THE ORDINARY FORM CELEBRATED EXTRAORDINARILY

I received this email recently:

This is just a brief email to thank you again for everything that you are doing to bring reverence and dignity to the OF Mass. We made the drive down from Atlanta (we try to come about once a month or so) and arrived just in time for the noon Mass this past Sunday. The entire Mass from beginning to end was celebrated so beautifully, words fail to express how it really feels to be able to participate in the liturgy as it can and should be. Having the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem just draws us so much more into the sacred action! And being able to kneel to receive Holy Communion is such a privilege! As a church musician myself I would like to commend the organist and cantor on the excellent music. It was just a perfect example of an OF Mass in the vernacular that surely had the "ethos" of the traditional rite. As your blog has stated "The Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated Extraordinarily" - how very true!

I want to thank the writer for these very, very kind words as I blush!

As many of you might know from reading my blog, I am somewhat eclectic in my liturgical tastes. I appreciate the Eastern Rite Liturgies, but prefer our Latin Rite. I love the Extraordinary Form, but love the Ordinary Form and the vernacular. I think ad orientem is the best orientation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form but I understand why facing the congregation can be acceptable too, if prayed in an ad orientem disposition by the priest. I like lace and baroque vestments, but not for me. I love Latin but love English too. I like some contemporary liturgical music, like the Mass of Creation (which for reasons unknown to me is disliked by so many). But I love Latin chant settings too and the English chants in our new Roman Missal. I think we should chant the Propers, but I really like singing hymns too (in addition to the propers, not replacing them), especially if these are of good quality, of our liturgical spiritualities as Catholics and contain orthodox, God-centered lyrics, Biblically based. I think it is quite fine for the choir or schola to sing/chant as the congregation engages in the liturgy by listening and contemplating rather than joining in the singing. This means I like more complex Latin chant and polyphony but also concert Masses on occasion but I would not care for this on a regular basis as congregation engagement on all the levels possible should be the norm, but not for everything. For me it isn't either/or but both/and.

We offer the EF Mass every Tuesday as a Low Mass at 5 PM. About 15 to 30 people attend regularly. We have the EF Mass during the academic year monthly as a High Mass at 2:00 PM with 60 to 100 attending.

For the past year we have tried to make our Ordinary Form 12:10 PM Sunday Mass more in the "spirit" of the EF Mass since the EF Mass isn't celebrated every Sunday. But the only difference in it and the other OF Masses we have which face the congregation entirely is that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is ad orientem. But everything else is as one would experience in any OF Mass in the world. The Introductory and Concluding Rites are prayed at the celebrant's chair and the Liturgy of the Word at the Ambo, with lector and we also make use of male and female altar servers and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We have the chalice for the congregation at all our OF Mass, daily and Sunday. The music for the Ad Orientem 12:10 PM Sunday OF Mass is the same music as for the other OF Masses.

Finally at all our Masses we as a parish, clergy and laity try to show forth hospitality to one another and our visitors. As a part of our hospitality, we acknowledge that standing to receive Holy Communion is the norm in the USA and that the option of kneeling is an option that can be chosen by the communicant him or herself. No one is to be forced to either stand or kneel, this belongs to the communicant to decide based upon knowing what the norm is and what option is allowed.

So we provide kneelers at all our host stations as a sign of hospitality and flexibility in allowing people to kneel to receive if they so desire and to do so comfortably and without going directly and awkwardly to the floor in front of those distributing Holy Communion. Being hospitable and inclusive should not be viewed as progressive or retrograde but as a fine Godly human quality!

HOW A UNITARIAN BISHOP, I MEAN EPISCOPAL BISHOP (POST-CHRISTIAN), MANIPULATES HER CONGREGATION WITH FALSEHOOD

THIS PRIEST DOES NOT SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUE, BUT THE BISHOP QUOTED CERTAINLY DOES!

WHEN THE BANALITY ALL BEGAN! NOT WITH THE ORDINARY FORM MASS, BUT WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM MASS!

I have posted this video before (below my comments here). Many of you new to the blog probably do not realize that the folk music as entertainment model during the Mass did not start with the Ordinary Form. It began prior to it around 1965 or so and with the Extraordinary Form and its minor alteration in the 1965 missal that allowed for an all vernacular EF Mass except for the priest's quiet prayers and the Roman Canon, which had to be prayed in a low voice in Latin and with the EF rubrics for it.

But very quickly decrees on music were coming out for the 1965 missal and a variety of music in the vernacular. This was first applied to the Low Mass, which was still called such as well as the Sung Mass (high) and Solemn Sung (Solemn High with deacon and subdeacon). The rubric for the Low Mass is that nothing of the Mass is sung, but hymns are allowed for the entrance, offertory, communion and recessional. But the official propers still had to be recited by the priest which are the Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons. If Mass in this period was a sung Mass in either of its two forms, all the parts of the Mass, including the Propers, had to be chanted following the rubrics of the 1962 missal but now with an option in English, which the 1965 missal contained for the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Lamb of God, but not for the Introit and offertory and Communion antiphons which still needed to be chanted from the Roman Gradual, either simple or complex in Latin since the Gradual had not be translated with musical notation.

So here is where banality began, around 1966 when this movie was filmed, which reflects the actual practice and guidance that someone in the Church must have given the movie directors. In fact I wonder if the priests in this Mass, the old codger and the younger celebrant aren't actual priests who advised the director in this movie. The old guy captures the sentiments of the older generation at that time in a most marvelous way and the worship aid that the old ladies hold and complain about are exactly what we used in my parish in Augusta at this very same time so that we could say our parts for the Tridentine Mass but in English. And yes, we responded "And with your spirit" not the later "And also with you" and Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only speak the word and my soul shall be healed." The 1965 missal allowed for an offertory procession:

WHY LITURGICAL TRADITIONALISTS FEAR LITURGICAL PROGRESSIVES

I think we can sum it up in one word, banality. I use it as "drearily commonplace." While a caricature and hopefully not typical outside of Masses with nearly 4 million people anywhere in the world, the plastic cup ciboria pictured during Pope Francis' final Mass in Rio is exactly what I mean.

Progressives don't care about these sorts of things and think plastic cups for ciboria containing the glorious crucified and risen Body and Blood of our God and Savior Jesus Christ is fine. After all, Jesus was held in a manger when He was born. Progressives hold an extremely low Christology that seems to forget that Christ is no longer a baby in a manger and he is no longer on the Cross. He is in heaven clothed in majestic glory. There is no doubt about His divinity now that the resurrection and ascension have occurred and the end times are here. He, the Christ, is clothed in glory!

Is not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a foretaste of the eternal banquet? Does not the Eastern Church tell us that if the Second Coming of Christ occurred during the Divine Liturgy we would not know the difference? Is not the one Sacrifice re-presented in an "unbloody" way, precisely that, unbloody, resurrectional in that sense, a foretaste of all of salvation history from the Word of God that always was, eternal, compressed into a "black hole" that we call the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Mass?

