As is well known, I am a liberal who hates Traditionalism and the Extraordinary Form

As is well known, I am a liberal who hates Traditionalism and the Extraordinary Form August 10, 2013

That’s why I am so thankful we have finally come out of the Dark Ages of Traditionalist Pope Benedict and into the New Age of Liberal Pope Francis. I mean, listen to this backward retrograde stuff (slightly edited for ease of comprehension) from that old arch-reactionary who has (thankfully) ceded the See of Peter to a forward-thinking Progressive:

“When the bishop of Conversano and Monopoli, Domenico Padovano complained to the Pope about the work of division created within the Church by the defenders of the Mass in the ancient rite. Sandro Magister reported the following:

“Benedict exhorted him to be careful with the extremisms of certain Traditionalist groups, but also to treasure tradition and allow it to live in the Church along with innovation.

“In order to better explain this last point, the Pope…brought up his own example:

“See? They say that my Master of papal ceremonies [Guido Marini] is of a Traditionalist mold; and many… have asked me to remove him from his position and replace him. I have answered no, precisely because I myself may treasure his traditional formation.”

And get a load of this outdated stuff from Benedict on the Church’s sacred liturgy:

Alexey Bukalov: “Good evening Holy Father. Holy Father, returning to ecumenism: today the Orthodox are celebrating 1,025 years of Christianity. There are great celebrations in many capitals. Would you like to comment on this event, I would be happy if you did. Thank you.”

Benedict: “In the Orthodox Churches they have conserved that pristine liturgy, no? So beautiful. We [i.e., the Latin Christians] have lost a bit the sense of adoration, they conserve it, they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time does not count. The center is God
and that is a richness that I would like to emphasize on this occasion as 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.” [“Light from the East, from the West, luxury.”]

Consumerism, well-being, 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 from 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.””

Oh. Wait. It turns out Francis said all that stuff.

Never mind.

Have I mentioned I love this guy?

">>If not, stay in your lane, as they say..<<But, isn't this the lane for all ..."

Ross Douthat recently mentioned Where Peter ..."
"Well, when St. JPII said that we should unilateral oppose the use of the death ..."

Ross Douthat recently mentioned Where Peter ..."
"Which Walford letter? This letter says nothing:"

Ross Douthat recently mentioned Where Peter ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I see what you did there. 😉

  • Dan Li

    He’s not getting rid of Monsignior Marini? Excellent! I’m of the opinion that he’s a far better MC than the Archbishop of the same surname…

  • Andy, Bad Person

    “backward retrograde?”

    Is that like repetitively redundant?

  • Dan C

    Militant traditionalism and its traditonalist agenda will not be satisfied until the Ordinary Form they term the Novus Ordo is banished.

    1. I have problems with that.
    2. I have not really seen any satisfaction on the part of traditionalists with the potential to use the Extraordinary Form.
    3. Traditionalists actually seemed emboldened in the aforementioned agenda.
    4. As a consequence of what is perhaps increased rancor from this faction in the Church, would it be prudent to end the Extraordinary Form and cease giving a vocal tiny minoritiy its own special liturgy based on what seems to be uncharitable assessments and tantrums with regards the rest of faithful worshipping Catholics.

    Has the increased availability of the Extraordinary Form resulted in increased factionalism? Traditionalists are no closer to accepting or respecting those of us who participate and love the Ordinary Form. As such, should they cease receiving special favors?

    I think these are reasonable questions.

    • Barfly_Kokhba

      You should not presume to speak on behalf of people for whom you clearly lack understanding and respect.

      • Dan C

        I understand militant traditionalism. It is obvious from its blogs and from the parishioners who worship via the Extraordinary Form that they advocate the end of the Ordinary Form, that which they call the Novus Ordo.

        I do understand that some Traditionalists do not particularly advocate for this, but it is hard to find a “you do what you like, and I’ll do what I like” Traditionalists who is not disdainful of my liturgical practices, behaving in a way that suggests I worship in an inferior way.

        I do not worship in an inferior way.

        I do not have to respect those Traditionalists who think in this manner, in fact I am right to oppose them.

        I have blogs and blogs to present as evidence that there is such a thing as militant Traditionalism and that they show little respect for those of us who do not enjoy the Extraordinary Form. Is this all traditionalists? No. But there are clear Traditionalists who do not respect the Ordinary Form. I find that tremendously problematic and suggest opposing militant Traditionalism.

        • Barfly_Kokhba

          You’re free to base your opinion on whatever you like. If reading articles on the internet is enough for you to dismiss and scorn the same Mass practiced by Augustine, Aquinas, et al then that is between you and God.

          As an outside observer, I look at what impact the Church had on the world between the time of Jesus and 1962, and it seems pretty impressive. Then I look at what impact the Church has had on the world since 1962, and that doesn’t seem quite as impressive to me, personally.

          When Israel was re-established as a sovereign nation, a key component to its success was that Hebrew had been preserved as a liturgical language among the entire world’s Jewish people. Hebrew had been heard and read by even secularized Jews at any given synagogue service for 2,000 years.

          Language means something. Latin is a beautiful language, and its universality as a liturgical language seems to have had a unifying effect on the Church that has since been weakened. That is my very narrow, uneducated and uninformed opinion. We shall all see eventually, “Quo Vadis.”

          • Dan C

            Do you consider that I participate in an inferior form of worship? If you do, why should I be exactly supportive of your activites?

            I have been toa Latin Mass, and spoken with folks who love that Mass in person. I experience the wrold beyond the internet.

            I am not supportive of the denigration of my form of worship. Why should I support tthose who seek to end my preferred form of worship? Because of one’s particualr tastes in language?

            • Barfly_Kokhba

              Since I don’t attend worship services of any sort then I am hardly in any position to judge how you worship. Nothing could be inferior to my form of worship, which is basically nothing but personal prayer.

              But as an outsider looking at both sides of the argument I still say that perhaps–just perhaps–2,000 years of Majesty and Tradition, including the ancient language of the vast majority of historical Church Doctors, Fathers and Saints should not be subordinated to your personal preference.

              Personally, whether I was a practicing Jew or a practicing Catholic, of which I am neither, I could not be part of any reform-type or modernity movements, for the simple fact that I would not want to belong to something that was cooked up in a committee meeting in the mid-1960’s because some people didn’t want to bother learning Latin anymore, or because people felt like eating pork and shellfish.

              If I am part of a religious tradition then I want something Transcendental and Timeless, something that goes back through history and the ages.

              If one wants a Christian service in the local, modern vernacular then I don’t see why one wouldn’t just go to a Protestant church.

              • There are more than two sides to this argument. There are at least 20.

              • contrarian

                As much as I hope and pray you convert to the true fatih, it must be sad: you make a very good point here. To expand on your good point, you might say that your position as an outsider is particularly important, as you aren’t going to give a lick about commands to be ‘docile to the magisterium’ or some such thing. For a Catholic, a weighty argument against criticisms of the new mass might be, “Well, Pope X says that there’s continuity,” or “NO loving pope Y loves tradition!” or, “You must be docile to the teachings of the VII Council!” But you, as an outsider, aren’t going to care what anybody or any document says or doesn’t say. The proof is in the pudding, not in some interpretation of it by somebody or some document that, from your bird’s eye view, isn’t particularly important or authoritative. One might say from an objective, third-person view, that–against protestations to the contrary (even by popes)–there simply ain’t continuity between the pre and post VII masses. We shouldn’t need special Catholic cognitive dissonance glasses to see the continuity.
                Thanks for your comment.

