A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE ON GOING "REFORM OF THE REFORM"

The pope models in the Sistine Chapel for bishops, priests, deacons and the laity, the option of ad orientem Mass celebrations:


I completely accept Vatican II’s document on the liturgy which explicitly states and without ambiguity that the priest has no right to change any aspect of the liturgy on his own accord or by his authority. I think too that this would extend also to Liturgy Committees. With this disclaimer, what do you think of my suggestions below for the Ordinary Form of the Mass to be more in continuity with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?

The premise to the suggestions below is that “ad orientem” is used; the choreography of the EF is used for movements of the priest and altar servers. The priest would kiss the altar each time he turns from it to the congregation and that the greeting at the beginning of Mass be transferred back to the time prior to praying the opening collect (as it is done by the way in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Episcopal Church, thus making the Mass more ecumenical, not to mention traditional.) Apart from that, I suggest no other changes to the rubrics of the OF Mass whatsoever.

Processional Hymn

At the Foot of the Altar, Sign of the Cross facing altar; the Invitation to prepare for Mass facing people

Penitential Rite, Confiteor and absolution, facing altar

After absolution, the priest ascends the altar with the priest, congregation, and choir singing the official introit. The priest kisses the altar and if incense is used, incenses it.

At the conclusion of the Introit and with the priest at the center of the altar, the Kyrie is sung and the priest intones the Gloria which is then sung by all.

Then the priest turns and greets the people with “The Lord be with you…” and goes to pray the Collect at the "Epistle" side of the altar.

All sit down for the normal Liturgy of the Word as it is currently celebrated.

During the Gospel Procession the missal is transferred to the left side of the priest or deacon as he faces the altar praying the prayer of preparation for reading the Gospel.

The Gospel is proclaimed.

Homily

The priest at the center of the altar recites or sings with the congregation the Creed.

Intercessions follow.

All sit for the normal collection, offertory procession and preparation of the altar. The offertory antiphon is sung and other music covers the action of the Rite of Preparation through the incensations and "Orate Fratres."

After the washing of the hands, the priest turns to the congregation for the “Pray, my brothers and sisters.”

Everything as usual, but facing the altar through the Lord’s Prayer.
Face the people for “The Peace of the Lord be with you” and Let us offer the sign of peace”

The Agnus Dei is Sung for the "Breaking of the Bread."

The priest turns to the people for the “Ecce Agnus Dei”

Priest and People Receive Holy Communion in the normal way

The Missal is placed on the "Epistle" Side of the altar during Holy Communion

The Prayer after Holy Communion is prayed at the "Epistle" Side

Announcements

The priest goes to the center of the altar and kisses it, turns to the people, greets them, blesses them and he or the deacon if present dismisses them, he descends the altar, turns, bows or genuflects depending on where the tabernacle is located and recesses during the recessional hymn.

Other than these tiny rubrical changes and ad orientem, this is an Ordinary Form Mass in the vernacular. Your thoughts?

NOW THIS VIDEO IS A HOOT, STEROTYPICAL BUT OH SO TRUE!

The "spirit of Vatican II" mentality is "oh so sad!" Will it die off? It is! Time marches on the old guard gets old, feeble and dies, the younger generation takes over. Look at religious life where there is young blood and look at religious life were you hear the same old same old and see them as well. The progressive "priest" in this video captures what I was prepared to be when I was in the seminary in the liberal '70's. Don't blame me because they knew the future of the Church better than God. We were so with it back then. We knew what Vatican II meant and we were hell bent on bringing it to the parish. Now we're old and decaying and others mock us. What a life, what a life! What happened?

OBLIGATION: IS IT A DIRTY WORD?

These children have a sense of obligation and fear of the Lord because their parents and their priest have thought them to have it by their word and example. The parents instilled a sense of obligation in their children by making sure they understand the obligation to attend Mass. Their heads are bowed thanking God for their good parents and wonderful priest!

Yesterday I was speaking with our retired pastor, Msgr. John Cuddy about the decline in Mass attendance over the past 40 years. He is 82 years old and grew up in Hartford, Connecticut. He contrasted what the Church was like in his growing up years and how it has changed today. For example, his home parish church could seat about 1000 people. Almost everyone in the parish attended Mass every Sunday. His parish had to have about seven Masses on Sunday spaced about a half hour apart to accommodate everyone and the Church was filled to capacity at each Mass! He mentioned that people attended Mass out of respect for God, a strong sense of obligation and the fear of hell it they did not "hear" Mass on Sunday which to do so willfully is a mortal sin.

We contrasted his childhood experience (which to a certain extent is also mine, but on a smaller scale) with the mentality today. In Macon, Georgia we believe there are about 60 to 70 percent of baptized Catholics who do not attend Mass on Sunday. They do not know how to respect God. They have no sense of obligation toward Him or His Church and they have no fear of hell sense they have no understanding of mortal sin and how through our conscious choices we separate ourselves from God and Church. Seeing is believing and if we don't see people at Church, they've cut themselves off, haven't they?

Many people today want a "feel good" religion and relationship with God. In many ways they live in a fantasy-made up world of the God they create in their own mind, like a make-believe friend in childhood. This "god" is a false God with no basis in Scripture or Church teaching. This concept of thinking about God has no sense of obligation to Him or His Church.

You know what, sometimes on Sunday morning, I don't want to get up and go celebrate Mass. But out of a sense of obligation to those who have come to the Church to attend Mass, I do get up. Could you imagine what they would think of me, if I stayed in the rectory right next door and could care less about the full church right outside my window? I have an obligation to be there for them. How much more for God?

We need to recover a strong sense of obligation in our lives in general and to God, Church and our fellow Catholics in particular. We need to recover a sense of "the fear of the Lord" and what mortal sin is and can do to us.

Your thoughts.

DO YOU WANT A SIMPLE BENEDICTINE CASKET, YOU MIGHT NOT GET IT OR WILL YOU?