What is causing discomfort amongst orthodox Catholics are signs from the liturgical 1960's and mentality creeping into the papacy and being exaggerated by the left. The plastic cup ciboria of Rio is a result of a dumbed down pre-resurrectional theology of Christ, low Christology. It was rampant in my seminary in the 1970's and a time when corruption of all kinds was rampant there too and in the Church at large, a period of Church history when the molestation of teenage boys by Catholic priests was unprecedented.

Let us hope that the plastic cup ciboria is being viewed in Rome as a horrible abuse at a papal Mass in Rio and steps taken to prevent it in the future.

And while we are at it in Rome, let us pray that the plastic liturgical music at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Rio with Pope Francis is viewed as a liturgical abuse and steps are being taken to prevent that in the future too.

With a review of liturgical practices for the pope on the road in foreign territory where progressive liturgist exert their compromised view of the liturgy based upon a low Christology born in the 1960's and 70's, perhaps Pope Francis was reflecting upon that when he answered a question upon Air Pope 1 as he flew back from Popacabana Beach and its antics to Rome. This is the most accurate translation of what the Holy Father had to say about the Eastern Rite Liturgies:

In the Orthodox Churches they have kept that pristine liturgy, so beautiful. We have lost a bit the sense of adoration. They keep, they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time doesn’t count. God is the center, and this is a richness that I would like to say on this occasion in which you ask me this question. Once, speaking of the Western Church, of Western Europe, especially the Church that has grown most, they said this phrase to me: “Lux ex oriente, ex occidente luxus.” Consumerism, wellbeing, have done us so much harm. Instead you keep this beauty of God at the center, the reference. When one reads Dostoyevsky – I believe that for us all he must be an author to read and reread, because he has wisdom – one perceives what the Russian spirit is, the Eastern spirit. It’s something that will do us so much good. We are in need of this renewal, of this fresh air of the East, of this light of the East. John Paul II wrote it in his Letter. But so many times the luxus of the West makes us lose the horizon. I don’t know, it came to me to say this. Thank you.

Was the Holy Father reflecting upon the rah, rah, cheerleader stuff of World Youth Day and its Masses filled with plastic music and plastic cibori, the disposal generation of the west gone liturgical? Consumerism based upon a low Christology that is neither timeless or beautiful and far from the East from which the Holy Father tells us that we, meaning the Latin Rite Catholics have "lost a bit the sense of adoration" where God is not the center and consumerism and wellbeing based upon it creeps in and is the progressives point of view of liturgy par excellence that we were on the way with Pope Benedict of purging?

Did Pope Francis see in Rio what Pope Benedict wanted to purge? Pray God that the Holy Father did!

The Traditional Liturgy, what some call the Extraordinary Form, captures in a Western way, what the Eastern Way has never lost and we didn't have to lose it either except for a cabal of progressives who thought it was time for the Latin Rite Church to be more like the Protestant communions in style and liturgy rather than the Church of the east.

The EF Mass and the Eastern Rite liturgies are on the same page in terms of "splendor, beauty, adoration and God-centeredness" whereas the OF Mass as drifted off into banality and Protestant corruption what Pope Francis describes as what we have lost compared to the East. It did not have to be that way except the progressives manipulated things and made it so and are trying mightily hard to regain ground they lost under Pope Benedict.

Will Pope Francis allow it to happen? Let us hold our breath and pray that plastic doesn't return from the top down or from the bottom up!

THE IMPORTANCE OF WEARING PRIESTLY ATTIRE!

Nothing short of a miracle! This is a cool, cool, cool news story. Was it Saint Padre Pio or another saint? Who knows?

HOW TO BE PRO-LIFE WITHOUT BEING SHRILL AND HOW TO CALL PEOPLE TO SHAME FOR THEIR ANTI-LIFE LIVES INCLUDING THEIR ANTI-LIFE SEXUAL LIVES BE WE STRAIGHT OR GAY

Boston's [Cardinal] O'Malley: Pope prefers to talk love, not abortion
Joshua J. McElwee | Aug. 7, 2013, National Chismatic Reporter--read the full article HERE.

Joshua J. McElwee of the NCR quotes Cardinal O'Malley on Pope Francis' strategy in promoting the teaching of the Church. Here are some of the quotes which you can read in the article I link above:

Pope Francis has not mentioned traditional hot-button Catholic issues like abortion because he prefers to emphasize that Catholics "love people" and are not "mean or old-fashioned," Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley has said.

"Some people think that the Holy Father should talk more about abortion," O'Malley told approximately 2,000 attendees, according to a copy of the remarks posted online.

"I think he speaks of love and mercy to give people the context for the Church's teaching on abortion," he continued. "We oppose abortion, not because we are mean or old fashioned, but because we love people. And that is what we must show the world."

"We must love all people, even those who advocate abortion," O'Malley said. "It is only if we love them that we will be able to help them discover the sacredness of the life of an unborn child. Only love and mercy will open hearts that have been hardened by the individualism of our age."

"Our efforts to heal the wounds of society will depend on our capacity to love and to be faithful to our mission. The Holy Father is showing us very clearly that our struggle is not just a political battle or a legal problem, but that we must evangelize and humanize the culture, then the world will be safe for the unborn, the elderly and the unproductive.

"The Gospel of Life is a Gospel of [m]ercy. If we are going to get a hearing in today's world, it will be because people recognize that authenticity of our lives and our dedication to building a civilization of love. We are called to live our lives as a service to others and commit our lives to give witness to the presence of God's love and mercy in our midst."

MY COMMENTS: I hope Pope Francis' strategy works; I pray that it does. We have not be successful one bit in terms of our political advocacy about any of the hot button social issues including abortion and same sex marriage to date and it looks like we are cascading to partial birth abortion being legal everywhere too as well as same sex marriage. I wonder what good the "Fortnight for Freedom" did for the Church through shrill political advocacy and did we tempt God by our prayerful arrogance for Him not to answer our prayers in the way we demanded?

I have always felt that we cannot control people and what they do. The Church is not a police state and priests are not policemen looking through window lattices as PI's and peeping Toms on the prowl to catch people in compromising sexual sins. The modern Church can only be a voice for love, common decency and calling people to the truth of Christ which is out in the open in Scripture, Tradition, Natural Law and handed on by the Magisterium of the Church and found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other sources.

So while the Holy Father hasn't spoken directly to the cultural political/religious issues of the day, he calls the world to love as Christ did, the poor and marginalized (which implies the unborn) and to uphold the dignity of people all the while calling them to conversion to Christ (which implies the adulterers, fornicators and those who live in sexual sin) the Holy Father is teaching as Christ. He has not called anyone to continue to sin but to seek God's mercy in the Sacrament of Penance and that even though we grow tired of seeking forgiveness, God never tires of granting His mercy and forgiveness. Pope Francis has modeled hearing confessions before Mass to make it more available to the laity as this Sacrament should be the primary ministry of bishops and priests, not glad handing parishioners before Mass.