                • contrarian

                  “said” not *sad”
                  (it’s not sad at all! heh!)

            • JET55118

              It isn’t just a taste in language. Latin is a sacred language.

              • HornOrSilk

                All languages can be used as sacred languages. Latin, however, wasn’t the one used by the early Church and indeed was seen as vulgar (!!!) for centuries. Then it became “sacred.” This shows how vulgar can become sacred, and no problem if it does.

              • Andy

                Jesus didn’t speak Latin, he spoke a version of Aramaic, otherwise the vast majority of those he talked with couldn’t have understood him. IF there wa/is a sacred language guess it would be Aramaic and then we would all be in deep crap, as no one speaks it any more. The fact that during its history the church used Latin was more due to education and control issues of the laity. Please don’t conflate that decision with sacredness.

              • Dan C

                You are going to have to expand on how the language if the Roman Empire became sacred. Was it Jerome with his Work on the Vulgate? Suh a statement needs “a little more.” Because the most sacred event, the Eucharist, happens in English and Kreyol and Navajo everyday.

                • JET55118

                  It is true that Christ taught in Aramaic, but it is a historical fact that Hebrew was the hieratic language of the Temple. Hebrew is a scared language, and the Jews knew this- that is why the Torah was only produced and read in Hebrew (except Daniel, partially Chaldaic), and Hebrew was the exclusive language of worship in the Temple. So although Christ likely taught His lessons in Aramaic (and maybe Greek or Latin), we know He worshiped in the Temple using Hebrew. So like many concepts, the idea of a sacred language has roots in Judaism; the idea of sacred languages was there from the start. The scriptural source for the concept of sacred languages is in the inscription over the Cross, which was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. This led St. Isidore to label these languages as sacred. And the concept was adopted by Rupert of Deutz (one of B XVI’s favorite theologians), and many other theologians. This was taught and popular even in the 20th century before the Council. Greek was considered a sacred language primarily on account of the miracle of the Septuagint. There is more, but I don’t want to make this too long or bore you (too late?).

                  Also, the idea that Latin was used simply because it was the popular language of the people or for educational purposes has been thoroughly discredited. The Latin used in the earlier liturgies was highly stylized, and would have sounded totally exotic to the average person speaking Latin at the time- it was like comparing to Shakespeare to our modern English. This subject was treated at length in Christine Morhmann’s three lectures, “Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character.” But I’m sure you’ve all read that already . . .

                  • HornOrSilk

                    No, the Torah was produced and read in Greek. Sorry. Fail. And Daniel isn’t the Torah. If we want to talk about the Old Testament, it is actually in a variety of languages. But Jews did use and produce Greek texts. And when we got to Latin, for quite some time, it was the “vulgar” language and not “sacred.” It was only later made sacred.

                    • chezami

                      Torah was produced and read in Hebrew. The Septuagint is the Greek translation.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      The Torah (five books of Moses) were produced in Greek as well. The Greek translation is a production of the text. And, for many, it is the authoritative edition (the East). So, just to be clear. I was not denying a Hebrew Torah, but I was pointing out it was not the only way it was produced. For many Jews, the Greek text was the Torah. Many forget this, because of what came later.

                    • JET55118

                      Um…yeah…I know, my earlier comment mentioned the Septuagint, so I kinda already said that. Thanks though. . . I was talking about using the scriptures in Hebrew in the context of Temple/Synagogue worship. Certainly when Jesus was reading scripture in the Temple or the Synagogue, it would have been in Hebrew (except the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra). Hebrew was used liturgically even though Aramaic was the common language used on the streets. The scriptures used in Palestine were the Hebrew/Aramaic texts, not the Greek. Aramaic was the language of the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians), and was adopted by the Israelites during and after the exile. It was also used by the Persian Empire. You are correct, the book of Daniel is not part of the Torah (I misspoke), but it was part of the Jewish Bible (Tanak) at the time of Christ, as it is today. Latin was made a sacred language when it was consecrated by the blood of Our Lord on the Cross. No other languages have been identified by saints and theologians as sacred except Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This is Church tradition.

                      Sorry, I’ll take the saints, great theologians, and centuries of Church tradition over some random blog commenter’s baseless assertions about sacred languages (i.e. yours).

                    • HornOrSilk


                      Point #1 Greek was also used by the Jews in synagogues for the Torah. And this is true even in Israel (Jerusalem). The Romans helped cause this as did the fact that Jews would travel long distances, from where Greek was the norm, to come to Jerusalem. This was a part of the issue of the money-lenders in the Temple.

                      Point #2 Many criticized the use of Latin as a vulgar tongue before it was made into a “sacred” language. You say it became sacred at the cross – because Romans used it? Really? So curse words are also sacred?

                      Point #3 You will find Syriac Fathers talking about Syriac as a sacred language. This is not Hebrew. So your only “three” is false. You can find other traditions for other languages (Slavonic, Armenian, et. al.) if you look.

                      Seriously, your argument is invalid because your points are false and show no understanding of history. And I will leave you at that.

                    • JET55118

                      My final post:

                      1. Yours is a view shared by a small minority of scholars. It is still widely accepted that Christ used Hebrew in the Temple/Synagogue, even though Greek versions were available at the time. In addition, you have no refutation to my point that the scriptures used in Palestine at the time of Christ were the Hebrew/Aramaic texts, not the Greek. Your source talks about a synagogue in Egypt, not Palestine. Also, finding a Greek version in a synagogue does not necessarily mean it was used liturgically.

                      2. I already explained why Latin is a sacred language- the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages were consecrated by the blood of our Lord on the Cross (John 19:20). Your comment is just a dodge, as anyone can see. It’s sad, because I admitted where I was wrong- you apparently do otherwise . . .

                      3. I am a Latin Christian, so I am not familiar with the Syriac Fathers. I would venture that there is no scriptural basis for their belief that Syriac is a sacred language, unlike the western tradition.

                      When the Synod of Pistoia held that the vernacular should be used in the Mass, Pope Pius VI said it would be “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.” Auctorem Fides, 32.

                      I have shown my sources to support my thesis. I have cited saints and great theologians. You have cited yourself. I have cited scripture, you have not. My thesis is supported by great saints, theologians, and Church tradition. Yours is supported by nothing by your own assertions. Best of luck in life.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      1. You just make things up as you go. This “view” from “a minority of scholars” is ridiculous. It is quite well known Greek was used, and we have evidence of it. You claim I give no backing, but I just did with this. As an example. Just look into scholarship on Hellenism in Ancient Israel, and you will learn about it.

