The liturgy wars of the 1970s and 1980s have erupted again in recent years, starting with the motu proprio of Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes, seeking to reverse the course set by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum, which gave wide berth to a celebration of Holy Mass according to the Usus Antiquior.
More recently, the harsh and hard-hearted attacks on the “Old Mass” by the Bishop of Charlotte and Archbishop of Detroit (along with their clearly uncanonical overreach to control legitimate “conservative” options in the Usus Recentior) have caused me to revive and bring to fruition a project on which the late Father Nicholas Gregoris, my decades-long colleague and spiritual son, worked on for several years. This was a project inspired by Pope Benedict’s stated expectation that the two “forms” of the Roman Rite could, and should, be “mutually enriching.”1
In this endeavor, we have been guided by the desideratum of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council:
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. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 23)
That same conciliar document, presumably in keeping with its own stated principle enunciated above, called for the following liturgical developments: a broader use of the vernacular for the instructional parts of the Mass (while retaining Latin throughout, as well as the maintenance of Gregorian chant, nn. 36, 116); a wider exposure to Sacred Scripture (n. 35); the restoration of the prayer of the faithful); a limited access to Holy Communion under both species for the lay faithful (n. 55); a revival of the ancient practice of priestly concelebration on certain occasions (n. 57).
Cardinal Kurt Koch, who has headed the dicastery for Christian unity since 2010, has suggested that a synthesis of the two forms might emerge in the future. In a 2020 interview with German Vatican News, he proposed that there “be a reconciliation of the two forms, so that at some point we will have only one form as a synthesis, instead of two different ones.” I think that was likewise the thinking of Pope Benedict.
It seeks to address the problem rather graphically described by Dr. Randall Smith in this way:
But instead of a broad-based, historically grounded conversation, mostly what we get are two opposed partisan groups banging their heads against one another like two male rams banging their heads for a chance at becoming ‘alpha male.’ Such head banging only makes one dizzy–and stupider.2
Before launching into any suggestions for rubrical or textual modifications, let me state clearly that certain practices which have become institutionalized in the so-called “Ordinary Form” need to be eliminated forthwith—namely, Communion-in-the-hand, recourse to the non-ordained for distribution of Holy Communion at Mass, and female servers–none of which were sanctioned by the Council Fathers or even remotely envisioned.
That said, the reader is encouraged to read our “wish-list”13 by comparing the two columns. If these changes were enacted, somewhere up the line, that “reconciliation” hoped for by Cardinal Koch could become a reality, but accomplished in an organic manner.
This project really took on life because both of us celebrated both forms of the Roman Liturgy, enabling us to see the benefits and drawbacks in both forms. I hope this proposal meets with a desire to continue the conversation, not as “alpha males” wishing to dominate, but as loyal sons and daughters of the Church desirous of a reverent liturgy fostering ecclesial unity.
While cognizant of the stated intention of the Council Fathers to introduce some changes, we also kept in mind the salutary admonition of the soon-to-be Doctor of the Church, St. John Henry Cardinal Newman: “Rites which the Church has appointed, and with reason,–for the Church’s authority is from Christ,–being long used, cannot be disused without harm to our souls.”4
Endnotes:
1 “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, July 7, 2007.”
2 Randall Smith, “Traditional Liturgy,” The Catholic Thing, 22 July 2025.
3 It should be noted that in 2020, the decree “Quo Magis” allowed for seven prefaces in the current Missal to be used in the Usus Antiquior and, “Cum Sanctissima” permitted saints not in the calendar of the Usus Antiquior but in the current calendar to be commemorated in the older rite.
4 “Ceremonies of the Church,” P.S. II 77–78, 1 January 1831.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I could probably live with this. The one item that is not mentioned is the sign of peace. Given that even prior to 2020 one had an even chance of being near someone who did not want to shake hands, and it is the priest’s option (thus not essential), I’ll be happy when it is simply eliminated altogether, and in fact is a big reason why I gravitated to the Traditional Latin Mass. Having to wonder if I’ll get a nasty look, a “no, thanks,” a fish hand, or have my hand wrenched off my arm is too much of a distraction for me when I’m supposed to be contemplating the mysteries of the liturgy. At the TLM, I don’t have to be the least bit concerned about who sits next to me, and I can focus on what is really important. Other than that, I think a blending of the Novus Ordo with the TLM (maybe 70-30 in favor of the TLM) would be beneficial. The big problem is that the two sides distrust one another too much (they’d both see it as a trick) even to discuss it. We don’t have enough bishops who would be on board either when the majority are apparently still in TLM-containment mode. A more realistic option at this point is simply to give TLM followers their own juridical Rite (or at least an Ordinariate) and let them coexist alongside the other couple of dozen rites in the Catholic Church. Then let whoever gets the most vocations and converts be declared the winner.