He has called for fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church in a way Pope Benedict never did. Only an idiot would not know what this means in Catholic parlance. He has called the Church, Holy Mother and has held up the Blessed Mother in a way that no other pope has done recently including Pope John Paul II. He is calling for a revival of popular devotions amongst the laity.

But he is also calling for a spirit of "SHAME" for the wrong we do which motivates us to seek the balm of mercy in the sacrament of Penance and to turn away from our sexual sins, our desire for abortions, our hatred, our antipathy to the poor, the unborn, the marginalized. This implies a sense of conscience even on blogs where name calling and ugly words are used against those who proposed ideas contrary to what the commenter likes. Shame is good, Holy Father Francis tells us and when we all recover a sense of shame in our lives and seek ways to allow God to help us over come it by conversion to Him, then we will truly be a pro-life society.

DEAD MARRIAGES AND HOW TO BE PASTORAL ABOUT IT

During Pope Francis' candid interview in the sky, he referred to the Orthodox custom of allowing for a second ecclesiastical marriage after divorce within strict parameters. He also suggested streamlining the current annulment process in this time of mercy.

The Orthodox theology of marriage that has ended is technically not about calling it divorce or invalid, but rather that it has come to a conclusion because of sin. In other words the sacrament has died through corruption.

Pastorally this is much more sensitive than a severe trial that we Catholics have for proving a marriage to be invalid from the very beginning, which causes much heartache for those who seek a Catholic annulment. Rather than investigate in a grueling way the attitudes of the couple prior to marriage, simply investigate what happened during and then decide if it is dead or not, rather than invalid or not.

We believe that the Blessed Sacrament ceases to be the Blessed Sacrament when its "accidents" become corrupted through age, mold or it ceases to appear as the accidents are meant to appear.

This is how the Orthodox describe a marriage that has ended: "While the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain both use the English term “ecclesiastical divorce” when referring to the use of “oikonomia” to permit a second marriage, Orthodox scholars and the websites of both archdiocese make clear that the Orthodox practice differs from both a Catholic annulment and a civil divorce.
Unlike an annulment, which declares that a union was invalid from the beginning, the Orthodox decree does not question the initial validity of a sacramental marriage and unlike a civil divorce it does not dissolve a marriage. Rather, the Orthodox describe it as a recognition that a marriage has ended because of the failure or sin of one or both spouses."

I think a compromise between the Orthodox theology of "divorce" and the Catholic Church's theology of annulments would assist us greatly in evangelization and receiving into the Church those whose marriages have ended and a new marriage has ensued.

THE VATICAN INSIDER REPORTS A TOUCHING STORY OF MSGR. GUIDO MARINI'S CO-MASTER OF CEREMONIES RECENTLY ELEVATED TO AN ARCHBISHOP BY POPE FRANCIS

And this moving video, where Monsignor Krajewski, standing to the right of Pope Benedict as one of the two mc's, during the Beatification of Pope John Paul II begins to cry in thanksgiving. It is quick and at the end of the video:

Pope Francis has appointed as his new Almoner a Polish priest, working in the Vatican, who regularly gives food to the poor and needy on the streets of Rome
gerard o'connell
rome

Francis, the Pope of the Poor, last week continued his outreach to the poor and needy by appointing a humble Polish priest, Monsignor Konrad Krajewski, as his almoner, that is the one who will give alms or charity to the poor in his name.

Though his nomination has gone largely unnoticed, it is not a simple bureaucratic appointment. Pope Francis has specifically chosen Mgr. Konrad for this post to which he gives some considerable importance. He chose him because he had come to know, what was already well known throughout the Roman Curia, that for some years now this good priest from Lodz in Poland used to regularly distribute food to the poor and needy on the streets in the area around the Vatican.

At the time of his appointment, Mgr. Konrad was one of the papal masters of ceremonies (‘ceremoniere’). He studied in Rome in the 1990s and, not long afterwards, was called to work in the Vatican of Pope John Paul II, in the office for Papal Ceremonies then headed by Mgr. Piero Marini. He retained that post under Benedict XVI and Francis, until his recent promotion.

Mgr. Konrad provided some interesting background to his nomination in an interview with the Polish Catholic daily paper, Nasz Dziennik, August 4.

He revealed that on the flight to the World Youth Day in Rio with Pope Francis he kept thinking all the time about this appointment. It seems that Francis had informed him of his decision before they left Rome.

The Polish prelate said he had been “inspired by Mother Teresa”, at whose beatification he had assisted, to begin this work of feeding the poor and needy. He did not do this alone; he did so with the Albertine Sisters, who work with the Swiss Guards, and with the Presentation Sisters who work in the Vatican’s warehouse.

“We collect the food that is left over from the canteen or dining hall of the Swiss Guards (more than 100 guards) and the food that is left over from the Pope’s table, and take it to the poor and needy on the streets adjacent to the Vatican”, he said.

“We are not social workers. They are better than us at this, they are professionals”, he stated. “We do this in order to touch Christ, who is on the street”. He recalled that “Mother Teresa had said he who touches the needy touches Christ”. Pope Francis says this too.

He confessed that he did not know who told the Pope about this work, but he knew for sure. “My nomination will remain a mystery!” he added.

He revealed that when Pope Francis informed him that he was appointing him as his almoner, he told him, “There are many examples of people who are able to provide charity, so you should learn from them, and do this work with a lot of imagination!”

In appointing him as Almoner, the Pope also raised him to the dignity of archbishop, and Mgr Konrad chose the word “Mercy” (Misericordia) as his Episcopal motto ‘because it includes everything’.

I wonder if Msgr. Konrad's ordination to the Episcopacy will look like that of Archbishop Georg Ganswein?

The position of Almoner emerged over the centuries. It is based on a tradition of giving charity to those in need which goes right back to the earliest centuries of the Church. Originally, it was one of the immediate responsibilities of the Deacons in the Church. Later on, responsibility for the Pope’s charities came to be exercised by one or more members of the papal household, but with no particular hierarchical dignity – that came later.

A Bull of Innocent III (1198-1216) mentions the post of Almoner as already in existence, the Vatican says in its website. The first Pope to organize the Office of Papal Charities was Blessed Gregory X (1271-1276); he set down the duties of the Almoner. In a Bull of 1409, Alexander V laid down guidelines and regulations for the Office which has always functioned as an expression of the constant concern of the Roman Pontiffs. Today, the Almoner of His Holiness has the rank of Archbishop; he is a member of the Papal Family and as such takes part in the Holy Father’s liturgical celebrations and official audiences.

When Mgr. Konrad was holidaying in the mountains in Poland last week, Pope Francis phoned him and asked him: “How have you received your nomination?” He replied, “On my knees. I cannot do otherwise!” Then Francis asked him, ‘Who are you with?” and he responded, some friends. The Pope asked him to turn up the volume on the phone, and then gave his blessing to Mgr. Konrad and his friends.

WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD BUY A HOME WORTH ONLY $424,729 FOR $3,653,000? THE AUGUSTA NATIONAL, HOME OF THE MASTERS, WOULD! THEY ARE LIKE TIGER WOULD!

