THE SECRET TO TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN TO BE QUIET AT MASS

I was moved to share the following thoughts after I read this article: A letter to the parents who keep bringing their disruptive kids to Mass, week after week.

+++++

As one of the parents of 11 children, and who, for the most of our child-rearing years, attended Mass in a small chapel of maybe 20 people max, (where any noise was easily a distraction) we had a strategy. It was my job to take the disruptive child (usually the youngest) outside. Sometimes I'd miss the whole Mass. But not for long. The child usually settled down about year 2. 

But here's the deal. The Mass we went to did not have constant sound, external stimulation, guitars, lectors, amplified singers, drums, moving around, etc. It was 90% absolutely silent. If you've guessed this was the Latin Mass, you are correct. 

The lack of all that external stimulation had a quieting effect on my children, even as infants. Somehow they intuited that something special was going on and they learned to be quiet...because QUIET is what surrounded them. 

We had and still have 2 special needs children. One of them, Number 10, was extremely rambunctious. He was always on the move. But about age 2, he became absolutely quiet and even "contemplative." 

(As a P.S. William had been born with a nasal defect which caused him to snore loudly. Since William knew he could not make noise "in church," he would "deal with it" by just going to sleep. His snoring was so loud that I often had to pick him up off the floor and take him outside. This became a bit difficult because I was the "organist." LOL.)

William with his Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary
at Latin Mass. ca 2012. 

I gave William an icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary and he would hold it against his chest at every Mass and was absolutely still for the more than hour long Latin Mass liturgy. 

As soon as Mass was over, he was up and running out of the church and it would take most of his brothers and sisters to catch him as he ran around the church yard. 

For nearly 30 years we went to Mass with up to 11 children. But for a few instances when we had to take the little ones out of Mass, they all learned to "respect" the Mass because they were surrounded by "respect," which was absorbed by them as silence. 

Let's stop blaming children and families. And families, let's stop making excuses for our noisy children. If you take them to a noisy place, they're going to be noisy. Sorry if you are unable to find a Mass where silence reigns. I understand how hard it is today. Every available second seems to be drowned in sound.

OLD MASS, NEW MASS

Printed in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana on 12/2/12.

Allow me to stray a bit this week into an internal Catholic Church matter which I feel could use some clarification: the return of the “Old Mass”, or more specifically some misunderstandings wrought by its return. By “Old Mass” I mean the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), now formally labeled the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The restoration of the TLM began in 1984 when John Paul II first issued an indult, a special permission, for its usage. In 1988, the Pope again addressed the TLM and appealed for a wider and more generous usage. In 2007, Pope Benedict in the Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum, went beyond the indult, declaring that the TLM  had “never been abrogated” and its celebration needed no indult.

In an accompanying letter to the world’s bishops, the Pope affirmed that there was “no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal” (the TLM and the Mass of Paul VI - the “New Mass”), and that “what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too”. He also called on the bishops to see to it that the TLM, as one of the “riches which have developed through the Church’s faith and prayer”, be given its “proper place”.

All of this is to say that the Pope has declared both forms of the Mass to be equally valid and sacred and one is not to be considered superior to the other. So on to the misunderstandings.

It is not uncommon for those who find the TLM attractive to soon find themselves propagating it with a “born again” zeal. This is particularly true among the youth which is a fast growing demographic at this Mass.

Why the youth find the “Old Mass” new is a matter for another column. The issue we wish to address here is that advocates of the TLM, young or old, should not and cannot speak ill of the “New Mass” (though questioning innovations not prescribed by the Liturgical books is never off-limits).

However, most of the “speaking ill” comes from the other direction in a rather constant chorus of criticisms of the TLM, sometimes from those in high places. Those criticisms consistently center on the two elements of the TLM which most distinguish it from the New Mass: the use of Latin and the “ad orientem” position of the priest, or as critics put it, the priest’s “back to the people”.

We are told that previous generations of Catholics “didn’t get anything out of it” because they didn’t understand Latin, and the priest’s “back to the people” is impugned as a posture of ignorance.

First, let us examine these criticisms on their face. To make either of these accusations is to say that for the better part of 2000 years the infallible Church of God had it WRONG. This a very serious matter even if it is said in jest. But in fact it is normally not said in jest. It is normally said superciliously and often by people who should know better.