We did need some reform in 1962, but unfortunately what we got was not quite what was prescribed or what was needed. In any case, I wish Father Stravinskas well on this endeavor, and I hope I’m wrong about my analysis. Perhaps this movement can gain some steam; perhaps with some prayer God can make what seems impossible merely difficult.
My solution to the dreaded, happy-clappy, totally-disruptive, and childish “kiss of peace” is simply to kneel after the Our Father with head bowed and stay kneeling during the Agnus Dei. I use the time for preparing to receive the Savior in Holy Communion. So, if anyone sees an individual kneeling during the revelry time, that’s me.
Yes, the sign of peace seems a bit disruptive to me, too & I generally just fold my hands together as a gesture of peace to others instead of a handshake, etc.
But recently I was visiting another parish for a noonday Mass & when I turned to the pew behind me at the sign of peace an elderly lady was reaching out her hand so I took her hand in mine & realized she was blind.
At Communion I saw she didn’t approach the altar so when I returned I asked if she needed assistance & sure enough she did. So up we went just in time for her to receive the Eucharist.
Had I not turned around and seen her I wouldn’t have known she was in need. It’s shame no one else noticed or asked. And no one assisted her outside until I found her heading out after Mass.
The local Pentecostal Church here has a sign proclaiming they’re the friendliest church in town. That’s probably true. Catholics tend to fall down in fellowship. Our next corporal work of Mercy might be in the next pew if we’d take the time to turn around.
I agree wholeheartedly, mrscracker. We Catholics worship God in a bubble. That said, the happy-clappy nonsense does NOTHING for community building. It is superficial and an empty expression of non-existent community. I do give you heaps of kudos for your reaching out to that woman. She found a friend.
Perhaps a simple holding hands together 🙏 and a simple bow to person would be more appropriate.
The entire exercise is straight out of the 1960’s nonsense.
The trads are digging their trenches deeper. They used to say all they wanted was the reverence, the chant, the Latin, the silence that they found in the TLM compared with the noisy novus ordo. Now that those are all being offered in reverent Latin novus ordo Masses, they have changed their tune. They now say they want the whole unchanged rite from before the council. Some hardliners even want to go back to before 1955. They do not accept Vatican 2. They do not accept the reformed liturgy. They will not accept any changes to their precious preconciliar liturgical form. They will not join the rest of the Roman Church in unifying in worship in celebrating the reformed liturgical rites. They don’t want mutual enrichment.
So I say be gone with them. Shut down all the TLMs, the sooner the better. Let them go to the SSPX and to sedevacantist chapels. That’s who they are in their hearts. Force the issue.
I am fed up with the liturgy wars. End it. Enforce Traditionis Custodes, fulfill Vatican 2’s mandate for liturgical reform, and eliminate the TLM from territorial parishes completely and fully. Were it not for the evil Marcel Lefevbre, we would not be having this war nor this discussion fully 55 years after the reformed Mass was promulgated.
No, the twain will never meet. Either the trads accept the reformed liturgy or they leave. That’s the choice.
The “trads” you dismiss in your imperiousness are younger than you. They are the future.
But thanks for for saying the quiet part out loud.
Ah, the classic “todos, todos, todos” approach, I see!
Just wondering, lately, why the phrase “the mystery of faith” was deleted from the words of consecration for the sacramental Host, and if this is omission is partly why 71% of surveyed Catholics are reported to no longer believe in the Real Presence (CCC 1374). And, yes, my preference is the Novus Ordo done well, but I also wince at the (substitute?) sign of peace which has mutated into the split finger sign of, what, Woodstock. And then of course there’s the not unrelated mutation of words (and the Word) in Fiducia Supplicans. The blessing that’s not a blessing of couples that are not couples.
TLM is a foxhole in a larger battle—the difference between the “virtual” Council (of the media under Hans Kung etc.) and the “real” Council of the Documents (this distinction from Benedict XVI).
So very Christian of you, Dorothy. I suppose you have a sign in your yard that says “hate has no home here” too.
You seen unnecessarily hostile. The official, gold standard version of the Novus ordo Mass is indeed Latin and it is perfectly acceptable even to most Bergolians to offer that liturgy. Disappointingly some hostile Bishops refuse to condone that because it seems to them a concession to traditionalists. But you are missing the point. It is not the Latin language per se that is seen as the big loss but rather the loss of the prayer of the old liturgy. Kind of like saying grace as, “Bless us, oh Lord and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive… (reverent prayer) versus “Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub, yay God” (modern populist prayer). I don’t know if you recall but between 1965 and 1970 the Mass was still the 1962 Missal but in a nearly exact translation of the 1962 Latin. I considered that to be a vastly superior Liturgy to anything that came out of the 1970 Missal, though of course some modern Eucharistic prayers therein are more abridged and irreverent than others.