Read the full story at the Augusta Chronicle

"In the most recent transactions, Jerry and Sally Thacker sold their house at the corner of Berckmans Road and Heath Drive for $3,653,000. The home on 2.32 acres was valued at $424,729, according to 2013 property tax records.

The land rush began in the late 1990s, when several brokers took control of the majority of land between Berckmans Road and Heath Drive. Lucrative sales created millionaires and multimillionaires in the modest, post-World War II neighborhood."

It is amazing to drive by this neighborhood which was adjacent but quite independent of the Augusta National which across the street from this neighborhood is hidden by trees and shrubs. A visitor would not know what lies beyond. But the Augusta National has purchased this neighborhood and at a price and demolished every home they acquired. There are about 4 or 5 holdouts, living in a neighborhood which still has green grass and tall trees but no neighbors or homes all Gone with the Wind!

I think that would make a great novel.

SO VERY DISCOURAGING AND YES, OUTRAGEOUS!

At the Mass in Brazil, this is how Holy Communion was distributed and in plastic cups. I wouldn't believe it without seeing it. Is there any wonder why there are significant numbers of Catholics who are not Pelagians but want to restore the proper sense of reverence at Mass and for the Sacred Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Crucified and Risen Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar that was/is abundant in the EF Mass?

As a seminarian, I distributed Holy Communion at Pope John Paul II's Mass on the Mall in Washington, DC. They gave us wooden salad bowls for us to hold and by the grace of God or "the Church supplies" theory, these hosts were consecrated by the Holy Father as we stood at least two football fields away from him.

I still have that salad bowl! I hope these Eucharistic Minister, ordinary and extraordinary, keep their plastic cups. "Then He took the plastic cup...this is the plastic cup of my blood..." Oh my! If our ancestors even in the mid 1960's would have seen this as a glimpse into the future, reparation would have been demanded. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

THE FIRST MAJOR REVISION TO THE 1962 MISSAL ISSUED IN 1964

I can't get it to view properly, but this is from the 1965 missal, please note the Latin in the margin:

As some of you know, I have a few 1965 Roman Missals for the altar. It is basically the 1962 missal but has all of the public prayers translated into English and similar to our glorious new English translation. All of the quiet prayers of the priest remain in Latin, including the quiet Roman Canon with all the rubrics still in tact except for the Per Ipsum which is as we have it in the Ordinary Form.

I copy this from The New Liturgical Movement. Over there it is offered as a lament. You can read their commentary there.

I see it as the ideal way to have been faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium. If only the reform had not gone further. The only possibility would be for our current Roman Missal to remain as is, but with the 1965 Order of Mass as celebrated as the document below indicates. I could live with that!

Liturgical Changes from 1964, Roman Rite of Mass

A MUSIC DIRECTOR'S VIEWS ON THE LITURGY AND SINGING

I love bragging about my parishioners and that we are a singing parish! Please note how many parishioners have their hymnals open and are singing the Processional Chant. You can almost hear them by looking at the photo!

I received as an email the following (slightly edited for this post) from a music director. With permission I post what is written but anonymously. It all makes very good pastoral sense to me!

I believe that the Mass is worth singing and that the congregation should also join in, but we have always had a representation that stands in for another.... you [priest] stand in for Christ himself, the servers stand in for us at the altar, God parents stand in at Baptism, etc. This is nothing new for us as Catholics.

The choir stands in for the angelic choir that chants (sings) the praises of God in the Heavenly Liturgy.
When I read some of the material on various blogs, what is most striking to me is the force of the individual thrust to make his/her point, a kind of I'm right, you are wrong because you don't agree with me. Com boxes limit the discussion by their nature.

From my point of view at this point in my life, is that we have a tendency to approach Liturgy (Mass) the same way we approach our lives in an individualistic culture with a feeling of ownership and entitlement. What is missing, I think, is an overall attitude of humility to receive what the good God gives to us at Mass and to receive it humbly with deep gratitude for the contents and appearance of this magnificent gift to us. We don't tend to view the Liturgy as a pure gratuitous gift from God to us, but as something we need to manipulate to suit our own tastes and times.

I am the music director of a principally Hispanic parish and I am responsible for the "English" Masses and liturgies. As time permits, I have been studying the role of Sacred Music and the Liturgy, so I am by no means an expert. But I have my observations. As I have learned about the Propers of the Mass, they have enriched my own experience of the Mass and they seem to be able to highlight something that is more deep and intangible than singing hymns or songs. For almost two years now (since the new Missal Translation) I now play the organ for an opening Hymn and a Closing Hymn. Depending on the priest and his requests to me, I sing an Offertory Song or the Proper, either one, acapella. I always sing the Communion Proper and after Communion the appropriate Marian antiphon from the season.

The biggest change I have experienced of congregational singing has, interestingly enough, come about in the Responsorial Psalm. We have our Missalettes and I use a 3 to 4 note ranged Psalm Tone. I use the same tone for the antiphon as for the verses. This allows the congregation to hear the tone, repeat it with me, but not compete to read the words of the Psalm in a different melody and then have to struggle to recall the original "tune" of the psalm. It is all very organic and it seems to have reduced the angst of attempting to sing something having only heard it once and because it is the same tone throughout, they are more comfortable about singing.

By the importation of Protestant, and later "new" Catholic Music and demanding that the congregation participate by singing I think that we are robbing them, especially those who only come to Mass once a week and lead very busy lives outside, of the implicit aspect of contemplation and true union with God in their souls. This has really bothered me because it would mean that I am a means of distraction and not a means toward this union with God.

This is the part of the discussion that seems to be absent from the overall discussion about the proper use of Liturgical music during Mass (and to a much lesser degree regarding the Liturgy of the Hours).

The question for me has become "Is what I am doing leading people to deeply encounter God who transforms us, or am I demanding from them an observable assessment of my efficacy to engage them?"

As an educator I live in an environment that demands assessment at every level of performance of students. There are the formal assessments, written, oral, projects and there are the informal assessments: are they participating in class, are they doing their work, do they participate in discussions, get along with one another, etc.
There are performance reviews conducted in business, in health care, any manner of work. I wonder if the level of congregational singing is not the standard and assessment we are looking for as feedback to asses our own effectiveness?

Just as in Catholic Education we assess every academic subject including Religion as well as PE, Music, Art, Technology, and even living skills that are not an academic subject. But really, we are beyond being able to assess accurately the effect of the Catholic portion of the education that we provide. Even the most astute spiritual director cannot fully assess the progress or status of another's soul before God.

To this view, I think that as musicians we need to follow and study and submit ourselves to the work that lies before us in understanding more fully the Liturgy and our part in it. If we can submit ourselves and our talents to the service of the Heavenly Liturgy and not import the world into our temporal portal into heaven through the earthly Liturgy we will have done our best to make heaven more present on earth.

WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

Altar girls at a papal Mass with Pope Benedict XVI!
Msgr. Guido Marini give the altar girls at Pope Benedict's Mass some last minute instructions as any good MC would do!