                      2. Scripture doesn’t call it a “sacred language.” Eisigesis is not proof of anything. You just say “it’s used on the cross, therefore, it is a sacred language.” Christ spoke Aramaic on the Cross. Oh wait, there comes the Syriac connection. Sorry. Don’t want to confuse a Latin person who thinks they know the Fathers and then makes it clear they don’t. Which comes to #3. (Yes, I know, you got the example from Isidore, but that doesn’t make it accurate; I can quote all kinds of things from Isidore, starting with Greek being more illustrious, so if we want beauty and such, all should be in Greek, especially in Latin-speaking worlds so they won’t have vernacular, right? And if you read Isidore carefully he doesn’t say only three, but three which are preeminent throughout the world — which is quite different from your claim of only three sacred languages).

                      3. You make claims about the Fathers, but then show you don’t know about them. This is typical of the rest of your comments. You come from a limited understanding. Then you make absurd demands like a Protestant — “show me in Scripture.” This says a lot. The fact is, Syriac tradition is a major tradition and to ignore it is to have basic misunderstanding of the history of Christianity. This doesn’t even go to other sacred languages, like Slavonic (which my Church has for its tradition).

                      So, back to a point I briefly mentioned above. Latin was “vernacular” when it was first used, so I guess your use of the Pope means it was insulting to the Church to use it when it was vernacular? Again, typical hyper-trad to lose context and ignore the ramifications as they try to ram their fortifications on others.

                      Reality is more complex than your simple, cherry-picked presentation of the saints (like Isidore) you reference. Again, for others, this is what Isidore wrote, “There are three sacred languages — Hebrew, Greek, and Latin — which are preeminent throughout the world” (Etymologies XI.i.3). Jet acts like Isidore said there are only three languages. No, he said there are three which are preeminent throughout the world. That leaves local areas to have their own sacred language, not used throughout the world. As the Syrians did. As the Coptics did. As the Ethiopians did. As the Russians would do.

                      Jet got it wrong. He doesn’t know how wrong he has it. Nor, do I think, would a real scholarly presentation solve it. For if someone won’t listen to the Church as it interprets its own tradition, what would scholarly articles solve?

                    • JET55118

                      LOL. I can’t believe how irate you are getting over this; probably because you’re getting pwned by St. Isidore (not everyday you get pwned by someone who died 1,400 years ago), Rupert of Deutz, Pius VI, the Gospel of John (the only gospel text that explicitly links specific languages with the Cross), Fr. Gihr, and 1,400 years of Church tradition, as well as modern Popes. Bl. John XXIII, who was absolutely bonkers over Latin, said Latin was a “consecrated” language in the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia. Pius XI said the same thing in Officiorum Omnium.

                      Did you even read the article before you posted it? The article you posted from Cambridge U doesn’t even support your strange notion that Christ used Greek in the Temple/Synagogue. The article only shows that Greek versions of scripture were used in a synagogue in Egypt in the Middle Ages (800-900 AD). Problem is we’re not talking about what was used in synagogues in Egypt during the Middle Ages; we’re talking about Temple/Synagogue worship in Palestine during the time of Christ (i.e. the later Second Temple Period, 70 BC-70 AD). You’re such a clown.

                      I ran all this past my Old Testament professor from University, and he confirmed that Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Temple/synagogue at the time of Christ, and that Christ certainly worshiped in the Temple/synagogue using Hebrew. .

                      I said Latin was a scared language. Someone asked me to expand my reasoning so I did. You, for some inexplicable reason, decided to go nuts on me and attack basically everything I said. I honestly don’t know why you’ve attacked the time-honored Church tradition that Latin is a sacred language with such vitriol. Latin is one of the Church’s greatest treasures- it says a lot when you attack its sacred character so maliciously.

                      Latin is a sacred language. Deal with it.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      You still show you don’t know what you are talking about, and play loose with your argument and ignore what I actually wrote.

                      For example, I did not say Hebrew was not used, I said Greek was ALSO used. And in many places, it was the primary language of the Jews in that area. The Temple, btw, is not the same thing as a Synagogue. However, even in the Temple, with the international character of travel, Greek was also used. More than that, the point of the article was to show Greek CONTINUED to be used in the Synagogues. If you read it carefully it said some assumed the Jews stopped using Greek (which meant they used Greek), but then it is shown they continued to use Greek 1000 years longer than some assumed. So if they continue AFTER Christ, then during the time of Christ it was being used (which the article also makes clear).

                      So, there has been no “owning.” I have pointed out how you reduce things and that is your error. It’s similar to Luther who also adds “alone.” That’s all you do. Real life is more complex.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      If you doubt, here is a good article, which I will quote from:


                      “. The way Luke tells the story, Yeshua read the portion and the people understood it without the need of a translator. This could mean either that Hebrew (in whatever form) re-mained a living language among the Jewish communities of 1st Century Israel, or that Yeshua read the Prophetic portion in a language more widely known, such as Aramaic or Greek.”

                      “Though usually reserved for synagogues outside of Israel, it is recognized that the Septuagint was utilized for Scripture reading in synagogues of Greek-speaking Jews such as those mentioned in Acts”

                      If you study further (elsewhere), you will note the signs around the Temple itself were written in Greek. This also is indicative of the use of Greek at the Temple.

                    • JET55118

                      Wow- saying I’m like Luther is incredibly ironic, since Luther, like you, hated Latin. Luther did exactly what you wanted, and immediately translated everything into the vernacular. This prompted the Council of Trent to issue the canon: “If anyone says . . .that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only . . . let him be anathema.” So your postion has already been condemned by the Church. Your thoroughly Lutheran beliefs on the vernacular were condemned at Trent. Now you’ve been pnwed by Trent. Thanks for playing.

                      So I’m playing “fast and loose?” You post an article about Greek text from the middle ages found in a synagogue in Egypt and somehow extrapolate from one general and imprecise sentence that Christ used Greek in the Temple? (ps, I know the difference between Temple & synagogue, I use a “/” because I’m lazy). It’s pretty clear who’s playing fast and loose.

                      Moreover, even if you were correct (which you are not), Christ speaking Greek in the Temple wouldn’t make a shred of difference because I already said Greek is a sacred language.

                • JET55118

                  I am not saying that the consecration or mass is invalid if it is not said it Latin. I never said that, it was never my intent to imply that at all. Sorry if that was not clear. The mass and consecration said in the vernacular is valid and effective, that is indisputable. I am saying that Latin has a sacred character that other languages (except Greek and Hebrew) do not.

              • Church Latin is a sacred language. Latin has sex jokes and sports betting terms in it which makes it just a language. It is, in fact, a very beautiful language.

              • Dan C

                Over at First Things, there is a great interview with an expert in the Septuagint. Pretty cool.

                So,;,all this about Latin being sacred. I think this is clear evidence of conservative theologians doing “speculative” work. I think these works are interesting, informative and something worth thinking about, however, the authoritative nature of this is worth discussing.

                Joseph Ratzinger made note that he did not consider the growth of the Church in the West as an accident (a broader topic of cultural impact and prejudice and acculturation, etc). However, this was said in a speculative role, reflecting the question to which he was responding.

                As such, and worth noting, while it may be true that Latin is “sacred” I think right now that is an academic question and still debatable.