There is no rational or theological basis for saying the Traditional Latin Mass is illicit as it was the standard form of the liturgy for at least 500 years. The only reason Francis and his toadies condemned it is to be cruel to traditionally inclined people, whom he clearly despised. Of course it can and should be practiced in parallel with other licit liturgies, including, e.g., Syriac, Byzantine and other Eastern rites. It is truly unfortunate that it has been interdicted.
I still believe that a Pope Francis was reacting to the very few loudmouth “Rad Trads” who did not recognize him as a legitimate pope and did not accept Vatican II as a legitimate council. If all the good well meaning traditionalists would distance themselves from these vocal troublemakers, perhaps they could stay under the radar and continue to worship freely and unmolested. You can’t have a portion of the church in open mutiny with the leadership. St. Paul dealt with similar problems numerous times in his epistles.
Good Lord Dorothy!
There are many, MANY traditional Masses that are NOT pre-1955 etc. You cannot compare breakaway groups or sedevacantists with people who celebrate the 1962 mass, the one celebrated every day of Vatican II, which is NOT IDENTICAL to the Trent mass.
And your rage and judgment that anyone who prefers the 1962 mass (I go to both that and the Novus Ordo) is a sedevacantist in their heart says everything about you and nothing about us. I am a “Communio” Catholic, (Communio Catholics accept Vatican II when properly read and understood) FULLY on board with John Paul II, Benedict XVI and theologians like Balthasar (ALL of whom the sedevacantists utterly reject) and I would NOT be at home in one of their churches.
Get a grip or get help. Our Church is one of UNITY not UNIFORMITY, a beautiful symphony of diversity, not a Soviet brutalist bloc of exact sameness.
Do you also want to get rid of the other Roman Rites, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian Rites, and the rite of the Anglican Ordinariate? Alexandrian Rite of the Coptic Catholic Church , Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholic Churches? The Byzantine Rite of the Melkite, Ukrainian, Greek, Ruthenian, Romanian, and Russian Byzantine Catholic Church? What about the West Syriac Rite of the Maronite Catholics? Just because you personally want to see everyone worship in the lockstep identical way doesn’t mean anyone should agree.
Shall we make over the ENTIRE universal church in your image?
Recalling, too, that TLM is not a separate “rite” but rather the unified “extraordinary form” together with the “ordinary form” of the one Novus Ordo.
No idea what you mean when you say, “Now that those are all being offered in reverent Latin novus ordo Masses…”. Please share what diocese you live in! I travel a lot for work. The common “thread” is “bare-bones, people-focused” liturgy. The desired goal of realizing the Universal Call to Holiness, and real participation in its ultimate Source and Summit, the Mass, through authentic education and catechesis is taught/lived in precious few isolated places. Real participation in The Mass is only done in one authentic, real way — in the manner of the Saints, NOTHING like what you find in the average western parish or cathedral. This is on no one’s radar today, especially our effeminate, emasculated, non-credible bishops. The fact that all remain silent while their collegial brethren persecute those who legitmately desire the Old Formis proof of their ignorance and worldly focus.
Wow. Okay, boomer. The church died after VII, but trads are the problem? It’s so funny how the liberals are really mean and hateful at heart.
Christina: many rad trads on u tube are VERY mean and hateful also. Let’s be fair about this.
You obviously have not studied/read the results of Vatican II on what the modifications were to entail. Yes, I grew up with the celebration of the Mass that had been celebrated in the “older form” for many hundreds of years. Some prefer that to the “new” changes. But you don’t. So what qualifies you to denigrate those with whom you agree?
SSPX a good option for hardliners. They seem Protestants at heart anyway. All the stones they throw at Pope and Vatican II.
How can Catholics who attend SSPX masses, where they celebrate the mass of padre pio and the saints be Protestant?
The novus ordo mass intentionally has Protestant rubrics and doctrine to accommodate Protestants.
This is absolutely correct. The novus ordo Mass was deliberately protestantized intending to draw Protestants back into the fold. Bad timing as the mainline Protestants were being secularized in droves because no devotion to God was fostered in their liturgies. So the one, holy Catholic and apostolic church just joined the race to see who could lose faithful and devotion the fastest. The drafters of the 1970 Missal (who actually did not follow the VII guidance) failed to heed the observation of the atheist HL Mencken, to wit “A solemn high mass must be a thousand times as impressive, to a man with any genuine religious sense in him, as the most powerful sermon ever roared under the big-top by a Presbyterian auctioneer of God. In the face of such overwhelming beauty it is not necessary to belabor the faithful with logic; they are better convinced by letting them alone.”