Altar girls during Pope Benedict's Holy Mass:

Yes, Virginia, there are women in the Church. And yes Virginia, current liturgical legislation, that my clairvoyance tells me will not change, allows them to be readers, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and altar servers. Holy Mother Church allows for this and be it far from me to question Holy Mother when she, who is she, allows for such disciplinary possibilities.

Some say that having only boys/men in these positions will lead to more vocations to the priesthood. I say balderdash! What leads to more vocations to the priesthood and religious life are families that have more that 1.4 children, who understand that the family is the Church in miniature and families that promote respect for Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father, the Bishops in union with him and the clergy and religious of the Church, respect in the areas of faith, morals, and Church discipline.

Amongst all the members of the Church, the greatest, was, is and will always be our Blessed Mother. She is higher than the pope and the bishops and all the clergy combined. And if she were to be in the flesh today, and invited to participate in her Son's most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, she would gladly be a proclaimer of her Son, the Word Incarnate, whom she gave physically to the world and would do so physically by reading at Mass. And if asked to serve the altar of her Son, she would do so as she was His servant as His mother and did more than offer him water and wine, but changed His diapers. And asked if she would distribute Holy Communion to her children in Christ, she would do so as she did throughout her life, starting with the Incarnation and Virgin Birth.

I was reared as a pre-Vatican II Catholic by pre-Vatican II parents and the thing they instilled in us is that we are to respect the Pope and the bishops in the areas of faith, morals and canon law and other legislation which includes liturgical. Why else do you think I celebrate the EF Mass as an Extraordinary expression of the Latin Rite's two forms of Masses? Why else to allow for what the Church allows liturgically not only for the EF but also for the Church's normal, regular celebration of the one same Holy Sacrifice, the Ordinary Form?

Catholics of whatever ilk need to understand that heterodoxy disguised as tradition is still heterodoxy and it might well be a combination of Gnosticism and Pelagianism in the modern understanding of these terms as defined by His Holiness, Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff as well as Supreme Legislator. Oh, the glory of being a faithful, orthodox, obedient in the areas of Faith, Morals and legislation Catholic!

WHILE STRIPPING THE PAPACY OF THE OUTWARD TRAPPINGS OF MONARCHY, POPE FRANCIS IS SET TO BECOME THE MOST MONARCHICAL POPE IN MODERN TIMES BUT IN A SOUTH AMERICAN PARADIGM

In my own clairvoyant way, I've been writing all along that Pope Francis is disarming those who want the trappings and exercise of authority of the monarchical papacy removed so that the Church becomes more democratic thus opening the Church to changes such as those that Protestants have long enjoyed and has led to many liberal Protestant Churches facing extinction in particular the Protestant Episcopal Church, USA. But one can point to liberal Lutheran groups facing an implosion caused by liberalism and post Christian acceptance of a political and religious paradigm.

John Allen today attempts to do some clairvoyant predicting of the future in his article which you can read at the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) by pressing here.

John Allen quotes the following in his article that sums up what I've been writing all along:

"He's very charming, but he's also very controlling, as all powerful people are," said Omar Bello, an Argentine Catholic journalist and author of a new book on the pope.

John Allen fixates on administrative decisions that have yet to occur actually and who is in and who is out. But is our Catholicism truly about political intrigue in the Vatican? Who cares? Only Vaticanistas.

But all of us want a Vatican that is not hypocritical about Catholicism and is humble. But the loss of humility can very well be traced to the loss of humility in Catholic worship since Vatican II and in Catholic life which has reduced sacramental participation in the Mass and in the Sacrament of Penance. Even with the monarchical trappings of the pre-Vatican II Church, most would say that the rank and file Catholics and their clergy and religious were more humble than today. I could be wrong, but Pope Francis seems to believe this too.

The following are Pope Francis very words from the interview he did on his way back from Rio. These words are very telling and I hope Pope Francis is making connnections between these humble old Curia men and the ones of today formed after Vatican II"

These are scandals that cause grief.

Something — I have never said this, but I recall — I think the Curia has fallen somewhat from the level that it had some time ago, of those old Curia men… the profile of the old Curia man, faithful, who did his work. We are in need of such persons.
I believe… they exist, but they are not so many as there were some time ago.
The profile of the old Curia man: I would say this. We need more of these.

One can only hope and pray that Pope Francis will see the connection between the way we pray and the way we believe and act. If the humility of the old Mass has been ruined by Vatican II, then we need to go backwards to discover the right way forward as it concerns humility and the old men of the Curia, but not only the curia, but the Church in general.

But make no mistake, while Pope Francis has pastoral sensitivities of a pastor of the street and not the academic of the ivory tower more in love with theory than reality, he is not a flaming liberal or progressive. He is a son of the Church and accepts the Catechism of the Church.

While he isn't into the glitziness of the Liturgy and clerical attire as Pope Benedict and isn't flamboyant, he is austere and reverent and pious and devotional.He wants to revive the devotions of the Church lost since Vatican II, popular piety!

IS THE AUTHOR OF THE MACON TELEGRAPH'S SUNDAY COMMENTARY PELAGIAN, GNOSTIC, HETERODOX OR POST-CHRISTIAN? YOU READ, YOU REPORT!

DR. CUMMINGS: Who am I to judge?
(Dr. Bill Cummings - Special to The [Macon] Telegraph)

Bill Cummings is a Catholic who some have told me was either a seminarian who studied in Rome and left the seminary, or was ordained a priest and left the priesthood. I do not know. But I will let you judge, and, yes Virginia, we can judge what people believe and do, although we cannot judge their salvation or that they are not created in the image and likeness of God and have no hope whatsoever of conversion or "reversion" and turning to the actual truth of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

I tend to think his commentary in Sunday's Macon Telegraph's editorial section is actually the new heresy which evolves from the Enlightenment which can be called "POST CHRISTIAN" or "POST CATHOLIC" and thus falls into the category of Gnosticism as Pope Francis would use the term. And it is this way of thinking that is a greater threat to our Catholics than the so-called restorationism of the "TRAD CATHOLICS":

HERE'S HIS SUNDAY COMMENTARY! ENJOY!

Last week, Pope Francis I, walked to the back of his Papal Airplane on his way back from dancing on the beach in Brazil and surprised all the reporters with his statements about gay priests. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

What?

Surely, Francis was joking. The pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church always judges; that’s his job. For 2,000 years, the man who wears the papal tiara has always been the supreme judge of good and evil, and surely he knows that all these “gay priests” are evil. Why, his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI, called homosexuality “an intrinsic moral evil” and the Church has always made gay men and women feel like outsiders. Catholic bishops have even confused homosexuality with pedophilia and condemned both as if they were the same. No, the judgment has been made, believe me. And yet here we have Francis saying: “Who am I to judge?”