Pope Benedict has reaffirmed the sacrality of the TLM, and that includes both the rules governing the actions of the celebrant (rubrics) and the venerable language of its celebration. An attack on either is an attack on the sacred. We may prefer the Mass in the vernacular. We may prefer the priest facing the people. But we don’t get to belittle and impugn the language and rubrics of the ancient Mass. For what was “sacred then is sacred now.”

But beyond that, one does wonder why so many docilely accept these criticisms when there is enormous evidence to the contrary. On Guam, long before the priest turned around and spoke in Chamorro or English, the “Old Mass” was the source of a profound faith, a faith which saw generations of Chamorros through innumerable trials and the incalculable horrors of a World War, and left their faith stronger still!

To accept that our parents or grandparents didn’t get anything out of the “Old Mass” because the priest had his “back to the people” and said the Mass in Latin is an insult to their memory and dangerously doubtful of the power of the Holy Spirit who “blow(s) where it wills” (Jn 3:8)

Speaking only empirically, it is in fact SINCE the celebrant has turned around and the Mass said in local languages that the pews have emptied, the faith has waned, and Catholics have exited, not entered, the “door of faith”.

In fact, it is due to this recent physical, spiritual, and moral exodus from the one, true Church, that the Pope has declared a Year of Faith in the hopes of inspiring a return. And it is this same Pope who has called for the restoration of the ancient Mass. Maybe there’s a connection.

Eucharistic Ministers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Important Features of the Extraordinary Form: Eucharistic Ministers Not Used

In the extraordinary form, the distribution of Holy Communion is confined to the ordained priest (or, in rare cases, to deacons who are on their way to becoming priests). Lay ministers of the Eucharist are not used.

This aspect will no doubt seem jarring to those who have grown accustomed to the sight of laymen flocking into the sanctuary in order to function as "Eucharistic ministers." But for one thing, this practice was supposed to be rare even in the ordinary form of the Mass-hence the official title "extraordinary [in the sense of unusual] ministers of the Eucharist." More importantly, the beautiful practice of receiving Holy Communion at the hands of a priest plays an important role in reinforcing priestly identity and gives meaning to the discipline of celibacy observed throughout the Roman Rite.

Father James McLucas, former Christendom College chaplain and a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, wrote an extended and important reflection on this subject in 1998. The celibate Catholic priest, who gives up the holy estate of marriage and an exclusive relationship with an earthly spouse in order to devote himself to God's service, was traditionally consoled by an exclusive relationship of his own; he alone could touch God." The traditional role of the celibate priest as the sole administrator of the sacred, "Fr. McLucas explained, "assisted him in sublimating his natural desire for exclusivity with another in marriage, and preserved his orientation toward his spiritual espousal to the Church and his spiritual fatherhood." (10)

The priest does not lose his normal human need for an exclusive relationship with another simply because he is a priest. But while other people satisfy this need through marriage, the priest finds it in his exclusive custodianship of the Eucharist-"an incomparable and unparalleled intimacy", with God, as Fr. McLucas put it. When laymen touch the Host, they (unwittingly, no doubt) deprive him of this exclusivity, which is supposed to ground and give strength to his celibate commitment.

Furthermore, the paternal dimension of the priesthood-the priest's role as spiritual father-is undermined when the priest is in effect told that after the consecration he is really no longer needed; the laity can take things from there. "The act of the priest 'feeding' the faithful with the Bread of Life incarnates his role as Its sole provider and, far more than the eye cans see, forms his and his people's perception of his spiritual fatherhood," wrote Fr. McLucas. And young boys are less likely to pursue priestly vocations, or indeed to be intrigued by and attracted to the priestly office in the first place, if the priest is not a figure of awe, who alone brings his people the divine gifts. If Mrs. Jones can do practically everything he can, young men will be less likely to be willing to make the sacrifices associated with the priesthood.

(10) This section is deeply indebted to an extraordinary article: Fr. James McLucas, "The Emasculation of the Priesthood," The Latin Mass, Spring 1998, available at http??www.latinmasmagaizne.com/articles/articles_emasculation.html

Male Altar Servers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

In 1994 female altar servers were suddenly permitted for use in the ordinary form of the Roman rite. But the concession...came in the form of an indult - that is, an exception to a general rule - and one that bishops were at liberty to forbid in their dioceses. "The implication is that the general liturgical norm prohibiting female altar servers remains in existence, so that in general women may not serve at the altar undless a local ordinary intervenes by a positive act and grants permission for his territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the Congregation [for Divine Worship] has clarified the authentic interpretation to mean that an indult is given to diocesan bishops to permit the use of female servers." Instruction number 2 of the indult itself urges that "it will alway be very appropriate to follow the noble tardtion of having boys serve at the altar."