Well put.
You shouldn’t have hit “send” on that.
For the moment, any idea of “mutual enrichment” is DOA. «Traditionis custodes» has seen to that; the massive damage that document has done in terms of trust within the Church (let alone other areas) will now take decades to clean up.
Hopefully, Leo realises that we need to return to something approaching the Benedictine settlement in «Summorum Pontificum» – full freedom for both the «usus antiquior» and «usus recentior». If “mutual enrichment” is the way forward, it will only happen after a prolonged period of these two uses of the Roman Rite being happily and peaceably used alongside each other.
That said, there are several items on the “wish-list” of Fr Stravinskas and Fr Gregoris that I think are problematic, principally the suggestion that the three-year lectionary be permitted for optional use in the TLM. I appreciate that there are many who consider the Novus Ordo lectionary to be the best bit of the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, but nevertheless there are serious questions to be asked about it. The reformed lectionary is designed with a pastoral and catechetical purpose (General Introduction to the Lectionary, nn. 58-61). But the concept of a multi-year cycle is actually opposed to these aims; three years is too long a span of time for the biblical readings to fix themselves in the hearts and minds of the faithful. There seems little point reading “more scripture” if the end result is that people’s knowledge of the Bible is worse than if we had a one-year cycle!
Furthermore, the Novus Ordo lectionary is one of the most inorganic parts of the entire liturgical reform. The Consilium voted against retaining the traditional yearly cycle of readings as one of the years, and the result was the complete liquidation of a lectionary with over 1,200 years of use in the Roman liturgy, and its replacement with an entirely «ex novo» lectionary. It is not even the case that all the readings in the traditional Sunday lectionary were carried over into the reformed lectionary; many were relegated to weekdays, or edited to remove ‘difficult’ parts, or deleted entirely.
But this and other subjects are necessary debates and discussions for the next few decades. For now, we need the stability that the abrogation of «Traditionis custodes» would provide. And we need to move past the polemic and ideology – sadly encouraged by the previous pontiff – that the continued use of the traditional Roman Rite is somehow anti-Vatican II. It isn’t. As Papa Ratzinger said, “It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church… [we need to] make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew… Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”
Wars involve two or more sides Miss Dorothy
We have a catholic and universal Church with room for many rites and liturgies. It’s not a competition, war, or contest. It’s all good and we should try to see other’s liturgical preferences with charity and tolerance.
Yes, Mr.scracker. Where is Diversity Inclusiveness and Equity (DIE) when one needs it? Anyway, I have always wondered why what was good for St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, Dante, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. JH Newman, etc. was no longer good for the rest of us. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani’s warnings during Vatican II’s deliberations have proven true. I have heard that in fact the CC has lost followers in the West since Vat II. I have also heard that parishes that offer the Tridentine Mass have in fact gained attendees, while the opposite happens in those that do the Vat II mass, which may be another reason why the powers that be want to make it impossible to attend the Tridentine Mass. The Orthodox Churches of the West (Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc.) have kept the same basic liturgy, with no change, since it was codified by St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom (IV century A.D.), with some local peripheral variations (e.g. the Greeks sit during the Epistle but the Russian stand throughout the liturgy). The CC could have used vernacular for the readings and parishioners’ prayers during Mass and kept the Latin for the priest’s liturgical process and prayers, etc. Keeping Latin throughout is not the main reason why devotees of the Tridentine Mass do not want the V II mass. The reasons are more deep than that. See In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Attila Sinke Guimaraes
https://www.amazon.com/Murky-Waters-Vatican-II/dp/0895556367
Excellent viewpoint and comment mrscracker! So very true. Thank you!
Dorothy, regarding your perfectly uncharitable post, if you represent Post Vatican II Catholicism then I don’t want any part of it. Digging my trench deeper (and praying that your learn charity) I remain…
Here is my suggestion for a solution:
https://wherepeteris.com/why-not-a-tridentine-ordinariate/
I believe one problem with that suggestion is that while the Anglican Ordinariate accepts Vatican 2, the trads who want the preconciliar, unreformed liturgy reject Vatican 2. They specifically reject the Council’s mandate for liturgical reform.