                I think more non-Western Catholics need to join the Church to clarify further the role of “the West” in the Church’s early growth as a bonus or barrier. Bring in half of India or a quarter of China into the Church and let those folks into the conversation.

                We all may be surprised.

                • JET55118

                  Could you provide the link to the article at First Things?

                  I think you are correct. Latin as a sacred language is far from something beyond dispute. It is something believed by saints, great theologians, and is also a time honored tradition of the Church, but in the end it is not something we know with absolute certainty. I believe that Latin is a sacred language, but I know it is not dogma.

            • I like butter pecan ice cream. My wife can’t stand the stuff. She likes as much chocolate as they can stuff into the ice cream. That’s not my preference. Both of us think that the other is a bit nuts about it. Words have been exchanged, even denigrating words. But also there is much laughter and love and the truth of it is that we generally just buy one of each half as often.

              You seem to have the conflict part of such family discussions down, but are showing some evidence of being a little light in the laughter and love part. I think you would benefit from reflecting on the fact that your position is the position of the vast majority and are in no practical danger from the crazies who go full out for the Extraordinary form or, for that matter, who think that both are weak tea compared to a variety of other alternatives fully permitted within the Church (I occasionally resemble the latter).

          • HornOrSilk

            Actually, the liturgy as it was celebrated by Augustine, Aquinas et. al. is NOT the same as the Tridentine (except in the way all divine liturgy is the same liturgy, the celebration of the eucharist). This is the kind of falsehood suggested by the “trads.” They know nothing of history or the history of liturgical development. There were many forms of liturgy — Augustine, indeed, was baptized by Ambrose, and Milan’s liturgy certainly is not the Tridentine.

            Then you engage the typical trad post hoc ergo propter hoc, without, once again, knowing the reality of the situation. The “decline” was in existence before the 60s, and indeed one of the reasons why VII was called.

            Just the typical trad claptrap with no basis. Funny it is coming from someone who attends no services! What’s your real purpose coming here with this nonsense?

            • JET55118

              Aquinas likely heard an early version of the Dominican Rite, which was extremely similar to the missal of Pius V, the chief difference being no prayers at the foot of the altar, which were not introduced until 1568. Other than that, the Dominican Rite of the early-mid 1200s is essentially the same as the Tridentine mass. See A History of the Dominican Rite, William R. Bonniwell, O.P. Aquinas may have also heard a variation of the Roman Rite in Paris. Overall, small differences between the Rites. The Dominican Rite is much more similar to the Tridentine Rite than the Novus Ordo is similar to the Tridentine Rite. The Novus Ordo will never have the liturgical or historical pedigree of the Pius V missal.

              • HornOrSilk

                “Essentially the same.” The so-called “New Rite” is also ESSENTIALLY the same. The Rites differ in time and place, and have consistently changed and been adapted. The idea that all the Western (! why only look to them?) Saints had the same Mass until modernity is pure nonsense. We don’t even have to look at Sarum in England with St Thomas More and St John Fisher to know this. Even after Trent, the liturgy WAS changing. Seriously, people over-sell the Tridentine due to ignorance.

            • Barfly_Kokhba

              You’re asking my purpose in engaging in conversation on an internet forum dedicated to religion? It is part of my own personal process of discernment. I have a strong belief in God but I feel rather lost, religiously speaking. I am a cradle Catholic who has attended at least a hundred Novus Ordo Masses. I had a very bad personal experience with my last parish and it caused me to drift away from the Church. I don’t want to give up on organized worship completely.

              Your name-calling and vitriol has crossed from uncharitable into outright malicious. I have never attended a Latin Mass in my life, nor have I ever had any direct personal contact with any “Trads.” Your vitriolic reaction to what I have written is speaking volumes on behalf of your position, whether you realize it or not. You are certainly helping me in my discernment, to say the least.

              Enjoy the rest of your Sunday and have a Happy Sabbath, my friend.

              • HornOrSilk

                I’m asking why someone who claims no connection to worship gets into a conversation which is clearly internal, ala intra-Catholic? It seems to cause division, especially when the comments you gave are rather cliche. So when you go “and it doesn’t matter, I don’t go” you get upset when someone calls you out on that when you make rather absurd statements which come out of the hyper-trad wing and are completely false.

                Instead of looking to debate liturgy and worship, when you don’t worship, you might want to look at why you don’t worship yourself. It has nothing to do with the style of liturgy. Your own statements elsewhere indicate you don’t know what differentiates Catholicism from Protestantism: it isn’t Latin. It isn’t the Tridentine Liturgy. It is the ecclesiology, the sacramentology, and the soteriology which differentiates. The form could, in many ways, be very Protestant and still be different because of the ecclesiology. The sacraments are valid and licit. That’s why one goes.

                So if you think the whole point is to be as out of synch with society and “mysterious” as possible, how about promoting Klingon renditions of the Rg Veda? That will be very occult! But that isn’t going to be credible for spiritual enlightenment.

                Oh, and it is nice to see the kind of ad hominem response you give. “You hurt my feelings questioning me! I should be free to question and insult but you, if you respond and look deep, I’m going to have a tantrum and say that’s why I will not obey.” Seriously, get a grip on the ego.

                • Barfly_Kokhba

                  HornOrSilk, I’m going to ask a sincere question, so please don’t take offense: Is English your second language? Do you have difficulty reading the English language?

                  I will repeat for the second or third time: I am a baptized cradle Catholic who has attended hundreds of Masses at various Catholic parishes around the country. My wife and children are baptized Catholics. I was, in fact, a volunteer Religious Education instructor at a Catholic parish at one point.

                  So I don’t know who exactly you think you’re talking to, but you’re reading things that haven’t been written and ignoring things that have been written. This general topic is not outside of personal relevance to me. I have my own personal reasons for no longer attending Mass, it is a relatively recent development, and frankly any further explanation is none of your business.

                  Ego, indeed.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    “I don’t attend Mass, but I will argue with Catholics about it.” Sorry. THAT is Ego.

        • Stu

          “blogs and blogs…”

          I think some perspective is in order.

          Blogs do not equate into reality.

          Whether you realize it or not, your participating in the Catholic blogosphere makes you a very small minority.

          Let’s base our opinions people we actually know and encounter in the real world.

      • Dan C

        “speak on behalf of” means I speak as a representative of someone.

        I speak as a representative of me and my family who are tired of having our worship demeaned. That is who I speak “on behalf of.”

        I speak in sharp criticism of Traditionalists who oppose the Ordinary Form and consider those of us who worship with this form as worshipping in an inferior way. I am well in my right to criticize those view points, error-laden as they are.

    • chezami

      And that will never happen. There’s a reason the OF is the *O*F.

  • Barfly_Kokhba

    Mark, I’d be interested to hear your opinion on the situation involving the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, who have recently been prohibited from practicing the Extraordinary Form.

    Why has Pope Francis forbidden them from practicing the Latin Mass? I have only heard the perspective of Traditionalists in this matter. The fact that the topic is being ignored by all other Catholic bloggers intrigues me. The silence seems deafening.