[While Rome of course is within its right to do this, I have always felt that such "indults" place the bishop in an awkward position, evidenced by the fact that most of the bishops eventually "cave". However, today's bishop is the one clamoring for more autonomy and local authority in manners of church discipline. So with that freedom has come the responsibility to be the "bad guy" once in awhile. Much praise to the bishops who stand up to popular opinion and, despite indults, continue with what the Church actually prefers.]

...The very fact that the exclusively male preserve of altar service can be traced back to the beginning of the Church weighs very heavily in the equation, particularly for a Church that values Tradition as one of its pillars. ..."In the case of religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millenia, there must be an enormous and overwhelming presumption that such a traditon reflects the will of Christ." ... the "general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West."

Many of the arguments against female altar servers are similar to those that justify the reservation of the priesthood to men alone, particularly since altar servers are often considered extensions of the priest (Arguments in defencse of a male-only preisthood are well summarized in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Congreagation for the Doctirine of the Faith's 1976 document Inter Insigniores, both of which are available online.) We see this close relationship between altar service and its culminationtion in the priesthood not only in that both the priest and altar servers wear the cassock and surplice, but also in certain linguistic conventions. The Spanish word fo altar boy is monaguillo, which means a "little monk." In Italian, ... "the word for altar boy is chierichetto - a "little cleric," which means that the term used naturally for "altar girs" in Italian is in itself an affront to Catholic doctrine: they are called donne chierichettoa, "little female clerics."

A married person, according to Catholic teaching as well as common sense, may not flirt or become involved romatically with a member of the opposite sex even if their relationshiop should remain technically chaste. Their behavior toward each other is logically ordered toward physical consummation even if such consummation does not in fact occur.

..."From this perspective...we could say that a woman or girl serving at the altar, no matter how devout her personal intentions, no matter how reverent, recollected and modest her deportment and dress, is by her very presence in the sanctuary engaging in what is objectively a kind of spiritual immodesty. She is flirting, as it were, with priestly ordination-mimicking it, drawing as near as she can to it with an indecorous familiartiy and an intrusive intimacy. Her liturgical role insinuates and suggests ordination as its proper goal or fulfillment, even though this is absolutely excluded by the Law of Christ."

Female altar service, in short, introduces a deep tension, an inner contradition, into the sacred litrugy. It makes an ideological statement which both politicizes and secularizes our Eucharistic worship. Instead of reflecting the sublime harmony of the communion of saints, a foretatste of Heaven itself, the sanctuary comes to symbolize an earthly battlefield in the new cold war against "patriarchy."

Kneeling for Holy Communion

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

The abandonment of this pious practice is of very recent origin - four decades ago it was still the common manner of receivng Holy Communion.

Why shouldn't we receive Christ on our knees - as was (and in some places still is) even the the traditional Lutheran posture when receiving Communion? A parish bulletin insert from several years ago employed a common argument to justify the change: "We should remember that standing itself is a gesture of reverence. It is our cultural custom to stand when a dignitary enters a room or when we sing the national anthem."

[This comment is incredibly ignorant. But I withhold comment because the author says here what I would say.]

To be sure, at some times and in certain places, standing was the posture that indicated the highest form of reverence. But that is not the case in modern Western culture, and so appeals to the practice of the early Church are irrelevant to the situation in the West here and now. It is surely unwise to disrupt traditional Catholic piety for the sake of intruducting a gesture that is less suggestive of the kind of reverence that is owed to God alone, and more suggestive of the reverence we show when a a mere "dignitary enters a room." Jesus Christ is rather more important than the ambassodor from Liechtenstein.

[I would add that this goes for the standing after Communion, and in some places, standing through the consecration as well.]

In practice, having people receive the Eucharist in an ordinary way - we stand all the time, after all - rather than an unusual one (how often do we kneel, except before Christ?) can make them think that what they are receiving in Holy Communion is relatively unremarkable. This principle has often been summed up by the Latin phrase lex orandi lex credendi, which is normally translated as "The law of prayer is the law of belief." How we pray influences what we believe. If the words and postures by which we pray leave some question about the nature of the Mass, the offering of sacrifice, and the Real Presence of Christ, then our belief in these things is likely to grow less certain and more confused.

Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks about the value of kneeling in the liturgy are worth recalling here. Kneeling, he said, "may well be...alien to modern culture," which has "turned away from the faith, and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is th eright, indeed instrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core." He also pointed out the numerous biblical examples that emphasize kneeling as the proper posture for adoration and prayer. How appropriate, then, to kneel at the moment of Holy Communion.

Communion on the Tongue

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was the norm throughout the Latin Rite until 1969, when the Holy See issued an indult permitting the practice in the most difficult and disobedient Catholic countries. Later the indult was expanded. Italy did not have it until the 1980's - and Poland only two years ago.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, one of the twentieth-century's great moral theologians and Catholic writers, and deeply admired by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, warned that Communion in the hand could have the effect of undermining people's faith in the Real Presence. "To be allowed to touch the consecrated host with unannointed hands is in no way presented to the faithful as an awe-inspiring privilege," he wrote in a 1973 article called "Communion in the Hand Should Be Rejected." "It becomes the normal form of receiving Communion. And this fosters an irreverent attitude and thus corrodes faith in the real bodily presence of Christ." The late theologian Father John Hardon, S.J. , urged in 1997 that "whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

In the same way that a deeper understanding of the theology of the Eucharist and the extraordinary gift God has given us helped to foster the practice of Eucharistic adoration, a fuller appreciation of Christ's Real Presence also led over time to the rejection of Communion in the hand and the adoption of Communion on the tongue. As the Congregation for Divine Worship noted in 1969, "Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."

[It is a fashion of the age to resurrect some ancient practice and claim it to be the ideal or "pure". However, Catholics should want to know how and why we came to have what we have. To not do that is to deny the action of the Holy Spirit who has led us over the centuries into the "way of all Truth". In other words, to deny the product of genuine and venerable tradition is to deny the authority of the Church and the action of the Spirit. Rather than throw out what the centuries have given us, we must strive to understand the beauty of what the Church has so long labored to give us.]

It was no accident that sixteenth-century Protestants like Martin Bucer, insisted so strongly on the reception of Communion in the hand. Although Protestant opinion varied, the consensus held that Catholic teaching on the Real Presence amounted to gross idolatry. Encouraging Communion in the hand, they believed, undermined two Catholic teachings at once: the ministerial priesthood and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. First, the distribution of Communion in the hand implied that there was nothing special about the ordained priest, since laymen had just as much right to touch the Eucharist as he did. Second, receiving the Host in the hand emphasized that the Eucharist was ordinary bread - for if it is nothing more than ordinary bread, why shouldn't a layman be able to receive it directly in his hand?

That the practice of Communion in the hand was observed well over a millennium ago is virtually irrelevant. As Pope Pius XII explained in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, the desire to introduce novel practices into Catholic worship when the existing practice is venerable and hallowed by tradition is at odds with a normal and healthy sensus Catholicus. May we apply this reproof to those Catholics in the 1960's who disobediently resurrected the discarded practice, centuries after Communion on the tongue had become the established norm?

In fact, Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina, who announced in 1996 that Communion in the hand was to be forbidden in his diocese, drew this very conclusion, citing this teaching of Pius XII in support of his policy. The bishop's decision was subsequently approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which informed him that "in deciding to maintain immutable the tradition of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth [you] have acted in conformity with the law and therefore have not broken with ecclesial communion."

When Paul VI grudgingly allowed Communion in the hand in 1969, his permission came in the context of a letter urging that the traditional practice of Communion on the tongue be retained. Allowance for Communion in the hand was made as a concession for parts of the world where disobedience on this point had already reached epidemic proportions. The Pontiff thus allowed the bishops to permit the practice if they thought it the best way to cope with the situation.

We read in Memoriale Domini, the Congregation for Divine Worship's 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, that a "change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine. "For these and other reasons, the Congregation explained, "the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful. "The Congregation's warnings continued:

This method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.

Further the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually." Lastly it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

These were the urgings and warnings that preceded the Holy See's reluctant allowance for Communion in the hand in those countries where this forbidden practice had become widespread.

...the 1962 Missal contains an edifying and very beautiful instruction to the priest: from the moment of consecration until the final ablutions, he is to hold thumb and forefinger together, in order to prevent the profanation of any particle of the Sacred Species. If for centuries the Church taught her priests to show such fastidious devotion to Christ, then Father Hardon's desire to discourage Communion in the hand becomes a matter of simple common sense - for if priests were once concerned about Eucharistic fragments just between their thumbs and forefingers, so much greater is the problem presented by the layman who takes the entire Host into his outstretched hand.

Latin Mass Explained

Today I received the following unsolicited emails attempting to point out the error of my ways as regards my penchant for things Latin, particularly the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the language in which it is celebrated.

The author did not identify himself, at least not in anyway that I can recognize. (Something I find instructive in itself.) While I normally don’t bother with anonymous attacks (and this is a veiled one), I decided that it would be a good opportunity to clarify a few points that I can easily reference to save time when I receive similar challenges…as I often have.

Here are the emails. My response will follow:

Email 1: Pope Benedict exemplified the truly "Catholic" nature of the Church
today in the liturgy at the National's stadium. The liturgy tuely
reflected the multi-cultural aspects of the universal (or Catholic as derived
from Greek) church. The main portions of the Mass were proclaimed in the
universal language of today (English) and various prayers and hymns were in
various languages of the faithful, such as Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, Nigerian
and Spanish (as well as Latin & Greek - yes the Kyrie is Greek not
Latin).

Praise God - Savior of all not just the Latins.

Email 2: Forgot to point out in my last e-mail - The pope
truly embraced the reformed rubrics for the Universal (Catholic) Mass today in
the liturgy at National's stadium. While the Tridentine Mass has its
beauty, its relevance is limited to its historic context and times. The
Vatican II liturgical reforms, as demonstrated today, clearly better reflect the
modern multi-cultural context of the today's Church.

My Reply:

I am not in a habit of replying to emails from people who do not identify themselves by their real names or at least by the name that the addressee should be able to recognize. I find it neither conducive to genuine dialogue nor charitable. So I would appreciate it if you would identify yourself if you are going to continue to send me emails.

I will, though, respond this time.

1. I have no idea why you feel it incumbent upon yourself to lecture me as to my personal preference in worship. I have complete freedom to attend the Traditional Latin Mass and to express my preference for both the Form and the Language in which it is celebrated.

2. Your reference to how the "pope truly embraced the reformed rubrics" tells me that you have no idea what rubrics are. The rubrics are the appropriate postures, movements, and gestures of the celebrant and congregation during the course of the Mass. The Pope was celebrating the Mass of Paul VI, which he has been doing since 1970, and his "rubrics" were exactly what the Missal calls for and has called for, for almost 40 years. His celebration today had nothing to do with "embracing" anything.

3. Because there was a multi-cultural display says nothing about the Pope's embracing it. The Mass was planned most probably by the archdiocese of Washington D.C. (I had originally thought the USCCB – which it may well be, but I’m guessing the D.C. archdiocese), not the Pope. If you want to know what the Pope "embraces" watch the Masses at St. Peter that he does control. You will see nothing of the kind. (We know that it was not planned by the Pope, because the music was completely antithetical to everything he had written about the use of music at Mass over the last 30 years.)

4. You mention that this particular Mass reflects "the multi-cultural context of today's Church". Wonderful. But is the Mass supposed to reflect the Paschal (Sacrificial) Mystery or the "Church of What's Happening Now"?

5. Lastly you reference the reforms of Vatican II. Have you ever read the actual document of Vatican II on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)? Allow me to quote directly from the document on a few items you are obviously unaware of:

23. ... 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.

Please note the words "grow organically from forms already existing". The form "already existing" was what we now call the Traditional Latin Mass. You say that the "Tridentine Mass...is limited to its historic context and times". Not according to Vatican II. The TLM was to be the basis for organic development. In my opinion, it is one of the sad consequences of the aftermath of Vatican II that this instruction of the Council was ignored and we were given a Mass 7 years after Vatican II that was not an organic construct but a radical departure.

(Also, note this from Summorum Pontificum: “In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples.” The Pope is instructing us on how the Mass, as celebrated in Rome, has, throughout history, entered into the culture and changed it, NOT the other way around.)

I should also note that the Traditional Latin Mass that Pope Benedict has promoted with his Moto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007), is not appropriately called the Tridentine Mass, but the Mass of Blessed John XXIII. (Or, even more appropriately: the Mass in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII.)

Please also note the following words of the Pope in his letter to the bishops that prefaced the Summorum Pontificum in which he states that "...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching". The Pope intends for the two Forms to inform each other - hardly possible if the TLM is simply supposed to be a museum piece as you suggest. Perhaps you should read both the SP and the accompanying letter to fully understand the Pope's intentions.

Also from Vatican II:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be
preserved in the Latin rites.

What's this? Latin is to be preserved? Where do we see the directives of Vatican II obeyed?

and this:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman
liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place
in liturgical services.

Pride of place? I did not see Vatican II today at the Papal Mass. I saw a celebration of self and a complete ignoring of the directives of Vatican II.

I have no problem with people like yourself who want to create a Church in your own image and worship in whatever way makes you feel warm and comfortable.

However, I choose to worship in the way our Church has prescribed. I'm a true Vatican II Catholic. I actually read Vatican II and look for the Church where its directives, particularly its liturgical directives, are actually honored.

I ended up attending what was then called "the Indult Mass" or the TLM with permission of the Pope and Bishop becaue I could not find a Novus Ordo Mass that was actually celebrated according to the mandates of Vatican II.

Thanks be to God our local parish now has a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo according to those mandates and I am happy to attend.

If you truly feel that you are called to "straighten me out", then come and see me. We'll set a time to sit down and talk. However, as you have seen, I base all my actions and arguments on exactly what the Church ACTUALLY says, not what I want it to say.

Also, I plan to use your email and my response to it on my blog and in my general Catholic group box. Except that I will not post it and send it out with the intent to impinge on or impugn others desired form of worship.

"Tacking On"? - The Last Gospel and the Prayer to St. Michael

In a recent e-letter, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers attempts to explain some of the differences between the "new" Mass and the "old" Mass - the Novus Ordo and the "Tridentine" Mass.

Keating does a fair job of it but in expressing his preference for the new (1970) and much expanded Lectionary and his non-preference for the "Last Gospel" and Prayer to St. Michael, found at the end of the "old" Mass, I am moved to reflect and respond.

I would certainly not fault Mr. Keating for desiring more readings. However, I'm curious as to why we don't seem to ask the question as to why for approximately 1970 years or at least for the last 500 or so years since the Council of Trent, a more expansive use of Scripture in the Lectionary was not employed.

To simply insert more Scripture readings because it seems like a good idea begs the question about the wherewithal of our forefathers who had given us what we had up to and including the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII.

I choose to believe that the Mass we had prior to the Novus Ordo was not a hodge-podge of centuries of "tack-ons" as we are sometimes led to believe, but a ritual, finely tuned and rightly ordered by centuries of use, the devotion of billions, and an organic development that could have only proceeded via the Holy Spirit directly from John's vision of Heavenly Worship in Revelation. The lack of a more extensive lectionary was not a 2000 year oversight.

I do not question the authority of the Church to expand the Lectionary, but I do not believe that the more limited Lectionary of the old Mass was a result of apathy or neglect. There was a reason for it.

Sadly, I don't know the reason or where to find it. But I can speculate. Here would be my points:


1. The change in the Lectionary flowed from the change of emphasis in the Mass. We may continue to say that the focus of the Mass is Christ, but in practice we know that the emphasis is on the community, more particularly on the "full, conscious, and active participation" of that community which "is to be desired above all else". As we all know those words - unqualified and generic - have led us down a path that the present Pope feels impelled to correct.

2. There is no mistaking the emphasis in the Old Mass. It is in word, practice, position, and posture, Christocentric in every way. The Old Mass does not attempt to encompass a Bible Study. It is not the forum for a great exposition of Scripture. The readings chosen for the Old Mass and the readings used for so many centuries were those readings that best served the theology and the action of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery.

3. It is also assumed with the Old Mass that the Mass itself was just one part of a larger Liturgical Day - a day punctuated and accented by many readings from Scripture known as the Divine Office. In times past this consciousness of the liturgical day was so preponderant that folks didn't refer to the hours of the day by numbers but by their liturgical names: matins, none, vespers, etc. Even the days were known by their feast names and not the pagan names we now use to refer to them.

4. The New Mass, in its attempt to meet the challenge of the modern age, in a way admits defeat in the world and says okay since you're not going to read the Scriptures for yourselves we'll read it for you at Mass. The Mass is then made to serve another new master: Bible study (the first new one being community building).

Note: I used to say that I didn't believe this (the scattered emphases of the new Mass) to be the intention of its designers, but I'm not so sure anymore. At any rate, intended or not, the effect is the same.

It is quite obvious by my above "personal opinions" that I am not all that cracked up about the expansion of the Lectionary. I have nothing against it but I would rather we relearn to incorporate the Scripture into our days as was once done.

"Tacking On"
Keating's other concern is the supposed "tacking on" of the Last Gospel and the Prayer to St. Michael which seem to be added to the Old Mass.

For those who don't know, in the Old Mass, after the final blessing, the priest would go to the left side of the Altar and read the "Last Gospel" which consisted of John 1:1-14:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

The prayer to St. Michael was said at the foot of the article at the end of an extra series of prayers which included 3 Hail Mary's and the Hail Holy Queen.

Again, I would ask those who consider this to be "tacking on" to "rely not on their own understanding" but to investigate the mind of the Church that included and preserved these practices.

I would also point out that the Mass is, in effect, at least up until the Novus Ordo, a result of two millennia of "tacking on". Prayers and actions came to be added to the Mass as the Christian community entered more deeply into its mystery. Truly, anything other than what Jesus actually said at the Last Supper in the Gospels can be considered a "tacking on".

For the modern Mass-goer who, by the time of the final blessing, already has one foot in the parking lot, the "addition" of another reading after everything seems to be over, and then followed by even more prayers, would, of course, be a jolt and an annoyance. But even for a more sincere person I would suspect that there would arise some question as to this seemingly out of place adding of not only a Gospel at the end of Mass, but the same Gospel at the end of every Mass.

It shouldn't take a liturgical expert to deduce that if this same Gospel was repeated at the end of every Mass for the last 800 or more years that perhaps our Church had deemed it important to do so and we should at least know the reason why.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the Last Gospel was a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy about the 12th century. (By the way the final blessing was also a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy…and we still have that.) However, the question still intrigues me as to why it was added and why THAT particular Gospel passage.

Since I can't find anything to answer my question I will feel free to speculate.

The first heresy against Christianity was the refusal to accept Christ for who He said He was. We find the first instance of this in the Gospels (the Sanhedrin, etc.). This "first heresy" persisted throughout the centuries and persists today. (And in the case of Islam may well bode horrific repercussions that we can't even begin to imagine.)

One can imagine that innumerable disputes over the person and nature of Christ continued to proliferate after his death, resurrection, and ascension. But in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, it exploded into what came to be called "Arianism", which temporally and spiritually shook the young Church to its core. Arianism taught that Jesus was not God.

Because of the damage done by this heresy and the damage it continued to do, I believe that our wise fathers incorporated (not tacked on) John 1 to the end of every Mass in order to combat Arianism and its derivative heresies and to drill into Christians the truth of who Christ was and is.

(Also, we have to remember that the word Mass comes from the Latin "missa" which means "the sending". Since the beginning of Christianity this "sending" included the definite possibility of death. (It still does of course in so many parts of the world.). It was essential that the faithful be reminded again and again why and for who they were dying. We are still sent out to die, if only perhaps to die to sin.)

Today more than ever we have need of the Last Gospel. The success of the novel "The Da Vinci Code" which employs this same heresy, and the harm it caused many Catholics is a dire indicator of the state of Catholic knowledge and understanding of the true person of Christ.

Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are two of the fastest growing sects in the world with the majority of their recruits coming from the ranks of Catholics. Both JW's and Mormons are descendants of Arius. But the threat from these two sects is insignificant when given the much greater threat of Islam.

Islam also rejects Jesus as God, but rather than walk to the next door and knock to find a more sympathetic ear, Islam teaches that you should lose your ear and your head with it.

The thought of what we are into (war with Islam - though we still call it a "war on terror") is not only beyond my understanding (for now) but cataclysmic to a frightening degree. (My friend Robert Morgan is writing a book on it which I hope will come out soon.) Meanwhile, let us read John 1 ourselves at the end of each Mass and at our breakfast and dinner tables so that we and our children will know the answer to the question: "Who do you say that I am?" when we are finally asked.

And as per the "tacking on" of the Prayer to St. Michael at the end of the Old Mass… Well God himself employs the help of this Archangel in casting out Satan (Rev 12)… maybe… well, you figure it out.