Approving your suggestion would be tantamount to approving of the rejection of an ecumenical council by a fringe, noisy, troublesome subset of people just to placate them and keep them superficially within the fold of the Church’s juridical structures. Not going to happen. It would be attempting to wallpaper over a schism by officially accepting their schismatic attitudes but pretending they aren’t schismatic.
If the SSPX won’t be regularized without accepting Vatican 2 fully, the Church will certainly not form a Tridentine Ordinariate. There are already the FSSP, the ICKSP and similar, as well as the SSPX.
I can see that Rome might allow the FSSP and ICKSP to continue, but bishops would not be required to allow them within their dioceses. Those societies are anomalies and probably should be eventually suppressed as well.
The unreformed and the reformed liturgies cannot coexist in the Roman Rite. The Roman Church has chosen the path of reform. Get on board.
First point to bring to the fore is that Ecumenical Councils have according to Cardinal Ratzinger proven in some cases to have been just a waste of time.
The second point is that “accepting Vatican II” is a vague, diaphonous, concept that, considering the pastoral nature of the council is no longer applicable.
Third point to consider is that holding to the formulations of the faith as taught in pre-conciliar times cannot be schismatic. However potentially adhering to a post-conciliar interpretation that constitutes a “rupture” ie, adhering to a hermeneutic of rupture, one is materially, if not formally already in schism.
Fourth point to bring up is the umitigated failure of Vatican II, 80% of Latin Rite Catholics have ultimately rejected it by moving to the TLM or the Eastern Rites or the Anglican Ordinariate while the vast majority have left the Church completely. This is also partly due to the failure of Vatican II to fulfill the request of Pope John XXIII at the opening of the council to present the faith undefiled in its fullest in a manner understandable to modern man. 63 years after the opening of the Council and nobody knows what actually was meant in an orthodox manner while the majority of the Latin Church is populated by material heretics and schismatics. TLM Catholics unequivocally accept Paul VI’s Humanea Vitae and Mysterium Fidei. Any professed Catholic attending a Novus Ordo who directly disagrees in any way from those two documents is schismatic and a manifest heretic.
Sister Gabriela: a very good solution.
There should not be any Eucharistic Prayers other than the first one, the Roman Canon. The others are chosen by priests to save time. The Mysterium Fidei should remain where it is in the Usus Antiquor, part of the consecration, and not a sung activity which disrupts the solemnity of the mass at that point. The organist must stop kneeling in prayer to go play the incipit for the priest to sing, then people need stop praying to sing, then get back to praying. And NO SIGN OF PEACE.
In how many “Missae Cantatae” does the “Benedictus” get sung after the Consecration, thus “disrupting” the Canon?
Ratzinger destroyed the argument that the Benedictus “interrupts the consecration” 30+ years ago when his brother retired as choirmaster in Regensburg. https://adoremus.org/1996/12/cardinal-ratzinger-in-the-presence-of-the-angels-i-will-sing-your-praise/
When I read Randall Smith’s column in July, it was so apparent that he’s unfamiliar with the traditional liturgy that I was embarrassed for him to have shared his comments publicly. The liturgy is a tradition to receive with gratitude—not for a committee to craft. Rather than boldly claiming that the older rites make no sense, eg priest says his own confiteor before the people, maybe ask yourself and others: why is this how we do it?
Thank you for the interesting proposal, Father. If I could change one thing, it would be to simply eliminate all Eucharistic Prayers other than the Roman Canon. There is really no need of them. And particularly, after having attended a parish where EPI is mostly used, EPII now feels to me like rushing through the most important part of the Mass. It is just too short for proper solemnity unless the priest really drags it out. The Roman Canon is just so nourishing.
In addition, I would either eliminate the sign of peace, or enforce a standardized one (reverent bow).
Finally, I would eliminate “For the kingdom, the power and the glory are Yours.” There is nothing wrong with it inherently, but it feels like an indignity to our Catholic heritage to add something to the Mass purely to appeal to Protestants, as though it really makes a difference in evangelization.
I am no fan of the “For thine is the kingdom. . .,” however, its origin is not Protestant but Eastern Christian and is used in all the Eastern liturgies.
The Protestants imported it from the East.
Also, “For thine is the Kingdom…” is separated, by lines from the priest, from the intact Lord’s Prayer.
I share Matthew Hazell’s thoughtful reservations regarding the reformed, multi-year-cycle lectionary. It should also be noted that this “wish list” still leaves us with the intentional theological differences (if not divergences) between the orations of the TLM and those of the Novus Ordo (to say nothing of the radically recast general Roman calendar). As Mr. Hazell himself has demonstrated elsewhere, only 13% of the orations of the old missal are found intact in the missal of 1970:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/10/all-elements-of-roman-rite-mythbusting.html
Not a few of the revised orations are actually returns to more ancient formulae. Others are changes to reflect a slightly different mentality. If something can be said in a positive manner, rather than negative, is that not better? For example, rather than asking to “despise the things of this world,” to “use them wisely.”