I feel like I’m standing on top of a snow-capped mountain in Colorado, breathing in the fresh cool air of a new day. Pope Francis has brought new life to a stagnant church; new thinking to a smug infallible theology; new hope for millions. I know all you Baptists can’t appreciate the significance of this event, but let me give you an example. It’s like Dr. Kirby Godsey when he was the President of Mercer, publishing a book entitled: “When we talk about God, let’s be honest.” Or his recent one: “Is God a Christian?” Francis and Gosey would be great friends; both of them are absolutely fearless.

Of course, the Vatican newspapers launched an immediate “explanation” of the pope’s words: “Well, he didn’t really veer away from the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, he just struck a more compassionate tone.” And the Italian daily La Repubblica said: “Francis would probably agree with Benedict’s writings on homosexuality -- but they really don’t interest him.” I doubt that Francis would agree with Benedict, but I do agree that those old shaggy ideas do not interest him in the least.

What does interest Francis is something that will shock many of the men who are walking around in black cassocks. Francis is interested in helping people to live in “the light of God.” It reminds me of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., quote: Let’s judge each other by the “content of our character,” not by the color of our skin or our sexual preferences.

Francis also told those reporters on the plane that while Pope John Paul II had closed the door to female priests, he, Francis, sought a “theology of women” and a greater role for them in Catholic life. This “feminine theology” has nowhere to go if it doesn’t open up that John Paul door. If Francis is not going to “judge against” gay priests, he certainly is not going to “judge against” women priests.

I’m sure many critics will jump on Francis and wave a copy of the Bible in his face. “Look at Leviticus 20:13” they will scream, “God judges gays.” And sure enough, it says: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death.” It’s the death penalty for homosexuality. But let’s not skip verse 10: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife -- both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” Whoops! Let’s not get carried away with all this Old Testament stuff; remember: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

I think there is too much “stone-casting.” We judge -- as bad -- everyone who does not look like us. Race, religion and politics. We are a divided country and a divided community. The Russian Communists taught us during the Cold War in the ’50s and ’60s that this was quickest way to kill the enemy. They spent millions infiltrating our universities and our government trying to generate distrust and hatred of the “other guy.” They preached: “Judge that guy!”

Francis preaches: “Who am I to judge? Search for the Lord and have good will.” This could just be a change “in tone” as some are saying, but I have a strong feeling that before long, this tone will become substance, and --like the Brazilians at Copacabana last Sunday -- Catholics aLl over the world will be dancing on the beach.

Dr. Bill Cummings is the CEO of Cummings Consolidated Corporation and Cummings Management Consultants. His website is digitallydrc.com.

MY WARNING: Please judge and critique what Bill Cummings writes, not Bill Cummings himself. Denigrating comments of the person will not be printed. Commenters get off track and derail blog comments when they judge the person and not the content of what is written.

I'LL COMMENT FIRST: Poor Bill, he intentionally sets us a straw man and thus critiques and judges not Catholics but many Protestants in Macon who read the Telegraph and are of the evangelical ilk who take the Holy Bible literally. The straw man is the punishment of death due to those who commit adultery. Of course Jesus' and the New Dispensation does away with many Old Testament laws concerning criminal justice. The Catholic Church has always understood this to be true, not only concerning the death penalty of adulterers, but also the strict dietary laws and other Jewish practices, such as circumcision.

Jesus does not change though that adultery and any other illicit sexual practices are immoral, sinful and could earn a person everlasting punishment in the fires of hell. And yes, God can make that judgement and if anyone is in hell, it is not a mistake made by God, they deserve their punishment. Jesus does not do away with God's judgement or retribution but opens the door to that punishment or retribution to be carried by Jesus and His person on the tree of the Cross. But if we don't receive the gift of salvation by knowingly rejecting Jesus with full consent of the will, well, eternal damnation awaits and it is God who makes the determination, not man.

If someone has same sex attractions, or lusts after men or women, or children for that matter, but does not act upon those attractions and lust and strives to live an exemplary life by God's grace and not in a Pelagian way, who are we to judge these persons? But if they act on their impulses or orientation and give into lust and perversion and harm people, their marriages and their children, hell, yes, we can judge those persons and depending on the crime, civil society, not the Church, can condemn them to prison or the death penalty! In some societies, they get a part of their body cut off, either physically or through medication, what some call chemical castration!

Finally, Bill Cummings is disingenuous, because as a Catholic or a priest or a former of both, he knows that the Catholic Church does not base her moral teachings and judgments simply on the Bible. She does so on the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and Natural Law. And where new moral dilemmas develop in society that elude Scripture and Tradition, natural law is sufficient in determining the morality and the judging of a wide expanse of modern practices, not the least of which have to do with medical ethics.

CONFUSED ABOUT PELAGIANISM? DON'T BE! THERE IS A LITTLE HERESY IN EVERY CATHOLIC, IF NOT WE'D ALL BE PERFECT WITH NO NEED FOR THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS

There are a lot of traditionalists who are mad at Pope Francis because his ambiguous language makes them think that the Holy Father is calling them names, the name of Pelagianism. But I suspect the problem isn't Pelagianism as it is paranoia!

I should add that when the Holy Father speaks off-the-cuff, I am confused too and I think others are who are much smarter than I am. That is why there is constant spin about what the Holy Father not only says but does. Yet, there is something quite enduring about this most human pope who has stripped the papacy in his short reign (or should I say tenure) of the mystique that surrounds the office. The jury is out on whether this is good or bad. As Catholics we think in centuries not days or months. And we know the Church will prevail, even if confused, until the return of Christ at the end of time.

But let's get back the Pelagianism. But let's not forget Gnosticism. Let us review what the Pope said recently about both.

The Gnostic solution. Closely linked to the previous temptation, it is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied, which ends up in a preoccupation with certain pastoral “quaestiones disputatae”. It was the first deviation in the early community and it reappears throughout the Church’s history in ever new and revised versions. Generally its adherents are known as “enlightened Catholics” (since they are in fact rooted in the culture of the Enlightenment).

The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in (exaggerated) tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past.

Rorate Caeli prints a homily by a priest who obviously disagrees with the Holy Father's so-called accusation that traditionalists are the Pelagian heretics and restorationists of the Church. In fact the sermon implies that the Holy Father doesn't know what true Pelagianism is therefore confusion and anger in the traditionalist community, if not paranoia, reigns supreme and is creating a great schism between the Pope and this elite group of so-called traditionalists. Here is but a sample of this sermon, you can read the rest by pressing this sentence:

To re-capitulate, Pelagianism holds “(i) that the sin of our first parents was not transmitted to their posterity; [Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race, and children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.] (ii) that Christ came into the world, not to restore anything we had lost, but to set up an ideal of virtue, and so counteract the evil example of Adam; (iii) that we can, of our own natural powers, and without any internal assistance from God, [do good that is pleasing to God and thereby] merit the happiness of the Beatific Vision” (cf. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, p. 456). (iv) the Law of Moses is just as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. Finally, (v) Pelagians considered death to be natural to man and not a consequence of Adam’s sin. So even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died in any case.