ANN RICE AND THE SECULARIST ATTACK ON THE CHURCH

Ann Rice who was reared as a Catholic in New Orleans became an atheist at the age of 18. She says that her novels on vampires reflects the darkness of her life as an atheist as she writes her novels on these creatures from an atheistic perspective.

Two years ago, she underwent a conversion and returned to the practice of her Catholic faith. Last month, she publicly renounced her Christianity and Catholicism although she says she is till a follower of Christ, but prefers following him by herself without the help of organized religion or any Church. She's as mad as hell at the evil institution of the Catholic Church and won't take it anymore. Will the media's showcasing of the public notoriety of her defiance of the Church lead to the selling of more of her books? I don't want to impugn her moral character in this regard because I really can't judge that.

But the liberal secular media is having a heyday with her renunciation of Catholicism and Christianity. The reason for the media's interest is that she supports their poltical interests which are all a part of the total secularization of our world cultures including that of the USA.

What does Ann Rice despise about the Catholic Church? The very same things that liberal secularists in and outside of the Catholic Church despise. Let me list them as they all have to do with that three letter word, S E X:

1. She hates the Church for its stand on artificial contraception and the use of condoms especially when Pope Benedict restated the Church's teaching in Africa.

2. She hates the Church for oppressing women, especially for the Church's teaching on abortion, contraception and exclusion of women from the Church's ordained ministry.

3. She hates the Church for its teachings on human sexuality and for being pro-active politically to keep the ban on same sex marriage in place in the USA.

4. She sees being a practicing Catholic as being in bed with the devil; Catholicism is evil.


Secularists who are promoting through legislation and judicial processes the undermining of centuries of sexual mores and the traditional understanding of marriage will do anything to shunt the Catholic Church into the sphere of illegitimacy and irrelevancy. The demonization of the Church, of the Pope, of the bishops and of the priests is the primary way to attack Catholicism and annihilate its influence in the public square. Although it might work for a time, it won't win. Your comments?

ALTAR GIRLS, WOMEN LECTORS AND MUTUAL ENRICHMENT OF BOTH FORMS OF THE ONE ROMAN RITE

Archbishop Raymond Burke

Official Summorum Pontificum study
Update - posted by Gregor Kollmorgen, of the New Liturgical Movement

For a while now, a German Canonical Commentary on Summorum Pontificum by the German latinist and canon lawyer Fr. Gero P. Weishaupt has been available online. This commentary has now been published as a book, and the preface to this book was written by H.E. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. The full text of the preface is available at the German website Summorum Pontificum. Here is an NLM translation of a passage of the preface which doubtlessly will raise great interest:

In the second chapter of his commentary, Weishaupt answers a number of practical issues that arise regarding the implementation of Summorum Pontificum and result from recent changes to the discipline of the celebration of the sacraments, such as e.g. those regarding female altar servers or lay people who perform the ministry of lectors or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. To answer these questions , the commentary correctly applies two general canonical principles.

The first principle requires that liturgical norms, which were in force in 1962, are to be diligently observed for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, for these norms protect the integrity of the Roman rite as contained in the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. The second principle states that the subsequent liturgical discipline is only to be introduced in the Extraordinary Form, if this discipline affects a right of the faithful, which follows directly from the sacrament of baptism and serves the eternal salvation of their souls.

The application of these two principles to the cases mentioned leads to the conclusion that neither the service at the altar by persons of the female sex nor the exercise of the lay ministries of lector or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion belong to the basic rights of the baptized. Therefore, these recent developments, out of respect for the integrity of the liturgical discipline as contained in the Missale Romanum of 1962, are not to be introduced into the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite. The commentary presents here in an impressive manner that the mutual enrichment of both forms of the Roman rite is only possible if discipline peculiar to each of the two forms is accordingly carefully observed.

My comments:

Archbishop Burke is the Church's leading "canonist" at the Vatican and gives his opinion on how the Extraordinary Form of the Mass should be celebrated which he concludes means following the rubrics and canons of this Mass as defined in Missal of Blessed John the Twenty-third in 1962. In his opinion, this would preclude the use of altar girls and female lectors or lay lectors in general.

However, it is Pope Benedict XVI who has stated in a letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, that he hoped that allowing for the wider use of the 1962 missal that having two forms of the one Mass would exert influence on each. In terms of "organic development" has Pope Benedict set into motion the advent of a third typical missal a few decades down the road or sooner? What does Pope Benedict have in mind in terms of mutual enrichment and organic development? At one point the Holy Father indicated that he felt that the lectionary of the OF Mass could be used in place of the EF lectionary in the celebration of the EF Mass. He stated this three years ago, but since then there has been ambiguous support of such a thing.

At any rate, the writing of a preface for a book even by the highest authority on canon law in the Church is not the same thing as a promulgation from a Vatican Congregation or the pope himself. But what Archbishop Burke writes could in fact show forth a future "promulgation."

I would wholeheartedly support following the norms and laws of either form of the one Roman Rite as making perfect sense. The greatest problem with the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass today is the super-creativity imposed upon it by priests and liturgy committees and making it up as you go in terms of extemporaneous comments and fashioning one's own prayers and rubrics. Often times there is more divergence of style in a Mass made up by a priest and/or his liturgy committee and the strict rubrics of the OF Mass. In fact in this case, the OF Mass when celebrated by the book is more in continuity with the EF Mass celebrated by the book than it is with a "creative" Mass celebrated in a non-rubrical way.

But what about the future? Could we see an Ordinary Form Mass option that maintains all of the soon to be revised English Roman Missal and its GIRM's current legislation and Bishop Conference's adaptations of the GIRM along with the modern Roman calendar and lectionary but with an English option for the EF's order of the liturgy for the fixed parts of the Mass and its rubrics?

What are your thoughts on this expanded option for the OF Mass's Roman Missal It would be very simple to do and there would not be the mixing of options. For example if the EF Order of the Mass is used with the OF Roman Missal, the priest would still use the collects, other orations and preface options along with the OF's lectionary but would have the Roman Canon's EF rubrics and the other Eucharistic prayers would have revised rubrics to keep them in continuity with the EF's Roman Canon rubrics, such as double genuflections at the consecration, specific rubrics for the pall and the genuflection that occurs when the chalice after the consecration is uncovered, etc.? Of course as with the OF's Roman Missal the entire Mass could be in English or the option of the Latin if so desired. But keep in mind, that the canons regulating the celebration of the OF Mass along with various bishops' Conferences adaptations would still be in force, thus allowing for lay lectors of either gender, altar girls and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when needed. Again, comments?

RATS IN THE RECTORY AND MORE RATS, THE SAD HORROR CONTINUES!

When I was a child, I just loved Topo Gigio when he appeared on Ed Sullivan! He was so cute!

I guess you could say this one is kind of plump and cute?

The best kind of a rat, dead! We already had four just like these killed in the house! These are not cute or cuddly!

This news story could be filmed in my rectory kitchen and as the reporter states, it is completely unacceptable! I agree! This is not cute! This is what is in my rectory and yes I think the rectory should be shut down until the problem is completely resolved!

As Sophia Patrillo would say on the Golden Girls, "picture this...":

"2010, Macon, GA, the rectory,Wednesday, August 11th, it's 4:50 AM and I am sitting at the kitchen table, enjoying my bagel and a cup of coffee, reading the Macon Telegraph. Then, I hear scurrying, like a mad dash of a solo runner or a dog trying to get traction on the glaze of a tile floor. I glance reflexively at the kitchen floor and in comes flying a large brown rat the size of a small Chihuahua with a tale longer than his body! He knows I'm there and he's in a panic. No, I'm in a panic! He heads toward me, I spit out my bagel, get coffee on my tee shirt; he runs over my slippers, which by the way I have on, tries to find an escape, but he's trapped like a rat, no, I mean, he is a rat!!!!!!!!!! I don't mean to be sexist, it could have been a she.

I nearly jump on the kitchen table trying to get out of its way. He's frantically looking for an escape. He looks at me as we establish eye contact. It almost jumps on the kitchen counter but then to much of my relief and his, I presume, finally he finds an opening at the base of the kitchen cabinet and disappears, presumably to stalk me later, but where, in my bedroom as a I sleep, while I'm taking a shower, a la "Psycho?" Will it run up my leg as I sit at my office desk? Will I ever feel secure again?

My skin crawls; I throw the rest of my bagel away and get the hell out of there! I contemplate moving from the rectory because of this nightmare which is now occurring when I am awake. This is a "morningmare" and it is real!" I run upstairs and like Scarlet O'Hara, I clinch my fist, raising it heavenward, declaring, "as God is my witness, I will never go down to that kitchen again!"

Brothers and sisters, this is rat number five, four are dead, killed behind our stove, you know the place where we cook our food! I've seen pictures of the dead ones, this is the first time I've actually seen one running toward me and in a confined place! My skin is crawling and now every creak and crack I hear in the house, I know it is my worst nightmare coming true.

Update: Picture this: it's 8:50 AM this morning, I'm sitting at my desk,preparing to make out our three month, September, October and November priests' Mass schedule. As I take my pen in hand, something jumps on the desk right where my left arm is resting. I look. It is a roach! I kill it instantly! Dear God,what have I done to deserve this? Why is this happening, in what way I have offended you? Answer me! Does anyone have a tranquilizer?

ALTAR GIRLS PRAISED BY VATICAN NEWSPAPER

A couple of St. Joseph Catholic Church altar girls--they do a wonderful job!

My own experience with altar girls has been positive. In my more liberal days in the early 1980's I convinced my pastor that we should have them. So since about 1981 I have experienced girls serving the altar. In every parish that I have been in with girls serving, I have never seen boys dropping out. I've always encouraged altar servers to continue serving well into high school and they do! We have servers who continue into college and ask to serve when they come home from college. I'm glad that this "ministry" is opened to both. I would see no problem using them even for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Your thoughts.

READ NEWS REPORT ABOUT ALTAR GIRLS AND THE VATICAN'S PRAISE OF THEM HERE!

MY VACATION TO OXFORD, THE KILNS AND SO MUCH MORE!

From left to right Aidan Mackey, who is an expert on GK Chesterton as well as CS Lewis, Tammy Rowan, parishioner at St. Joseph, Macon, who worked at the Kilns this summer, Fr. Patrick Foley of St. Joseph Church, Pensacola, and Fr. Allan J. McDonald, pastor St. Joseph Church, Macon:


More pictures from Oxford and the Kilns and trip to London and Ireland from my friend, Fr. Pat's blog. His blog will be updated with more pictures as time goes on so check back and he posts other good things too, but never as controversial as mine:
PRESS HERE FOR FATHER PAT'S BLOG WITH MY VACATION PICTURES AND SO MUCH MORE!

VATICAN II ALLOWED FOR TWO FORMS OF THE ROMAN RITE TO BE CELEBRATED, THE REFORMED RITE AND THE MORE ANCIENT RITE!

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and as Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal, now Holy Father, has always taught that Vatican II never abolished the older form of the Mass, now known as the Extraordinary Form of the one Roman Rite. Vatican II did not reform the now known Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite either, it simply put forth principles which would guide the proper authorities to reform the Mass, but under the authority of the pope. In this sense, Vatican II ushered in an era where there could co-exist the two forms of the one Roman Rite which at the time and even today is considered a "novelty of renewal" brought about by Vatican II as a gift to the Church with little precedence in Church history.

This is what Cardinal Ratzinger said:

It is of course possible that in this area there are reasons which are anterior to any theology and which have their origin in the individual characters of people or in the conflict between different characters, or even in other entirely exterior circumstances. But it is certain that there are also deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons one most often hears are: the lack of obedience to the Council, which is said to have reformed the liturgical books; and the disruption of Church unity, which is said to follow necessarily if one allows the use of different liturgical forms.

It is in theory relatively easy to refute these two arguments. First, the Council did not itself reform the liturgical books; it ordered their revision and, to that end, set forth certain fundamental rules. Above all, the Council gave a definition of what the liturgy is, and this definition gives a criterion which holds for every liturgical celebration. If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and if one wished to set to one side the "normae generales" found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia -- then yes, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council. It is therefore in accordance with these criteria that one must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old books or according to the new.