Didn’t Francis de Sales urge using a spoonful of honey rather than a gallon of vinegar?
And not a few of those “returns” have been edited in some manner, often with an eye to “modern man” and often in ways unknown in liturgical history.
“If something can be said in a positive manner, rather than negative, is that not better?” No, not necessarily, Father – especially when such changes (a) have no basis whatsoever in the manuscript history of prayers and (b) have been done in an ideological manner, filtering everything through the 1960s, consistently eliminating aspects the Consilium deemed too “negative”. Your example is illustrative: «terrena despicere» is a thoroughly biblical notion (cf. 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4; Romans 12:2). Removing this phrase entirely from the Church’s prayer and systematically replacing it with more “positive” ideas fundamentally changes these particular orations and creates a serious theological imbalance within the reformed Missal as a whole. This is far from being a good (or even neutral) thing.
Stravinskas writes: “Before launching into any suggestions for rubrical or textual modifications, let me state clearly that certain practices which have become institutionalized in the so-called “Ordinary Form” need to be eliminated forthwith—namely, Communion-in-the-hand, recourse to the non-ordained for distribution of Holy Communion at Mass, and female servers–none of which were sanctioned by the Council Fathers or even remotely envisioned”.
Gee, I’ve come to believe the opposite. I think we need to “eliminate forthwith” communion on the tongue (we’re not babies, and the words are ‘take and eat’), have more extraordinary ministers (after all, there is usually only 1 or 2 priests at a parish), and more female servers (they tend to be smarter and do a much better job), and finally, we need to ordain women to the diaconate (deaconesses). That might solve your problem about the non-ordained giving out communion–now we’ll have ordained women giving out communion.
We’re probably a long way from the latter, but I sense we are moving in that direction. The Church’s sexism can only go on for so long until it becomes blatantly obvious to everyone and becomes too embarrassing to perpetuate.
I oppose female deacons, but to add to your other proposals, I’d be in favor of standing during the Eucharistic Prayer, as the whole rest of the world does. The US is an outlier in that posture. There is no need to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is not a mini-adoration.
Thomas James, the Anglican Communion offers everything you dream of: protestantism.
Go join it and leave Catholics in peace?
Such an exemplary ecumenical spirit. Let’s just wait and continue to dialogue with our sister Churches and allow the Holy Spirit to change us in the ways She sees fit, and maybe no one will have to leave, we’ll just be one as Christ prayed for.
Sunt Mala Quae Libas
Regarding the giving of communion, the snark involved in the “we’re not babies” simply is a strawman arguement doesn’t hold since “take and eat” was directed to the Apostles, not to the flock. “feed my lambs, feed my sheep” etc. And “receiving” communion is a reminder of God’s free gift of Himself. And the traditional prayer of the priest as he gives communion, “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.” Is far more doctrinally clear than “body of christ” in the Novus Ordo. All of these traditions uphold sacrality and help maintain belief in the real presence. This is one of the reasons why belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is 99% in TLM communities and at best 20% in Novus Ordo parishes.
The traditional practice also eliminates the need for EMHC in any case.
The ordained female diaconate is an impossibility. John Paul II covered all of the marks of papal infallibility when he declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain females as priests and being that there is only one sacrament of Holy Orders, females cannot along with the vast majority of males partake of that sacrament.
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
So, if you reject JPII’s binding statement, you reject papal infallibility and at that point, there’s no need for anyone to be in the Catholic Church at all since it would be a false Church. Any doctrinal change binding the faithful would prove the Church false. So, why be Catholic in that case?
We didn’t have to go beyond your opening line to know where the rest was headed. “Stravinskas writes:” That says it all. In the Catholic community, folks call priests “Father.” In fact, on the streets of New York, total non-believers greet priests as “Father.”
So revealing that this is the first thing you noticed, and of course I’m not surprised. That’s the problem with priests who have what I would regard as an inordinate preoccupation with liturgical rubrics, phrases, antiphons, vestments, prayers old and new, “God for ever and ever, or One God for ever and ever”, or how communion should be received, and all the details that amount to pseudo-reverence (sanctimony).
Although I doubt very much what you claim about New Yorkers, how would you even know the ones who greet you are non-believers? No, my priest friends tell me that clerical respect is down significantly everywhere, thanks to the clerical sex-abuse scandals in the past. And if it were true, then New Yorkers need to start reading scripture: “They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’ As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven….The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
You certainly love your clerical title.