    • moseynon

      BK, could it be that, for non-traditionalist bloggers, the decision to supervise the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is a non-issue?

      After all, the news did report that the process began a year ago and that the decision was made due to the abuse by a small group of extremists.

      “But the Assistant General for Apostolate, Missions and Media of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Alfonso Bruno, told CNA July 29 that ‘more than 80 percent of the friars appreciate the intervention of the Church.’

      In his estimation, the “problem is not the Holy Mass usus antiquior,” which he described as ‘only the tip of the iceberg.’

      Fr. Bruno pointed to a ‘small group in power’ within the religious congregation that is being influenced by Mother Francesca Perillo, who is “very close” with Lefebvrist groups. He is worried that Mother Perillo, who is in charge of the congregation’s contemplative sisters, and her followers could fall into ‘heresy and disobedience.’ ”

      See also:

      • HornOrSilk

        Exactly right. The issue is internal, and has less to do with the form of the liturgy as it is other issues (though the form of the liturgy is used as the rallying cry by those trying to instill the wrong sense of ecclesiology into the order).

        What always amuses me is how these hyper-trads (not all who love the old Latin Liturgy, but the triumphalists) would have no answer to the debates of 1054 with the Greeks. Their ideas, at best, support the Greek side of the Great Schism. How dare the Pope stop the TRADITIONAL Liturgy (older than the Latin!). How dare the Pope go against the Canons of Nicea! Etc. The same arguments can be made. However, of course, it is all due to misunderstanding of the canons and authority and tradition. But the thing is, no matter how they act, the accusations of the hyper-trads would require them to reject their Latin liturgy for something older!

        • SSPX supports latinization via the Priestly Society of St Josephat which is annoying and revisionist. It’s just not revisionist on the time scale that they’re concerned over. I don’t know about these traditionalists who support the Greek side. I’d be curious as to their attitudes regarding Vatican II and specifically Orientalium Ecclesiarium.

          • HornOrSilk

            Yes, I know they do (being a Byzatine as well, and seeing the trads come to our churches). My point was that their logic in promotion the Tridentine contradicts their reaction to the Great Schism of 1054. They wouldn’t like to know that some of the reactions of the East were “you are changing too much, going against tradition, we have the older liturgy,” etc. The East (and some trads) sometimes do have proper points of concern; however, the reaction to those points is where the error comes. Florence does a good job in explaining of all this.

            • An interesting question is why are the trads coming to our churches? It sort of blows up the idea that trads are just uncomfortable with change.

              • HornOrSilk

                Often they come to our churches because they don’t find one of theirs nearby. At first they think, “Ah, this is more reverent.” But after awhile, they will try to make us like them, to change us to what they want. And I know priests who will kick them out when that happens, and tell them to never come back!

                • That’s sad. It’s like trying to redecorate when you’re visiting a house.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    Indeed. But that is the problem with hyper-trads (as I call them). They want to make everything in their own image. It is spiritual narcissism. Now, I love tradition, and look to it (with the Eastern sensibility), but the problem ultimately is prelest (imo) which causes this kind of hyper-tradism.

    • chezami

      Don’t know. Don’t care. It’s the Pope’s job to handle that stuff. What is notable, of course, is that it’s just that group, so I presume there was some problem specific to that group, while paranoid uber-Traddies tend to assume it’s the harbinger of the apocalypse because they hate and fear Francis. These are people who greeted his election by posting, within a half hour of it, a blog entry titled, “The Horror”. They need to unclench their sphincters.

      • Barfly_Kokhba

        Wow, both the content and tenor of these replies are quite clarifying. Thank you, Mark, Dale and HornOrSilk, for your comments. They have been helpful.

        • chezami

          Barfly: When you have been called a modernist neo-Catholic heretic and told that the Mass you go to is blasphemy as many times as I have, you kind of lose interest in what Pharisees think of what is wrong with the Pope. I have no issues at all–none whatsoever–with the Extraordinary Form, nor with so-called “Traditional” piety (i.e., piety rooted in pre-Vatican II Latin rite cultural forms. If if floats somebody’s boat, fine. What I have an issue with is the bumper crop of self-righteousness, pride, anti-semitism, contempt for 99% of the Church, paranoia, and blasphemous contempt for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the Ordinary Form. I have a problem with the inherent assumption that the Tradition does not encompass the Ordinary Form. News flash: That’s where the Tradition developed to, Traditionalists. So deal with it. And I have a problem with the “Traditionalist” error of replacing the fruit of the Spirit with a particular aesthetic vision. Traditionialism is great in theory. The problem is that it has, in my experience, largely produced Traditionalists who are the single greatest enemies of Traditionalism by their ugly, ugly witness to the gospel and their deep hostility to the Church’s mission.

          Of course, at this point one must always make the de rigeur clarification that not *all* traditionalists belong to the battalions of nasty trads one constantly meets on line. True. But I’d be happier if nice Trads were busier telling these battalions to stop embarrassing Traditionalism and less busy telling me to stop noticing the dozens and dozens of kicks to the groin I’ve received from them.

          • Stu

            “When you have been called a modernist neo-Catholic heretic and told that the Mass you go to is blasphemy as many times as I have, you kind of lose interest in what Pharisees think of what is wrong with the Pope.”


            And apparently you are very hurt by this given what has been almost a week of your looking for so-called traditionalist elements on line to be offended at so that you could take a punch.

            At times, I have commented about the past in which many who consider themselves “traditionalists” have been subjected to hostility in the past by fellow Catholics (and even clergy) and have consequently adopted a siege mentality over the years. I haven’t offered this as an excuse for any bad behavior directed at you by anyone, but rather an explanation. Often, your return mentions things line “whining”, “self-pity” or the bizarre one of “butthurt”.

            Dude? Are you listening to yourself? How many times are you going tell everyone about how the big meanie trads have hurt your feelings or called you “neo-catholic” or some other nonsense? It’s worse than when someone calls Marty McFly a “chicken.” My advice to you is the same to traditionalists who still have siege mentality. Get over it and get over yourself.

            And stop waiting for every single traditionalist Catholic out their to come to your defense when some extreme voice calls you a name. We don’t even pay attention to them. Seems like only you do.

          • Sean P. Dailey

            Mark, why do you hate kicking? And groins?

          • Half Heathen

            I suppose the well-grounded Traditionalists (I only call anyone “nice” when I am in a fighting mood) have better things to do with their time than to constantly monitor all the comboxes of the world, forever refuting and correcting all the craziness spewn by anyone who self-identifies as a Trad.

    • When talking about a ban, the first question that all should ask is, is this true. The Church is large and rumor often outpaces reality as it does in every other area of life. Give your brothers and sisters a leg up on this and please include a link that lays out the facts. Some of us can find an answer to your why question given a bit of information given a bit of a clue as to what is going on and who is talking about it.

    • Chesire11

      My understanding is that a faction among the FFI were of the opinion that the Latin Mass was the more authentic form, and were insisting upon celebrating the Latin Mass exclusively, and were using it to impose their will upon the rest of the order. They abused the Latin mass, fostering division and are being chastised for the abuses.