The following is what Cardinal Ratzinger noted are pertinent for Catholics to accept concerning the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II:


CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963
III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.
24. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.
25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.
B) Norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the Liturgy
26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops [33]
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation.
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.
28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.
29. Servers, lectors commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God's people.
Consequently they must all be deeply imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, each in his own measure, and they must be trained to perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner.
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people's parts.
32. The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred Orders, and there are liturgical laws providing for due honors to be given to civil authorities. Apart from these instances, no special honors are to be paid in the liturgy to any private persons or classes of persons, whether in the ceremonies or by external display.
C) Norms based upon the didactic and pastoral nature of the Liturgy
33. Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful [34]. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read "which were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace.
Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.
3) Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.
4) Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over the celebration.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

SOME PICTURES FROM MY VACATION

UPDATED! This post will be updated from time to time, so check for more pictures when I add them

My friend, Father Pat Foley, pastor of St. Joseph Church in downtown Pensacola has posted on his blog some pictures he took while we vacationed in London and Ireland. Enjoy! PRESS VACATION

PRESS HERE FOR ADDITIONAL PICTURES, FIRST UPDATE

I SUSPECT THE CLERGY AND THE LAITY OF THIS PARISH HATE THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MASS AND THE EF MASS, THEY LIKE THIS TYPE OF "RENEWAL!"

I'm not opposed to dancing or ballet in the correct venue, but not in Church and certainly not at Mass. Although in a secular, entertainment venue, the dance in the video below would have been quite beautiful, but at Mass an abomination. Yet, we hear people who would support this sort of thing decry the new English translation of the Mass, "prayers at the foot of the altar" with its movement toward the altar," the choreography of changing the missal from one side of the altar to the other side of the altar, the lifting of the chasuble, and the repetition of the prayers of unworthiness. On top of that, they despise Gregorian Chant in Latin but prefer the taped, secular music accompanying the dance of the vestal virgins. Go figure!

CARDINAL RATZINGER'S TAKE ON THE INFLUENCE OF BOTH FORMS OF THE MASS ON EACH OTHER, 1998

The complete text of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks made at the Ecclesia Dei Conference held in Rome on October 24, 1998. The English translation from the original French text is provided courtesy of the magazine Inside the Vatican.

Ten years after the publication of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, what kind of balance sheet of its successes and failures can we draw up? I think it is above all an occasion to show our gratitude and to give thanks. The diverse communities born, thanks to this pontifical text, have given to the Church a great number of vocations to the priesthood and to religious life. These men and women, filled with zeal and joy and profoundly loyal to the Pope, are rendering their service to the Gospel during this present historical epoch -- our own. By means of them, many of the faithful have been confirmed in the joy of being able to live the liturgy and in their love of the Church, or perhaps through them they have rediscovered both of these things. In many dioceses -- and the number is not that small -- they serve the Church in collaboration with the bishops and in a fraternal relation with those faithful who feel themselves at home in the renewed form of the old liturgy. All of this causes us today to express our profound gratitude!

Nevertheless, it would not be very realistic to pass over in silence some less pleasant facts. In many places, there have been and still are difficulties. Why? Because many bishops, priests and laypeople see this attachment to the old liturgy as a divisive factor. They think the attachment does nothing but trouble the ecclesial community. They see the attachment as evidence that the Council is being accepted "only with certain reservations" and suspect that it means the obedience due to the Church's legitimate pastors is less than it should be.

We must, therefore, pose the following question: how can these difficulties be overcome? How can the necessary trust be built up so that these communities which love the old liturgy can be fully integrated into the life of the Church? But there is another question underlying the first: What is the profound reason for this distrust or even this refusal to accept a continuation of the old liturgical forms?

It is of course possible that in this area there are reasons which are anterior to any theology and which have their origin in the individual characters of people or in the conflict between different characters, or even in other entirely exterior circumstances. But it is certain that there are also deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons one most often hears are: the lack of obedience to the Council, which is said to have reformed the liturgical books; and the disruption of Church unity, which is said to follow necessarily if one allows the use of different liturgical forms.

It is in theory relatively easy to refute these two arguments. First, the Council did not itself reform the liturgical books; it ordered their revision and, to that end, set forth certain fundamental rules. Above all, the Council gave a definition of what the liturgy is, and this definition gives a criterion which holds for every liturgical celebration. If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and if one wished to set to one side the "normae generales" found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia -- then yes, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council. It is therefore in accordance with these criteria that one must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old books or according to the new.

It is good to recall in this regard what Cardinal Newman said when he observed that the Church, in her entire history, never once abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms, something which would be entirely foreign to the Spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, a liturgy which expresses the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of various ceremonies which one may put together in a positivist and arbitrary way -- today like this and tomorrow like that. The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities, born out of a dialogue of love between the Church and her Lord. They are the expressions of the life of the Church in which are condensed the faith, the prayer and the very life of generations, and in which are incarnated in a concrete form at once the action of God and the response of man.

Such rites can die, if the subject which bore them historically disappears, or if the subject is inserted into another order of life. The authority of the Church can define and limit the usage of rites in different historical circumstances. But the Church never purely and simply prohibits them.

And so the Council did ordain a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not forbid the previous books. The criterion the Council expressed is at once more vast and and more strict: it invited everyone to make a self-critique. We will return to this point.

Now for the second argument, that the existence of the two rites can harm Church unity. Here one must make a distinction between the theological and the practical aspects of the question. On the theoretical and fundamental side of the question, it must be stated that many forms of the Latin rite have always existed, and that these rites declined only slowly as a consequence of the unification of human living space in Europe. Up until the Council there existed, alongside the Roman rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the rite of the Chartreux and of the Carmelites, and the best known of all: the rite of the Dominicans. And perhaps there were still other rites with which I am not familiar.

