and the Extraordinary Form, the older, traditional Latin Mass that was the normal Mass of the Latin Rite until the late 1960's.

As far as I can tell from the history of the Latin Rite, this is the first time that we have had two distinct rites of the Mass. Of course there are several different rites in the Latin Rite and in the Eastern Rite. While each differs in minor or major ways, each celebration of the Mass, no matter the rite or style, if valid, celebrates the great Tradition of the Mass--the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice of Jesus and the Paschal Banquet of the Sacrificial Victim who is consumed for our salvation.

One may like the Liturgies of the Eastern Rites because these are in fact more ethereal and other-worldly than even the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass. Or one may prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass for its flexibility, intelligibility and noble simplicity. One may appreciate that standing for Holy Communion has ancient roots as testified by the Eastern Rite of the Church whose members have always stood to receive Holy Communion and from the time of the Church Fathers. They have always understood that standing for prayer and receiving our Precious Lord is a Resurrection posture, a sign of being "raised up" in the Passion, death and Resurrection of Jesus celebrated at every Divine Liturgy.

Others in the Latin Rite prefer to kneel for receiving Holy Communion as a sign of adoration, humility and respect and linking them to a very long tradition in the Latin Rite of kneeling.

Others prefer the Extraordinary Form because it is more rigid and universal in its celebration and language and varies little from parish to parish and country to country.

Still other prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass as it goes back to the early Church in style and content and in this sense is the Traditional Mass of the Church in terms of the use of the vernacular language, the structure of the Mass and its noble simplicity.

Others prefer the spirituality of the EF Mass as it is more contemplative. Whereas others prefer the OF Mass for its ability to enable them to participate more actively and in community with the priest and others in the congregation. They like the involvement of the laity which shows that the Church is both the clergy and the laity who form the Body of Christ with Jesus, the Bridegroom as her Head. They feel more united to the priestly actions of the Mass.

Whereas others prefer the EF Mass as showing forth more clearly the High Priest of the Church, Jesus Christ who on our behalf saves us from sin and death by becoming the Church sacrificial Victim.

But make no mistake, the Church will eventually return to one Roman Missal. It may appear more like the EF in style and spirituality and more like the current OF in language and intelligibility and lavishness of Scriptures and then both the current OF Missal and the 1962 EF Missal will be suppressed.

I'm not clairvoyant, but maybe I am, but I can't say when that will happen but certainly not before the end of the world on my birthday this year of 2012, December 21st when the Mayan calendar runs out.

But in the meantime, the OF Mass will be the normal Mass of the Latin Rite and the EF Mass will be the exception to the normal form for those who request it.