Well, normal people read the first word and, hence, it’s the first thing they come upon!
And from that point on, your drivel only got worse. Given your whole orientation, now made abundantly clear in your second screed, make your schism formal by joining any of the thousand schism boxes that dot the landscape of the country. Although given your charism of personal infallibility, maybe you just need to start your own gig.
Yes, thank you Father. It’s a matter of respect and courtesy.
This continuing narrative on liturgy wars takes away from the Church’s Mission to evangelize. There is so much wasted debate on what linguistics some want verses what the Church should be doing, to bring sinners into the Church or those who have left just because of this nonsense.
As for Fr. Stravinskas personal comments on stopping Communion in the hand, he is incompatible with the Last Supper where Jesus broke the bread and gave it to his apostles. Jesus did not say kneel and stick out your tong. Then there is his comment on female servers, let’s not forget all the women that served Jesus during his ministry. Last but not lease is the truth that Latin is just a language as is English or Greek or any other language and not a special liturgical language.
This article is nothing more than Fr. Stravinskas personal preference which goes to his ego and when you go down that road you will never accomplish the reason he is a priest and that is to evangelize and bring salvation to the sinner through the Sacraments.
You appear to put a mission to evangelize above Liturgy = worship or counter position them. It is wrong because true evangelizing comes from true knowledge of God. The Liturgy/Mass, when it is truly focused on God, orients a person to God = gives him a mystical knowledge of God. Another way of putting it, “a contemplation = an infused knowledge of God always expresses itself in an action”. The true Liturgy/Mass is a form of a contemplation.
You may answer “Jesus told his disciples to go and to teach all people” i.e. to evangelize. To that I will say that those disciples:
1) had spent years were in communion with God via the Son of God and the Son of Man, Christ; in a sense, those years were an ongoing infused contemplation;
2) the Gospels state clearly that the apostles after the Resurrection and then Assentation would spend much of their time in the Temple engaging in regular Jewish liturgical activity
3) finally, before commissioning the apostles to go and teach, Christ fulfilled the Old Liturgy via His Last Supper, in which his disciples participated; Christ thus acted out the importance of the Liturgy, the source of everything.
From there follows that the Liturgy precedes everything and it is the source of all godly activity. Thus, if the Liturgy suffers twists and falsities, it will produce a twisted/false evangelization. This is why it is important that the Liturgy is not “people-oriented” but “Christ = God-oriented” (this is the core issue between TLM and NO). Put it this way: a person who spends his time covertly worshiping himself (that inevitably happens if during the Liturgy the focus is shifted from God to men) is likely “to evangelize” = to speak human wisdom and not God’s wisdom and preach not Christ as He is but to adapt Christ to “the needs of our time”.
NB: My position is not pro-TLM or pro-NO but it is about measuring everything by Christ, the Son of God as much as the Son of Man.
Before our interlocutor lectures us, I suggest he brush up on the English language: “tongue,” not “tong”; “least,” not “lease”; “Stravinskas’,” not “Stravinskas.”
I would suggest that it is he who is pushing personal preferences, not I, who offered sound theological and historical reasons for my suggestions.
Forgive me Father for not proof reading and letting auto correct do its thing. I stand by my words and I know all about you and all your education but you are still incorrect and pushing your ego even at 75 year old. Let me remind you that when you were ordained you promised to obey your Bishop and the Holy Father. You are not fulfilling those promises by defining the Pope and the Church directives as outlined on today’s Mass. I am not going to get into a flawed rhetorical argument with you as I to have a long deep theological education as a Benedictine and well educated in church history. You are not in touch with today’s society and live in the past. Thank God for the likes of Word on Fire, FOCUS and Steubenville where today’s youth flock to in large crowds.
“You are not fulfilling those promises by defining the Pope and the Church directives as outlined on today’s Mass.” Huh?
As an Orthodox, I would very much appreciate a restoration of what the Vatican II ordained:
First and foremost, ad orientem because it makes a priest a leader of the congregation, he and them orienting to God. As a side-effect, ad orientem makes a priest far less important visually and thus reduces the likelihood of unwholesome “improvisations”.
Second, as NO priest (and a very good and solid one) put it, “I feel that the sign of peace belongs to the end of the Liturgy of the Word”. Indeed, it makes no sense to shift the focus from God to ourselves after the Anaphora prayers.
Third, a strict prohibition of and punishment for any “improvisations”. The reason for this is that Mass is “the common business” of the whole congregation and a priest cannot alter anything. Such alterations disrupt the focus on God and shit it to a priest.