  • contrarian

    Those who argue for the superiority of the Traditional Latin Mass (whether they deem the NO valid or not) do so for reasons of its emphatically *measurable* doctrinal superiority. The orations of the old mass (over the course of an entire year) are doctrinally fuller and richer than those of the new mass, and teach the Catholic faith more authentically. The old mass is a greater didactic tool. This is not a matter of ‘interpretation’ (a less fancy word for ‘hermeneutic’): it’s an empirical fact, and one that can be measured via a shared, objective standard.
    This needs to be remembered, because it cuts right through arguments about what VII pope said what about what. It ain’t a matter of what any pope said. Who cares what Ratzinger or Francis said or didn’t say. It’s a matter of what the content of the prayers contains–empirically. It has nothing to do with some ‘hermeneutic’.
    Criticisms of heteropraxis, immodesty, the vernacular, sacrilege, plastic cups, beach balls, idiotic music, and all of the rest….for those who *argue* for the superiority of the old mass, this stuff is all secondary. Or really, it’s all parasitic on the underlying doctrinal argument. The forest can be lost for the trees, no doubt, given the inordinate focus by trads on heteropraxis and sacrilege. This is unfortunate for two reasons: Firstly, to focus on symptoms and not causes isn’t going to get anybody to understand anything, and those who do not understand the cause are only going to scoff (perhaps justifiably?) at criticisms of (what trads see as) symptoms. (If I remember right, a certain blog author wrote, in response to criticisms of plastic cups, “ZZZZ.”)
    Secondly, it leads trad-wary folks to think that trads are merely interested in aesthetics and rubrics and that we hate alter girls. But it ain’t just what we happen to subjectively prefer. To paraphrase Flannery O’Connor, if it’s just about Latin and Palestrina, then the hell with it.
    So we trads (and I guess I’m reaching out here to trads who read this popular blog) should keep our eyes on the prize. Remember that this is about doctrine. It’s not about piety (I hope not, since I’m a pretty shitty Catholic), and it’s only secondarily or parasitically about heteropraxis and abuse. It’s about the measurable doctrinal superiority of the old mass.
    Cheers to all.

    • chezami

      I measure by the fruits of the Spirit. Trad Catholics who go around boasting about their superiority to the rest of the herd are the worst advertisements for the Tradism on the planet.

      • contrarian

        Keep in mind that when I write of the superiority of the old mass, I mean the superiority of the prayers and scripture readings (which, as I argue, can be measured objectively). I am most certainly not making a point about the moral or spiritual superiority of those who are keen for the old mass. While I can’t speak for anyone else…believe me: if this were a piety contest, I’d lose big time!

        Though, certainly, the propensity of heteropraxis and abuse in the VII Church could be fodder for a point about fruits, etc.

        • Andy

          What objective measure is there available to say that the “old has” was superior – you have argued that but not have supplied a measure. You have offered your opinion, but that is hardly objective. Empirical which you mention above means that it, the results can be replicated and that it can be generalized. Please share the measure that meets those requirements.

          • contrarian

            How about the content of any of the Catholic catechisms, from Trent until now. Certainly, we can’t have a separate exam for each of the masses. It’s difficult to argue for continuity without a shared exam. So let’s base our exam off the catechism. Any of them.

            • HornOrSilk

              You are still ignoring the fact that most today who seek out the “EF” have studied theology apart from the liturgy itself. This is one of many factors ignored with such an “exam.” Of course, I would write one which the trads fail, but then you would call it a modernist exam!

              • contrarian

                Hi HoS,
                My hypothesis is that 50 people entirely ignorant of Catholic theology who read through the 1962 missal would do better on the exam (based on any of the catechisms) than 50 people entirely ignorant of Catholic theology who read through a year’s worth of Magnificat magazines.
                Moreover, if you wrote an exam that the trads failed but the NO folks did well on, then we’d have a problem. Regardless of how I labeled the exam, it would show that there wasn’t continuity between the masses. And there’s the issue.

                • HornOrSilk

                  My belief is 50 people who just went to a Latin liturgy with no knowledge of Latin will get nothing out of a Latin liturgy! So there. See we can all play this game. You have not responded to that fact.

                  And I know many exams trads would fail. I know all kind of heresies which often come out of trad groups — from Feeneyites to Donatists — and so it is easy to make such an exam. You really are clueless to what you are talking about. The fact that you reject the Pope on the liturgy is enough. You have turned it into an idol. What once was good has become a force of evil from people like you. Think of the bronze serpent and you got it.

                  • contrarian

                    Hi HoS,
                    We can make the experiment more interesting by demanding that everyone read the Latin version of their respective masses. That would be a nice control.

                    Though a good translation (the NO Mass apparently is well-translated now) would work fine.

                    As for trads who would fail: remember that my argument isn’t about trads, but about those ignorant of Catholic theology altogether, before reading the masses for the year (or three, given the three-year lectionary dealio).

                    You can have the last word.


                    • HornOrSilk

                      Why would it be a nice control? The point is that those who go to a Tridentine, Latin liturgy with NO Latin knowledge will get nothing. You are the one who says those who go to such a liturgy will automatically get more knowledge. So let 50 uneducated people go and compare the results to 50 uneducated people at a year’s worth of the normative liturgy.

                      Wait, you mean you know this will mean the Latin-only goers will pick up nothing? See you contradict yourself.

                      So there you go. Enough with your nonsense.

            • Andy

              All I want is the objective criteria that you are using. Then we can examine any catechism or set of prayers you would like. You say that the older or traditional prayers are better by any objective measure. WHat are the measures, not the content to be measured.

    • “measurable doctrinal superiority . . . it’s an empirical fact, and one that can be measured via a shared, objective standard”

      OK, I’ve pondered it for an hour and I give up. What is this marvelous “shared, objective standard”? Where is it? When was this extraordinary judgment made? And who were the judges? Because obviously to you the EF has already won. And why don’t people know about this contest?

      Oh, because it never happened, of course. And as far as theology is concerned, the only conceivable “shared, objective standard” is the Magisterium of the Church itself. And you will wait a good long time, I think, before the Magisterium makes a pronouncement of the kind you want. No, the only thing that the Magisterium has said is that these are the two forms, both equally venerable, of the one Roman rite.

      It seems that what you are going by, maybe, is a comparison between the “Propers” of the two Masses. Perhaps using the old, groan-worthy 1973 translation of the propers, which seriously dumbed down the prayers, facing the Latin of the EF propers. In that case, no contest. But you really have to compare the Latin originals. But it was always my impression that a great many of these orations were just taken over wholesale from the EF into the new Mass.

      But since guesswork is nothing, how about giving an example, and proving your point? And of course, calling in your authority, whatever (or whoever) it is?

      • HornOrSilk

        Also, I find it hilarious and sad. On the one hand, the hyper-trads all talk about how better the old Liturgy was for catechetical purposes, then entirely ignore the populace who understood none of it when it was all in Latin. And also fail to note that, for the most part, the clerical side of things was ignored by the laity, who often were off in their own side prayers until communion.

        • What I find hilarious and sad? The idea of my brother, a Benedictine priest, smart and holy and orthodox, who made and makes a large number of sacrifices to serve God, being told by traditionalist extremists “you’re doing it wrong.”

        • Chesire11

          What I find exasperating is the endless bickering between traditionalists and liberals about which one of them is most authentically Catholic, and which mass is better than the other. Catholicism expresses itself through both traditionalists and liberals, and the Eucharist is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, regardless of which form of mass is celebrated.

          Don’t get me wrong, guitar masses irritate me as much as anybody, but when I hear these endless self-justifying arguments eclipse the presence of Christ in the minds of the faithful I just want to shout, “Knock it off!”

          • chezami

            I don’t think I’ve ever heard an NO Catholic assert the NO is superior. What I’ve heard countless times is NO Catholics defending themselves from the charge that they are CINO’s, fake Catholics and need to be kicked out of the Church–leveled endlessly by Traditionlist Catholics.

            • Chesire11

              There are plenty of liberal Catholics who take a dismissive view of traditionalists, often in reaction against traditionalists who pretend to e better Catholics than the rest of the Church. That reaction, though not unwarranted, often lacks charity and does nothing to heal the wound to the Mystical Body, instead it’s usually just a defense of “us” against “them.”

          • HornOrSilk

            So if one is not a hyper-trad one is a liberal? And you are upset at the bickering?

            • Chesire11

              No, the vast majority of Catholics are neither, but from my limited experience of Catholics blogs, the bickering between those who are tends to dominate.

              • HornOrSilk

                So just making assumptions. Typical.

                • Chesire11

                  Are you serious? First YOU make a FALSE assumption about what I was saying, then you accuse me of “just making assumptions?”

                  If you want a fight, I’m sorry, I’m not going to accommodate your belligerence.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    You are the one who brought up hyper-trads vs liberals in response to my comment; the implication of your comment if you aren’t one you are the other. I make a false assumption based upon how you portrayed it and in the context you did, then it is your fault for bringing in a non-sequitur. And you are now trying to act like: all those fighters, how dare them, I’m so much better than all of them. The implications of your comments are for all to see. You think you are above it all while you throw stones down on everyone else. But don’t want to fight, no — just throwing stones.

                    • Chesire11

                      This is precisely why I have almost given up on Catholic blogs altogether. I can honestly say that in years of posting on blogs of all sorts, I have never met people so militantly defensive and hypersensitive as on Catholic blogs.

                      Gathering the tribes, healing divisions, that was one of the major elements of Christ’s mission…how sad that His followers prefer to work at cross purposes, just so long as they can score a point.

                      Good morning

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Ah yes, it’s all about gathering tribes, and yet you are above it all. Throw stones while saying you are out of the fray. Your comments are hypocritical to the extreme.

                    • Chesire11


      • ivan_the_mad

        Whatever it is, the authority certainly isn’t that of the Church, which is ignored with might and main. It is pride, I think, to presume one’s own judgement superior to that of the Magisterium or the Papacy, to presume that one knows better than the Church.

      • contrarian

        Hi Lori,
        The shared objective standard is the entirety of the content of the faith. It’s empirically verifiable in that one can point to the texts (whether in the orations or the scripture readings) of the old mass and see reference to many teachings that are entirely omitted in the new mass, or greatly sanitized. Examples include: the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the mass, the heroic works of the saints, the trickery of the devil, the wickedness of heresy, the *merits* of the saints, the warring angels, the special status of the priest, the merits of good works, purgation, perdition, our immortal soul (the word ‘soul’ (anima) is not used hardly at all in the new mass), our need for a contrite heart, the distinction between nature and grace, and much else besides. It’s empirically verifiable in another way: if you take 100 people ignorant of Catholicism with the same reading comprehension (let’s, for example, get 100 people with the same LSAT score) and have 50 of those people read through the prayers and scripture readings of a year’s worth of old masses (say, give them the 1962 missal), and have 50 people read through the prayers and scripture readings of a year’s worth of new masses (say, give them a 2013 subscription to Magnificat), the 50 people who studied the old mass would do better on a test of the content of the faith. This test hasn’t yet to be done, though I’d love if a liturgist at a university did this study!

        The Magisterium of the VII Church is of course going to object to my hypothesis. Which is why I say: let’s do the test! One cannot dispute the content of the orations and scripture readings, so if one wants to dispute my hypothesis, one instead has to say that one can still ‘interpret’ the new mass as being in ‘continuity’. The VII magisterium *must* say this, or the gig is up. But there’s no reason to buy the interpretation of continuity argument, as the empirical facts tell an obviously different story.

        And keep in mind that this has nothing to do with a bad translation or the 1973 ICEL. The Latin texts of the Mass of Paul VI: that’s where the problem is. What does the prayer really say? Well, in the Latin, not much, as it turns out.

        As for an authority that says as much. Well, the great thing about the empirical point I’m making is that I’m not relying on any expert to give me an interpretation of any of these prayers. The proof is in the pudding. Ironically, Ratzinger has said as much on a few guarded occasions, especially prior to being pope. But most all folks who are in good standing with the VII Church do not–cannot!–make this argument, as the official stance of the VII church is that everything is in ‘continuity’. Thus, while there are many (many!) traditionalist priests and laymen who have made the arguments I’m making here (I’m saying nothing remotely original), I don’t think there are any who would be called anything but a ritually impure source. However, as this fine blog’s author is aware of the genetic fallacy, I might mention Father Anthony Cekada’s recent book, Work of Human Hands. There, he goes into detail describing the changes to the prayers and scripture readings in the new mass, and the different didactic push that the new prayers and readings give, over the course of a year. It’s a very readable book. Check it out!

        • It’s hard to even know where to start here, there are so many questionable or mistaken assumptions in your comment.

          To begin with, comparison of the Scripture readings for ONE YEAR, which you think is going to demonstrate the superiority of the EF is going to cut the OF right off at the knees, because it has a THREE-YEAR cycle of readings, while the old Mass has but a one-year cycle of readings. Plus the Novus Ordo has more readings at Mass, including an Old-Testament reading. So during the three year-cycle, the people are going to hear roughly 70% of the NT vs about 16%, the amount contained in the old Mass (repeated 3 times), and a vast amount more of the OT as well. So much greater Biblical riches right there. The fact that neither you nor your sources seem to know this doesn’t speak much for your expertise in the matter.

          Second. Fine, there is the whole body of Catholic teaching itself. But this is not a standard, just a body of teaching. You need a standard that says which teachings are those that are most important for the purposes of the Mass? and are they there or not? You have listened a ton of things that actually are in the old Mass, and that according to you, are absent from the new, but where is the standard saying these that are the most important things and the ones that should be there? You seem to presume that “the trickiness of the devil” and “the merits of the saints” are among the most important and because they are there, the Mass is better than the Novus Ordo, which supposedly doesn’t mention them. You are all over the place here, jumping back and forth between the Ordinary and the Mass Propers, or prayers, and the cycle of Scriptural readings, so I think it would be impossible to say that these things are never mentioned in the Novus Ordo — but never mind. Many of your other statements about the supposed lack of the sense of sacrifice in the NO have been dealt with before, and by better people than me.

          You forget altogether that the Novus Ordo was put together precisely to supply things that should have been there in the old Mass and weren’t, such as the role of the people in offering the gifts (the revised Offertory and Offertory procession), the Mass as the sign of unity among believers, which was tremendously important to St. Paul and the early believers (restoration of the Kiss of Peace), etc. The differences cut both ways. And however hard you try to do without a real standard, there is one, and it is the Church’s Magisterium. That you evidently don’t accept it is honest on your part.

          Just don’t count the rest of us as impressed in the slightest.

          • contrarian

            Hi Lori,
            I hope all is well. Thanks for responding.
            Well, at this point, we are going to merely hash out arguments that have been had in more accessible sources, so I’ll leave you the last word. Though quickly, I should add that I agree with the trads that the three-year lectionary is, despite its length, sanitized of hard teachings (e.g., try finding 1 Corinthians 11: 27ff in any NO pew missal. :)), and that the reintroduction of certain ceremonies more or less common in the primitive mass are not at all authentic or meaningful in the modern setting (e.g., in the primitive church, the ‘presentation of the gifts’ was when a grower of wine and a maker of bread gave an offering to the mass). Moreover, you should be careful in demanding a ‘hierarchy’ of important *Catholic* (as opposed to merely *Christian*) teachings. Insofar as the teachings I mention are distinctly Catholic and they are omitted in the new mass (and insofar as most Lutherans only object to the NO Mass insofar as some parts sound downright Methodist!), and insofar as the didactic push is profoundly different in the NO Mass, that’s an issue. So however one cuts the cake, and however one judges ‘superiority’, it’s difficult to argue for that the new mass is more Catholic, and it’s impossible to argue for *continuity*. And that’s the main issue. Nevermind the superiority or Catholic issue. Nevertheless, I’m happy to have any of the catechisms (either the new one or the Trent one or anyone in between) count as my ‘guide’ for the experiment mentioned above, as it is empirically obvious that there is simply *more* Catholic content in the old mass. I’d wage some serious buck that my hypothesis would work, whatever catechism is used to make the exam.
            But again, to respond at length to your post would merely to enter an unending circle of argument. If you are an avid reader, I encourage you to check out the Cekada book. I mention it because it’s highly readable, and recently published. Besides that, you can have the last word here on this thread.
            All the best.

            • I have already had enough of your circular arguments for a lifetime so yes, let’s leave it there.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Well, at least you’re honest about ignoring the teaching authority of the Church, unlike most heretics.

      • contrarian

        Hi Ivan,
        You are right that insofar as the VII church agues for an interpretation of continuity between the old and new masses, that I do not believe it. I most certainly reject this argument of the VII church.

        • steve

          …and…there you go. The VII church (inconspicuously lower case)…..there IS no VII church. There is ONE CHURCH.

        • steve

          and you lose 95% of your audience when you say “Who cares what Ratzinger or Francis said or didn’t say”

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I’m not a Traditionalist, but I really appreciate that you’re calmly explaining your position. For many Catholics, myself included, the first time we encounter Trads is on-line. Quite often, it is the only time. When the first comments encountered are nasty names for extraordinary ministers of Holy communion, people swearing they would walk out of a mass if there are altar girls, an attitude that everyone who attends the Novus Ordo mass is a contracepting liberal who isn’t really Catholic, and other very uncharitable assumptions and statements, it’s had to see any good in Traditionalists. It stands to reason that those who are vocal and unpleasant in the comboxes are NOT the best representation of Traditionalists, but until someone chooses to explain, it’s often all we’re left with.
      So, I really appreciate that you’re taking the time to discuss it and give some resources for people who are wondering what it’s all about.

      • chezami

        For me, it’s not so much the *first* time I run into it, but the ten thousandth time I run into it that persuaded me I want to have as little as possible to do with the poisonous fruits of Traddery.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          You get a lot more direct insults over it than I do, as you’re a more public figure. I just often find myself wondering if the most belligerent people ever think about the impression they are making as Christians and Catholics on other Christians and Catholics.

          Out here in the world without comboxes, I have a brother and sister who haven’t spoken for over three years. They’ll both tell you how it’s all the other one’s fault. The fighting between the Traditionalists and Everyone else upsets me just as much. Probably shouldn’t, but there we are.

      • contrarian

        Thanks, Rebecca.

    • Francisco


      Interpretation is not “a less fancy word for hermeneutic.” A hermeneutic is a way of arriving at an interpretation.

      For example: Fred’s materialist hermeneutics (process/way of thinking) led him to interpret Sally’s vision of Christ as a hallucination (Interpretation=Sally’s vision of Christ is a hallucination)

      • contrarian

        So, Fred’s hermeneutic of continuity led him to interpret the new mass as continuous with the old mass?
        Isn’t that redundant?
        Or confirmation bias?


        Just busting your chops. I’m sure you’re right. It’s a nice word, to be sure.


  • marenostrum

    “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 from the East.”
    The East is not only Russia, with her imperial ambitions that often have crushed its neighbours (for a recent iteration, see Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement). If only it renounced the ideas of panslavism and empire, I would be a fan of Russia.

    As for the light coming from the east, true, but also from the east came the plague, an unusual cruelty and savage punishment (such as impaling and other assorted torturing techniques; look how the Indians, Chinese tortured and you’ll shiver), Arab cruelty (almost all Semitic peoples were violent, were full of evilness in the sense of personal evilness; look how Assyrians behaved, Babylonians too; they had an inner fire that all too often turned to evil), sexual debauchery (from India, China to Arabia, Egypt; tantra, anyone?), violence (uncounted wars in the middle east, India, Chinese empire – because today China is a sort of an empire, having territories that should not belong to them).

    It all comes in a package deal; sorry, one cannot choose only the good parts. It is easy to see almost only the good parts when you live far from the East …

    • Rosemarie


      The Holy Father is speaking of the East as enlightened by Christ – Eastern Christianity – while your examples are largely drawn from pre-Christian cultures and/or from politics that have little to do with the true spirit of the Gospel.

      • HornOrSilk

        Right, Eastern Christianity, and “the light of the East.” However, it is funny how one sees the comment above, and says “look to the bad of the East.” Ok, but we can also look to the bad of the West, which there is a lot. Shall it be all or nothing there, too? OF course not. This blindness of some is pitiful. The “package deal” mentality ignores the Church’s own teaching in engaging the world: that which is good we approve, but it can be found mixed with things which we need to discard (like the baptism of philosophy in the past).

        Sad people don’t get that aspect of the faith.

    • Chesire11

      Throughout most of its history, Russia has been the victim of imperial ambitions, and when she finally had opportunity for imperial expansion it was overwhelmingly directed toward Asia, rather than the West. The two most notable exceptions resulted from the collapse of aspiring European hegemons of Napoleonic France, and Nazi Germany which left power vacuums which the Russians, scarred by traumatic invasions, themselves filled, almost by default.

  • Once again…..

  • simplynotred

    Who are you, and why does anyone care? To argue much like a protesting Protestant, is where this modern leaning Magisterium resides. It is, now mere pomp and circumstance – true followers – without truth – without any serious christian making.