No one was ever scandalized that the Dominicans, often present in our parishes, did not celebrate Mass like our parish priests, but had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was as Catholic as the Roman rite, and we were proud of this richness in having many different traditions.

Moreover, this must be said: the freedom that the new Ordo Missae allows to be creative, has often gone too far; there is often a greater difference between liturgies celebrated in different places according to the new books, than there is between an old liturgy and a new liturgy when both are celebrated as they ought to be, in accordance with the prescribed liturgical texts.

An average Christian without special liturgical training finds it hard to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a Mass sung in Latin according to the new Missal. In contrast, the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the concrete vernacular forms and celebrations with all the possible liberties and creativities -- the difference can be enormous.

With these considerations, we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice, where things are naturally more complicated, because they involve relations between living persons.

It seems to me that the aversions of which we have spoken are so great because the two forms of celebration are thought to reflect two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the whole of Christian life. There are many reasons for this.

The first is that the two liturgical forms are judged on the basis of exterior elements and so the following conclusion is reached: there are two fundamentally different attitudes.

The average Christian considers it essential that the reformed liturgy be celebrated in the vernacular and facing the people, that there be large areas for creativity and that lay-people exercise active roles. On the other hand, it is thought essential to the old liturgy that it be celebrated in the Latin language, that the priest face the altar, that the ritual be rigidly prescribed and that the faithful follow the Mass by praying in private, without having an active role. In this way of viewing things, certain outward phenomena are essential for a liturgy, not the liturgy in and of itself. In this view, the faithful understand and express the liturgy by means of concrete, visible forms and are spiritually quickened by these very forms, and do not penetrate easily to the profound levels of the liturgy.

But the oppositions we have just enumerated do not come from either the spirit or the letter of the conciliar texts.

The Constitution on the Liturgy itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular "especially in the readings and directives, and in some of the prayers and chants" (36, 2). As for the participation of laypeople, the Council insists first in general that the liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, Head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church "and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful." And the text specifies: "In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him." (28) "By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time all should observe a reverent silence." (30) These are the directives of the Council: they can provide matter for reflection to all.

A number of modern liturgists, however, have unfortunately shown a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in only one direction. If one does this, one ends up reversing the intentions of the Council.

The role of the priest is reduced by some to one of pure functionality. The fact that the entire Body of Christ is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point that the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy and distributes the different roles in it. There is also a dangerous tendency to minimize the sacrificial character of the Mass and to cause mystery and the sacred to disappear, under the self-proclaimed imperative of making the liturgy more easily understood. Finally, one notes the tendency to fragment the liturgy and to emphasize only its communal character by giving the assembly the power to decide the celebration.

Happily, there is also a certain distaste for the rationalism full of banality and the pragmatism of certain liturgists, be they theoreticians or practitioners. One can see evidence of a return to mystery, to adoration, to the sacred and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as is witnessed by the "Oxford Declaration on Liturgy" of 1996.

Moreover, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. I have a great respect for our ancestors, who recited during low Masses the "Prayers During the Mass" contained in their book of prayers. But certainly one cannot regard that as the ideal for the liturgical celebration. Perhaps these reduced forms of celebration are the profound reason why the disappearance of the old liturgical books had no importance whatsoever in many countries and caused no sorrow. People had never been in contact with the liturgy itself.

On the other hand, in those places where the liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy -- in those places where this movement anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, as for example the praying participation of all in the liturgical action -- in those places there was greater suffering in the face of a liturgical reform undertaken in too much haste and limiting itself often to the exterior aspect. Where the liturgical Movement never existed, the reform did not at first pose any problem. The problems arose only in a sporadic way in those places where a wild creativity caused the disappearance of the sacred mystery.

This is why it is so important that the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I cited above, be observed, even if one is celebrating according to the old Missal.

When this liturgy truly moves the faithful with its beauty and profundity, then it will be loved, and then it will not be in irreconcilable opposition to the new Liturgy -- provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished. Different spiritual and theological accents will continue, certainly to exist. But they will no longer be two opposing ways of being a Christian, but rather two riches which belong to the same Catholic faith.

When, several years ago, someone proposed "a new liturgical movement" to ensure that the two forms of liturgy did not diverge too much and to show their inner convergence, several friends of the old liturgy expressed the fear that this was nothing other than a stratagem or ruse to eliminate the old liturgy entirely.

Such anxieties and fears must cease! If, in the two forms of celebration, the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery should appear clearly, that could only be a reason to rejoice and thank the Good Lord. In the measure to which all of us believers live and act according to these motivations, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the old liturgy does not trouble or harm the unity of their diocese, but is rather a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ, of which we are all the servants.

So, dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience -- to keep trusting --and to find in the liturgy the force needed to give our witness to the Lord for our time.


Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Ecclesia Dei Conference October 24, 1998

TWO VERY GOOD ARTICLES THAT SHOW WHY POPE BENEDICT AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE SO DESPISED BY SOME TODAY

This article in the TELEGRAPH from the United Kingdom illustrates the profound impact that secularism is having on religion in general and Catholicism in particular. It is happening here in the USA too! Read about it HERE.

This article from the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR hits the nail on the head too and shows why aging and some not so aging progressive Catholics so despise both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. The Second Vatican Council began in 1962 and ended in late 1965. For about 12 years the "spirit of Vatican II" reigned supreme and wrecked havoc upon the Church. The legitimate interpretation of Vatican II, though, has brought true renewal to those regions that have implemented it. The legitimate interpretation of Vatican II as with all other Councils and Magisterial developments is one built upon the "hermeneutic of continuity" which means develop from what preceded not rupture from it.

For over 30 years now the Magisteriums of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been interpreting the Council properly and setting the Church on the proper course. You can read about it here in the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR!

THIS NUN WEARING THE SAME HABIT AS THE ACTING NUNS IN THE CELL PHONE COMMERCIAL IS A REAL NUN AND A MOVIE STAR!

HOW SHOULD THE OF MASS HAVE A GRAVITATIONAL PULL ON THE EF MASS: MY SUGGESTIONS!

When Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, he wrote that he hoped having the EF Mass celebrated more frequently that both Masses would have a gravitational pull on the other. What would the ideal, well-celebrated EF Mass look like with some influences from the OF Mass?

My suggestions:

1. The procession to the altar is accompanied by a strong vernacular metrical hymn.

2. After the priest arrives at the altar, the hymn comes to a conclusion and the Prayers and the Foot of the Altar begin with the congregation participating with the altar servers in all spoken responses.

3. As the priest approaches the altar, the choir chants the Introit and the priest incenses the altar.

4. The Kyrie is sung in Greek with active congregational support.

5. The priest intones the Gloria and it is sung by all.

6. The priest chants the Opening Collect.

7. The Liturgy of the Word is celebrated from the Ambo as in the OF Mass, with a lector from the congregation reading the First Lesson facing the congregation in the vernacular. The priest remains at his chair for this and the Gradual. The Gradual is sung by the choir or cantor.

8. The priest then approaches the altar for the prayers prior to the Gospel. The Roman Missal is transferred to the Gospel side of the Altar.

9. The Priest or deacon goes to the ambo and proclaims the Gospel in English, singing or saying it.

10. The homily follows and is integral to the Mass, not separate from it.

11. The priest returns to his chair for a moment of silence then approaches the altar for the Credo and introduction to the Offertory Antiphon. He sits while the choir sings the offertory antiphon and the collection is taken. The Gifts of Bread and Wine, along with the collection are brought to the priest and he goes to the altar to begin the offertory.

12. The Mass continues as usual, but the postures of the OF Mass are followed. All stand for the Orate Fratres and Secret. They remain standing for the Preface Dialogue and singing of the Preface. They remain standing for the Sanctus and the priest, choir and congregation all sing the Sanctus together--in fact all sung parts are sung together, the priest does not say any parts of the congregation independently from them.

13. The Congregation kneels for the Roman Canon that may be said in an audible voice.

14. The congregation stands for the Pater Noster through the Agnus Dei. They kneel for the Domini Non Sum Dignus. Appropriate anthems are sung during Holy Communion.

15. After Holy Communion by intinction, the vessels are purified, the Communion Antiphon is sung.

16. The Prayer after Holy Communion is Prayed. Brief announcements are made and the Ite Missa est is chanted along with the Final Blessing and the proclamation of the Last Gospel. All depart with a strong vernacular recessional hymn.

NUNS OR SISTERS IN TRUE HABITS CAN JUST ABOUT SELL YOU ANYTHING!

Could you imagine this commercial with sisters or nuns dressed in secular attire?

SO WHAT ARE CATHOLICS TO DO?

Shall it be this?
Updated

Or shall it be that?

CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE'S STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT DECISION ON MARRIAGE

My take on it:
Catholic sexual morality is based upon Sacred Scripture, Tradition and natural law. It is also based upon becoming perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Thus our teachings are a challenge to growth in holiness. But because perfection is not to be attained in this world, most, if not all of us, fall short of the perfection required by Sacred Scripture and natural law. But we do not despair, for we have recourse to God's actual grace that motivates us to repent and seek forgiveness and reconciliation through the Church's Sacrament of Penance. Whatever we lack, God will make up! This is our everlasting hope.

One of the reasons Catholic teaching on sexuality is so controversial is because it is so extremely personal and touches us on the level of intimacy and privacy and goes to the core of who we are and how we relate.

The teachings of the Church on the various areas of sexual morality and gender roles are at the core of the culture wars promoted by the news and entertainment media, and the executive, legislative and judicial branches of world governments including those on the state and federal levels of the USA.

We all know how progressives in the Church and in secular society feel about the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion. We also know how they feel about the Church's teaching on the Sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders. While people may legitimately disagree with this, that or another aspect of Church teaching on sexuality, marriage and ordination and how the Church presents these, we are now seeing the Church ridiculed outright by many from within and outside the Church. All of this is motivated again by the mass media, both news and entertainment and those who push for the complete secularization of society. The judge who ruled in the California case went so far as to marginalize those who promote a "private" morality upon the whole of society by excluding a certain class of citizens of the right to marriage.

The Church and those who hold to her traditional sexual morality are being marginalized as bigots opposed to equal rights and equality. To be quite honest with you, I never thought I would be marginalized to the status of bigot for being a faithful Catholic. But now you have it. It will be a new form of martyrdom for those courageous enough to espouse an unambiguous Catholicism. How many will embrace it and how many will flee like those who renounced their Catholicism in the face of actual martyrdom by the secular Romans who threw them to the lions?

What do we do? Throw in the towel or fight like hell? Do we become shrill and obstinate or circle the wagons and do our own thing striving to be like a leaven in a world gone wild?

While Christians and others who accept the ancient, traditional understanding marriage should use every legal means available to keep marriage between one man and one woman, I think if this fails and the redefinition of marriage occurs in civil law, the Catholic Church should develop plan "B". Sometimes I think the Church should simply get out the the legal marriage business. By this I mean that we should in all ways uphold our traditional understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony but distinct from civil law. By this I mean that the Church would only recognize as valid those marriages considered sacramental and performed in the Church by an ordained minister, either deacon, priest or bishop and that the sacramentality of the marriage must be based upon the official recognition of the Church based upon the blessing received by the ordained minister, bishop, priest or deacon. The understanding of marriage as a holy sacrament would only be accorded to those Christian denominations with a valid priesthood and who themselves understand marriage as a Sacrament. In this way, civil marriage would not be recognized by the Church as a marriage at all, but only a legal partnership, a civil union which then allows for all of the legalities so many are seeking from the government. It would also streamline the Church's annulment procedure in that we would not recognize as sacramental the marriages of those denominations that do not have a sacramental understanding of Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders.

In the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, it is necessary for validity that the priest offer a blessing of the marital vows. This is not the case, unfortunately, in the Latin Rite since Vatican II. Currently in the Latin Rite, marriage as a sacrament is supposedly preformed by the couple themselves which the ordained minister only witnesses and blesses. This allows for non-ordained people to witness a Sacramental Marriage when no ordained person is available. It even allows for sacramental marriages to occur through common law. This should be changed!

In order not to eschew civil law, a Church wedding and thus the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony would be celebrated after a couple has had the civil law aspect of marriage or what the Church would call a "civil union or partnership" recognized in a civil court. Once the Catholic couple presents their civil marriage documents to the Church, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony can take place in a glorious Church wedding if there are no Church impediments.

What do you think?

ROME ATTACKED BY ALTAR SERVERS!

To all those out there that spread gloom and doom about the Church and her premature death, take this! The Church is young and vibrant and has a great future in Christ!

A REVERENTLY CELEBRATED ORDINARY FORM MASS

What does a well celebrated Ordinary Form of the Mass look like? In this regard, I am speaking about the Sung form of this Mass.

1. All participants arrive early, greet each other in a human fashion in the narthex or outside, enter the nave and pray private prayers in preparation for the sacred mysteries. There is hushed, reverent silence before Mass, conducive for private devotions and contemplation or just good old peace and quiet, a sanctuary from our noisy world.

2. The procession begins, all stand. A good metrical hymn of strong Christological focus is sung by all. As the priest approaches to incense the altar, the choir effortlessly transitions to the official introit of the day sung in a uplifting chant in English or Latin.
3. The priest begins the Mass by singing the "Sign or the Cross" and greeting, briefly invites everyone to enter the mercy of God and one of the options for the penitential rite is said or sung, always with the Kyrie being sung in English or Greek. If the Rite of Sprinkling is chosen, Asperges Me is sung or Vidi Aquam during the Easter Season. After the penitential rite the priest intones the Gloria which is sung by all in a robust way.

4. The Opening Collect is sung by the priest and sit for the Liturgy of the Word.

5. The lectors approach the altar, and go to the ambo. After the first reading, the first lector returns to his/her seat and a moment of silent reflection occurs lasting about the lenght of an "Our Father."
6. The cantor and/or choir sings the Responsorial Psalm. It is a good chant mode or even Anglican chant, no glitzy Broadway tunes. The congregation has an easy chant refrain to sing.

7. The second reading occurs and this lector return to the congregation. After another silent period, the Gospel acclamation is chanted with the Gospel procession and use of incense.

8. An inspirational, Bible based homily is preached lasting no more than 8 minutes with a period of silent contemplation following the rousing homily.

9. The Credo is chanted in either English or Latin.

10. The General Intercessions follow.

11. The collection and preparation of the altar begin, first by the chanting of the official preparation antiphon by the choir and some other fitting motet to cover the action of the collection and incensations.

12. The people stand and the Orate Frates is said with the singing of the Prayer over the Gifts.

13. The Preface Dialogue and preface are sung as well as a strong Sanctus, Mystery of Faith and Great Amen. If the celebrant is able he sings the words of institution and the Doxology.
14. The Pater Noster is chanted in English or Latin with its embolism.

15. The greeting is chanted and a sober sign of peace begins

16. The Agnus Dei is sung follow by the Dominus Non Sum Dignus and Holy Communion.

17. The official Communion antiphon is chanted as the priest receives Holy Communion and a appropriate Communion Procession anthems are sung as the congregation receives Holy Communion.
18. After Holy Communion there is a good period of silence

19. Then the Prayer After Holy Communion is chanted, brief announcements made if necessary and the final blessing is sung with the dismissal.

20. All leave to either a strong instrumental or a good recessional hymn.

21. The congregation departs silently as others who desire drop to their knees to say a private prayer of thanksgiving. There is robust fellowship in the narthex, parish hall or outside the nave.
Is this possible or am I living in Neverland?

IS THE PRIEST REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE MASS?

Is the homily the best and only time to welcome people, draw attention to oneself or do other things like announcements?

The deacon incenses me on my triumphal return to the parish--not really, from the Transfer of the Most Holy Eucharist, Holy Thursday!

Behind my rectory's stove!

Don't panic, of course the priest is necessary for the Mass as he is a sacramental sign of Jesus Christ. This past Sunday was my first Sunday back from vacation. It also happened to be the first Sunday of the month which in our parish means the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the High Mass at 2:00 PM. I celebrated our 12:10 PM Sung Ordinary Form Mass and then right into the 2:00 PM EF High Mass.

At the OF Mass at 12:10 PM, I felt compelled at the introductory rite to let everyone know how glad I was to be back and that I had a very nice and restful vacation. My remarks were very brief, but I felt compelled to acknowledge that I had been gone and that I was back, as though my mere presence didn't already indicate that.

After the Prayer after Holy Communion, during our announcement time, I bantered with the congregation a bit about the vacation, the four humongous rats that were killed in the rectory and that I was freaking out over this and having nightmares.

However, at the 2:00 PM EF High Mass, I had no opportunity or need to welcome myself back to the parish. It would not be in keeping with the spirituality of this Mass to draw any attention to little old me.

As I continue to reflect on this odd coincidence of the OF and EF MAss and my return to the parish, I realized that so much of the training I've had in the OF Mass in seminary and later was to help the priest to make people feel comfortable and welcomed at Mass, as though I'm the host of a television show and the congregation is the visitor or paying audience. The parish did well without me during my vacation, but they would not do well without Jesus and the Sacred Mysteries the Mass celebrates of which every bishop and priest is meant to be a humble servant in showing forth the one Sacrifice and offering the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord to the Church as Food and Drink for the journey to eternal life. In other words, the Mass and other sacraments do not hinge on a particular priest, but simply on a priest.

Eliminating the lengthy Prayers at the Foot of the altar and substituting it for the abbreviated Introductory and penitential rite of the OF Mass is meant to enable us to move quickly to the Liturgy of the Word. Yet how many greetings, mini-homilies and acknowledgments do we now hear at this point in the Mass. I've been to Masses where after the greeting the congregation is asked to sit and about a 20 minute process of acknowledgments and credits begins, almost like reading them at the beginning or end of a movie. This is no improvement over the EF's Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

So what are your thoughts of ad libs during parts of the Mass where the OF Missal clearly allows for "these or other words?" Does it contribute to the "cult" of the personality of the priest?