And this is all. I think the above re-orientation to God is achieved, the rest (like music conducive to a prayer) will follow.
Anna, as usual, you say it all so very well.
One of the things I have always liked about Orthodox liturgies is that the rite preserves the name by which they refer to the central form of worship i.e. the Sacred Mysteries. The sacred space is reverenced as the Holy of Holies. The act is set apart. It is not a case of “here comes everbody.” The NO has made the worship of God and the re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice more about Man than about God. That’s what must end before it ends us.
I attended a Russian Orthodox liturgy years ago. It was beautiful and they had a fellowship meal afterwards.
mrscracker: something that Catholics ought to do but don’t….missed opportunities
We’ve been down this road before:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/02/the-liturgical-rollercoaster-recent.html
It has become quite clear that Dr. Kwasniewski opposes any change to the Usus Antiquior — even those elements equally clearly called for by the Fathers of Vatican II. Petrus contra Mundum!
Certainly SC calls for changes, but it would be misguided to suggest that the changes are essential to Catholicism. The practices weren’t harmful to the faith. It would be like saying that we must stand on Sundays because the canons of an earlier council demand this. These are not dogma. They are pastoral and I don’t mean simply recommendations. If SC is dogma, then the NOM is not the Mass of VCII, because it doesn’t go in line with SC. It goes beyond the changes called for and it goes against the changes called for. What we know is that the TLM doesn’t go against VCII in any serious way on the level of belief because at the Council, during the Council, the Fathers of the Council were saying this Mass and Paul VI gave permission for priests to continue saying that Mass. when you say the Fathers of the Council “clearly called for,”
certainly you don’t mean that the NOM is what the Council called for, do you?
What emerged in 1970 was certainly far beyond what the Council Fathers envisioned.
Catholicism is constant;
Modernism is changeable.
LEX ORANDI LEX CREDENDI.
It’s all a question of religion.
A not so little point: Did anyone ever notice that the new format for Mass took away the Priest’s role in forgiveness of the people’s sins when it dropped the priests individual Confiteor? It’s now a reverent ‘wish’ that God will forgive us all instead of a clearly directed act forgiving those in attendance.
There is only one way to synthesise the two forms of Mass: simply revert to the Missal used in 1965 and allow at least one scheduled Sunday Mass in the older form in every parish.
What a fascinating article! Kudos to Fr Peter S. and CWR. To engage another’s mind in regards to prayer is always illuminating, particularly towards that foundational garden where one’s sensibilities regarding prayer is cultivated. Thus – though having a natural interest in the subject – I have a lifelong disability: no facility in languages (barely passing muster in English). Thus, I cannot really appreciate Father Peter’s analysis. How can this be rectified for us Catholics of limited ability? Very simply: have a Traditional Latin Mass in English. I could then attend the TLM-English and compare matters which Father points out as significant re the Novus Ordo. A widely available TLM-E would naturally allow all us Anglophones to become appreciative of our TLM heritage. Both forms being freely available for all of us, we can then go on to consider Fr Peter’s ideas about a “third form” of the Latin Rite.
We all obviously need to experience both forms. In due course even experiencing the TLM in Latin. My goodness, what an adventure in prayer.
One thing I have noticed is that some Catholics think that “Kyrie eleison” is Latin, rather than Greek. Which gives us a clue to part of the essential power of the TLM: its is more than Latin. Perhaps in the 3rd form of the Latin Rite we should include Aramaic for the quotation of Jesus’ words in the Consecration. The Greek for the Kyrie. And Latin for the Agnus Dei (and perhaps other short phrases). Short phrases is all us English speakers with language disabilities can handle. The Our Father is so long and complicated. So in the 3rd form there would be Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and mostly English. Maybe there should be a little Hebrew somewhere as well. The catechetical point being our deep heritage of prayer stretches back an awfully long way, through all sorts of languages and cultures. And we embrace them all, with the love of Christ. Shown to us this way by the “in persona Christi” leadership cultivating prayer in us. The love of God transcends language, even as the disabled experience and know in due course.
All three forms would be available for all. And the “sensus fidelium” would sort things out in due course.
No need for a war or the interesting present inquisition we see being played out before our eyes.
Thanks for your kind words, Timothy.
A few responses.
First, if the Last Supper was indeed a Seder/Passover meal, Our Lord would not have been using Aramaic but Hebrew — the liturgical language (hint: Latin!).
Also, I think you sell yourself short about your ability in Latin. By the time I was in second grade, we knew the whole Mass in Latin, sung and recited, and we knew what it all meant.
“The deepest cause of the crisis that has subverted the Church is located in the effacing of the priority of God in the liturgy.”
ppBXVI