MY COMMENTS: Traditionalists and all Orthodox Catholics who accept Vatican II as authoritative even in its pastoral sensibilities believe in Original Sin and that we are "disordered" because of it. Thus we too have a proclivity to sin and all of us will die. Even the created order is disordered by Original Sin and our inherited inability to turn to God without the assistance of Divine Grace.

But in popular Catholic traditionalism of those who were not fully taught the faith, there was and is a tendency to think that our good works are sufficient to get us into heaven. I knew many Catholics and heard many traditional, pious Catholics of the pre-Vatican II era (not all of course) who were very pious but believed that a good person would go to heaven independent of right faith.

Protestants have long accused Catholics of believing that good works would save them. There is an innate belief, even if wrong, that God would never condemn a good person who doesn't believe in God or believe in Him in the way the Church teaches. So where there is smoke there is fire.

Gnostics of course fall into the same trap and in today's Church are more a threat to the Church than the so-called Pelegians because the Gnostics are mainstream and have infected parishes with their drivel to the point that gnosticism as the Holy Father describes it is the norm not the wild exception as in the case of the extreme small minority of super-traditionalists. I hope the Holy Father recognizes this, but when one is knee deep in a particular way of thinking and it has become almost universal, such as the gnosticism that has infected a huge percentage of those who still go to Mass in the Ordinary Form, one might not recognize it when the opposite extreme, the so-called traditionalists who over-react to what has transpired in the Church since Vatican II make themselves known by practicing things that once were considered forbidden by Vatican II, such as the Latin Mass, and to a lesser extent the ascetical practices of the pre-Vatican II era, some of which also went to an extreme and could be seen not as a tool to merit grace, but as a way to earn salvation.

But let me say, that as a child, I thought the Church did approve of the belief that good works could save a person, because even if unknown to that person performing the good works, God's grace was act work in him or her. Where did I get this? It was implied in what I heard from the pulpit and in the popular belief of pre-Vatican II Catholics.

A comment on this topic at the Rorate Caeli Blog captures what I am saying that was implied in the Pelagianism of the pre-Vatican II era and may infect some traditionalist today. His comment is from the "populist" point of view, not the academic point of view, that is present still today in Catholics imbued with the spirit that is anti-Vatican II or wants to restore a mentality that Vatican II sought to override:

Willard Money said...

It's really simple and was rampant in the trad communities I was involved in.
The basic idea is that trads "suffer" with having many kids, driving many miles to the "correct" mass, avoiding impure conversations with their buddies at work, etc. etc. And because the trad does all these things, he think God OWES him and also really hates the idea of mercy being to shown anyone who doesn't also have to suffer likewise.

Literally, I knew people who were angry at a couple when it turned out that they were unfertile. Especially the women were like "it's not fair...they get to have sex but don't have to have a dozen kids".

The Pope is saying it is pelagianism if you think that by being a traddy you think you are "earning" some favor with God.

APPRECIATING BOTH FORMS OF THE MASS AS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE CELEBRATED

I don't like getting into the arguments about which Mass is better because I think people have their tastes and have legitimate arguments for preferring one Mass over the other. I think the problems arise when we denigrate either Mass, but denigrate them even when either is celebrated well and by the book as they were meant to be.

I'm not talking about liturgical abuses in either form. Certainly these can be denigrated and critiqued in a charitable way, like the flying fish, which some seem to think is a flying flame. Either way, what was the liturgical committee thinking? That's right, they weren't thinking or they were fuzzy creative thinkers!

But let's get back to the OF and EF Masses. Obviously there are differences, although I continue to pray that the congregation would take more of an active singing part in the EF Mass for the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei. I don't think they have to chant with the schola the Introit or Offertory and Communion Antiphons. One can also participate by listening.

Certainly each Mass has its ethos. The OF Mass is typically celebrated toward the people. This changes the ethos a bit, but it shouldn't be a drastic change. Both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis model very well how to celebrate the OF Mass in an EF sort of way, or better phrased how to celebrate ad populum in an ad orientem sort a way, especially with the altar arrangement and personal demeanor.

But apart from the Latin and vernacular differences and apart from the differences in the order of the Mass, its wording and rubrics, there should not have been other differences to make both Mass too dissimilar from each other. That which has caused the dissimilarities and in dramatic fashion so as to make both Masses seem completely different from one another could be remedied rather easily by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome and mandated throughout the world. And this could be done without changing either Mass but allowing the ethos, spirituality and devotional reverence that is abundantly present in the EF to be similar in the OF. Isn't this the greatest divergence today, the ethos, spirituality and devotional reverence of the two Masses of the one Roman Rite?

Here are SEVEN SIMPLE RULES that I recommend for the Universal Church's Ordinary Form Mass in the Latin Rite:

1. Chant the Propers (Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons) that are in the Gradual for the OF Mass, meaning these can never be substituted by some other type of song or hymn. However, allow for the option of a hymn for the processional until the priest arrives at the altar. Once at the foot of the altar the official Introit begins, similar to what occurs at Vatican Masses.

2. Make clear that ad orientem or ad populum are permitted on an equal basis, but that the "Benedictine altar arrangement" modeled by both Popes Benedict and Francis be the norm for either way.

3. Mandate silence in the Church before and after Mass, which it should be when the tabernacle is present in the Church which is the case in the majority of churches in the world, but even when the tabernacle is in a separate chapel.

4. Making kneeling for Holy Communion the norm and standing the exception. Return to Holy Communion on the Tongue and make clear that intinction is on an equal footing with the Precious Blood from the chalice.

5. Demand more precision in choosing Catholic music with Catholic theology, spirituality and devotional qualities for adjunct anthems and hymns in the the Mass. Ask each language group to have a solid national hymnal in the vernacular approved by the Bishop's Conference and Rome, similar to what occurred with the new and glorious English translation of the Mass.

6. In that hymnal mandate that the Jubilatio Deo parts of the Mass in Latin be known by every parish in the world.

7. Mandate some Latin for the Mass, perhaps the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei as a universal norm.

TWO FORMS OF LITURGICAL TRIUMPHALISM: WHICH DO YOU DESPISE MORE, BANAL OR MONARCHY?

CLICK ON THE POPE WHO SAID AND WIN!

Click on the link below and you can click on which pope said what. Continuity anyone?



The New York Times has a cool link where various quotes are listed and you click on the Pope who said it. YOU CAN DO IT BY GOING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES HERE!

WE NEED TO APPRECIATE BOTH FORMS OF THE MASS BUT AS THESE ARE MEANT TO BE

The only way to understand the post-Vatican II revision of the Mass is to know and understand its roots, the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council's revision of the Mass.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did not actually require a radical transformation of the Mass, but many say the seeds of that radical transformation are implicit in the document and that the post-Vatican II committee that manufactured new elements of the Mass obviously thought that SC did call for a radical readjustment. Pope Paul VI agreed with this manufactured ideology.

But if one simply looks at what is said about revising the liturgies of the Church, one notes a noble sobriety about it. It doesn't call for radical changes in the doctrine or dogma of the Mass at all, in fact it calls for no changes in dogma or doctrine.