THE THEOLOGY AND SPIRIT OF DENIGRATION

I'm old enough to remember when Catholics would never criticize the sacred; one's reverence and piety would not allow for it. Prior to the reforms of the Mass initiated after Vatican II, no one, except for elitist theologians but in a very respectful and nuanced way, would have dared criticized the Mass. Yes, some laity might criticize priests, their homilies and perhaps the length of sung Masses, the quality of the choir and some other small details, but the Mass itself was off limits. After all, Jesus Christ's one sacrifice was made present and in the Risen Lord's true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity presented as Food and Drink, we came into Communion with God, the Most Holy Trinity and the people Jesus redeemed, past, present and to come. In other words we experience eternity at every Mass in the sacrificial, eternal banquet par excellence. I say this for both forms of the one Latin Rite, the EF and OF forms!

The greatest abuse of the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council was how fast it could be celebrated by some priests. I have heard of 7 minute Masses. Recently, we've heard from Phil Lawlor of 11 minute Ordinary Form Masses in Ireland where I recently returned--although I did not experience an 11 minute Mass at the Shrine in Knock.

Contrary to popular belief, Vatican II's document on the Liturgy did not reform the Mass but simply set into motion some principles for reform. It was actually an elite group or commission that created the reformed Mass based upon their understanding of liturgical history and their biases against the old Mass and their interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Like Pope Benedict who decreed Summorum Pontificum on his own authority based upon authority given to him by other councils including Vatican II, Pope Paul VI promulgated the various changes to the Mass around 1968 on his own authority and against the better judgments of some in the curia and the college of bishops. But that is the pope's authority then as now. This would set into motion a major shift in terms of Catholic piety and reverence for the Mass. Criticism of the reformed rite came from those who could not believe that a Council or even the pope could reform the Mass. These schismatic Catholics poked fun at the revised Mass and even called it invalid.

Then, priests with no supervision from their bishops and sometimes with their bishop's approval began to experiment with the revised Mass bringing all kinds of novelty to it. These novelties included liturgical and architectural iconoclasm, improvisation, folk and secular music, burlap and felt banners and vestments or no vestments at all. In the 1970's I even experienced a "Mass" that was celebrated on the floor of an apartment, no altar, just people sitting "Indian" style on the floor around a simple table cloth spread on the floor with a simple chalice, plate, Wonder bread, homemade wine and a made up Eucharistic prayer. We consumed the "elements" as they were "consecrated" leaving nothing present on the floor for the remainder of the so-called Eucharistic prayer. It was so meaningful.

Did we complain? Yes indeed. These complaints eventually went to the actual reformed Mass celebrated well. Why was it stripped down? Was what we really got "noble simplicity" or ignoble arrogance that led to irreverence? Did we need liturgical and architectural iconoclasm?

Those who did complain about the revised Mass got their cues from progressive Catholics who were denigrating the old Latin Mass as an abomination that Vatican II fixed. Much of the catechisis for the new Mass came from lambasting the old Mass, it's "unnecessary repetitions"; its accidents of time, its complicated structured, its archaic music, its medieval style. The new Mass was precisely that, new and improved over old and awful.It was contemporary and "with it!" Never mind that the older Mass has nourished, sustained and helped to communicate God's grace to countless generations of Catholics many of whom were willing to died as heroic martyrs and others who lived heroic saintly lives who were eventually canonized. Never mind that nearly 80 or 90 percent of Catholics attended Mass around the world through about 1965. These Catholics who were criticizing the old Mass were biting the very "hand" of the Mass that fed them and sustained their Catholic faith and eternal life when they received Holy Communion worthily.

This spirit of denigration and negativity still exists today and it is turned up in volume as it concerns the abuse crisis and what the clergy should do to atone for the sins of leadership and of those guilty of the actual abuse.

Ann Burke is suggesting that Pope Benedict stop wearing his white cassock modeled after the Dominican habit and to wear a black one, perhaps like the Benedictine habit. She suggests that he get rid of the red shoes of the fisherman and wear something less flashy like crocks!

Her suggestions have opened the way for others in the Church to mock the pope in all he does, his dress and the liturgical wear of the clergy for Mass and other occasions. Will they ever grow up? When will we stop denigrating, follow the laws of the Church and do what is allowed and prescribed for either the EF Mass or the OF Mass. How long will an adolescent display of anger toward authority and law continue in our Church?

I recommend not criticizing the sacred. Only criticize that which is against God, negativity towards our Masses; negativity toward our sacred traditions with a capital and little "t" and negativity toward our traditional piety and beliefs. Keep in mind, denigrating the Mass was and is a part of a larger denigration of all things Catholic, especially our sexual morality and many of our doctrines on Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders.This is to be expected from unbelievers but is shocking when it comes from so-called believers. Do you think there is a cause and effect between jettison our Catholic morality for something pagan morality and the sex abuse crisis and indifference toward it in the recent past, especially the 1970's and 80's? I believe in casualty.

There are rats in the Church, some are bishops and priests, but a good number are laity too. But conversion through God's grace leading to repentance is always possible even for human beings who act like rats and denigrate who we are by their words and deeds.

WHILE I'M STILL FREAKING OUT, FR. Z POSTS HELP FOR THOSE SUFFERING FROM "RATAPHOBIA!"

Fr. Z saw my blog on my house rats and posted the following:
RAT EXORCISM Thanks Fr. Z, our parochial vicar, Fr. Justin Ferguson and I will wear copes and birettas for this rite of exorcism, use volumes holy water and fumigate with incense the entire house!

But then I wondered, maybe my parochial vicar is really Willard, because it is odd that all four rats were killed when I was gone. But this movie trailer is the stuff of my nightmares, even last night! Enjoy and pray that the exorcism works either on the rats or the Willard who lives in my rectory! YIKES!

From left to right, Fr. McDonald (me), Monsignor John Cuddy, retired pastor and Fr. Justin Ferguson. The question is, is Fr. Justin Willard in disguise?