Neither does SC request that the Mass be a symbol of anything but what the Mass is meant to be. It isn't an ideological statement about the Church or about participation or about singing or any of that. It is what the Mass has always been.

The greatest concern was to make the Mass more intelligible to those who gathered with the priest for the Holy Sacrifice. It called for "noble simplicity" and for better inward and outward actual participation. It also called for the elimination of "useless" repetition.

So lets look at both forms in terms of what was altered or changed.

1. The Prayers at the Foot of the altar technically belong to the clergy and their representatives as private prayers prior to the actual celebration of the Mass. Some have called these "sacristy" prayers. Given that the sung Mass should be the norm, these prayers were recited quietly after the priest approached the altar and while the Introit was being sung. The laity were not invited to be a part of this, but they certainly could participate in the chanting of the Introit if they were so inclined and in many places where liturgical renewal was taking place prior to the Council in the early 1900's congregations were chanting the Introit with the choir/schola.

Since the Prayers at the Foot of the altar were seen as private, sacristy type prayers, these were eliminated in the revised Mass in favor of a "Penitential Act" for everyone, not just the clergy. This penitential Act was streamlined and has many options. Unfortunately, the free standing Kyrie was lumped into the Penitential Act. Whereas in the 1962 Missal it is not seen as such. It simply started after the Introit was chanted as prelude to the Gloria.

In fact, all private prayers of the priest were eliminated for the most part or severely truncated in the revised Mass. Was this necessary? No, not really.

2. The Order of the Mass was slightly adjusted. With the Prayers at the Foot of the altar removed and a Penitential Act inserted, how would one begin the Mass? Well, the priest goes directly to the altar while the Entrance Chant is sung, reverences it and kisses it but with no private prayers and then goes to his chair. Then facing the people he begins with the sign of the Cross and greeting with the introduction to the penitential act.

In the 1962 missal, after the prayers at the foot of the altar, there is no sign of the cross to begin the actual Mass. It begins with the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria and then the greeting and then the collect.

3. The Liturgy of the Word is basically the same in both Masses apart from different lectionaries and the use of the Gradual in the 1962 missal and the Responsorial Psalm in the revised Missal. The difference though is where these readings are read, at the ambo and toward the people and that SC called for more lavish use of Scripture, thus more old Testament readings and a cycle of reads over three years.

4. After the homily, the Credo remains in tact but there is the addition of the Universal Prayer in the revised Mass.

5. Then the Offertory rite is completely changed except for the Orate Fratres. Theologians who won the day in terms of the new offertory prayers thought the 1962 version was too much like the Eucharistic Prayer itself and had "consecratory" elements in it and thus made the actual Eucharistic Prayer look redundant. There is some validity to this, but one wonders if a radical reworking of the Offertory was necessary.

6. The Prayer over the Gifts (Secret) to the Preface dialogue, and preface and Sanctus remain in tact as does the Eucharistic Prayer, but now the Roman Canon becomes one choice amongst many other canons. The rubrics for the Roman Canon are simplified and the other canons mimic this simplification.

7. The Rite of Holy Communion is streamlined as well. There is no longer the communion of the priest with its private "Lord I am not worthy" three times and then the people reciting the same prior to their Holy Communion. Of all of the revisions in the Mass, this one revision is the one that I appreciate the most now that I celebrate both forms of the Mass and the Ordinary Form ad orientem for one of our Masses each Sunday. I much prefer the revised version of this part of the Mass to the Extraordinary Form's.

8. After Holy Communion there is the Prayer after Holy Communion, the same format for both forms of the Mass.

9. The order of Blessing and dismissal is revised and I much prefer the Ordinary Form's Blessing and then Dismissal compared to the EF's Dismissal and then blessing with the Last Gospel that follows.

10. Then there are the changes that SC did not request: 1. The option of replacing official chants with songs; 2. the stripping of churches and the reorientation of sanctuaries; 3. Mass facing the people; 4. standing for Holy Communion.

Oddly enough, for people my age and older, #10 was shoved down our throats as what Vatican II wanted when Vatican II said nothing about these things and presumed these would not be changed. In fact Vatican II emphasized more than any other Council the pride of place for Gregorian Chant, especially for the propers.

The biggest difference in the two forms of the sung Mass is style of music, and an uncalled for making the Mass casual and folksy. These reforms are not to be found in SC or the revised Missal at all--these are accretions added to the revised Mass unofficially that have made it appear to be completely different than the EF Mass in terms of reverence and ethos.

POPE FRANCIS, OUR LORD AND HIS BLESSED MOTHER, THE DEVIL AND CONFESSION

Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, has become a media sensation and his Brazil trip and return home have given us the clearest signs of where he is leading us, signs that have been present, though, since day one of his papacy.

1. He has the common touch in lifestyle and language. He doesn't want to intellectualize the Church's teaching but make it comprehensible and practical for everyday Catholics and those we want to evangelize.

2. He loves the Lord and shares Him in the most personal way possible, especially through the sacraments.

3. Jesus never tires of forgiving us although we tire of asking for forgiveness. Pope Francis will be the pope of Divine Mercy and this will appeal to a sick sick weary world.

4. Tied into Divine Mercy and crucial to it is his call to go to confession regularly and for priests to see hearing confessions as one of the most important ministries they have. This means of course making time for it that is practical and convenient for the faithful.

5. Tied into the need for Confession is the reality of Satan which the Pope preaches about often and that he prowls the world seeking the ruin of souls. Pope Francis is not afraid to pray prayers of exorcism and deliverance over those oppressed or possessed by the evil one and his minions.

6. Devotion to the Blessed Mother is not an option. Pope Francis will be even more Marian that Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II combined.

7. Although he is open to a variety of liturgical styles of music, some good, some not so good, his own manner of celebrating the Mass and other sacraments is very, very reverent, austere, sober and devotional.

8. He has emphasized loving the sinner but offering forgiveness to the sinner as highlighted above.

9. He has called for a spirit of shame in the Church, which means we need to know what is shameful, sinful.

10. He wants the laity to go to the streets with the Catholic Faith, God's mercy and to evangelize, make a ruckus and stir the pot with Catholicism!

You've got to love this pope.

POPE BENEDICT TO BISHOPS CONCERNING SP: IF TRULY SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES COME TO LIGHT, WAYS TO REMEDY THEM CAN BE SOUGHT (AND POPE FRANCIS HAS ACTED IN CONTINUITY WITH POPE BENEDICT!!)

MY OBSERVATION FIRST: In this letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict makes clear: "Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.


LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

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. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, 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 “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. 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.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

HUGE SHIFT IN TONE, BUT NO SHIFT IN DOCTRINE, BUT A MAJOR SHIFT NONETHELESS

A great interview with John Allen, what follows his interview, I didn't watch yet, but is must see and hear from the Washington Post. The later interview his highly politicized drivel and 1970's ideology, especially the comment of priest in dresses: