A Tale of Two Priests & Two Masseseditor
From America Magazine…
An ordinary Sunday morning. No parish assignment, no preaching. So I decide to go to a church that celebrates the Latin Mass every Sunday at 11 AM. I knew it would be in Latin, but I wasn’t sure if it would be the old Tridentine or new post-Vatican II Latin Mass. Clearly it was Tridentine! One reason to attend was to see if I could feel comfortable being the main celebration of the Latin Mass.
The church was half-filled, older men and women, some families with children, and a number of people in their 30’s who followed with their missals. The music, all in Latin, was in abundance with 90 percent sung by the choir and little by the congregation. The opening procession included 8 servers in surplices (all male), an assistant to the priest and the main celebrant…
REACTIONS. During the celebration I felt very uncomfortable. It was strange and foreign. Even though I was very familiar with the Tridentine Mass from my childhood, it seemed remote and distant. The Mass seemed to focus on the priest whose words for the most part could not be heard (they were in Latin anyway!) and who rarely faced the people. The choir performed well and their singing overrode the priest, who had to wait several times until they finished singing.
In my mind I could not but think back to the Second Vatican Council, and all that the Council and subsequent documents tried to bring about – active participation, emphasis on the important things, vernacular, elimination of accretions and repetitions, etc. It was sad and disheartening. What happened? Why would the Catholic faithful seek out and attend this older form of the Mass? Is the Tridentine Mass an aberration? What does it say about the reforms of Vatican II?
After the Mass, I was tempted to talk with some of those present. But I decided not to as I feared I would have been negative and perhaps controversial. My feelings were still very raw. One thing I know: I myself will never freely choose to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Click here to read article in full
From Traditional Catholic Priest (Blog)…
Constantly I hear from people that they do not go to the Latin Mass because they do not understand Latin. (Some even think that the homily is in Latin.) So please, just for now, let us put aside the argument of the language; Latin or English and go to the prayers and actions that are part of the rubrics of the two masses. Let us also look at who is the center of focus and the way the people participate, dress and receive God in Holy Communion at the two masses.
As a priest, I want to re-clarify what are the differences on how Jesus is treated in the two masses. This will be from my own stand point as a priest who has for years celebrated the New Mass in English and Spanish, and now, for the last 7 years offered the Ancient Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…
From my view up on the altar, the difference between the Ancient Mass and the New Mass is like day and night. Archbishop Sample, from Portland Oregon, put it well when he said at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in Rome, that he wants all of his priests to learn and offer the Latin Mass because of the effect it has on them understanding their role as priests. He said that offering the Holy Latin Mass has changed him completely and now he finally understands the sacrificial aspect of his priesthood..
As a priest who says the New Mass and the Latin Mass, the Latin Mass has by far more rubrics built right into the Latin Mass to protect the Body and Blood of Jesus from being desecrated in any manner. It clearly has the strong sacrificial component of the Holy Mass and priesthood. It does not have the protestant emphasis on the Last Supper and “doing this in remembrance of Me” like the Luther advocated. It also has prayers and gestures that facilitate more easily the adoration that Jesus deserves from us His creatures. And because of this, the Latin Mass pleases God way more than the New Mass. Click here to read article in full
Comments invited – how did YOU vote in the poll: and why?
I would question whether or not the first priest believes in the sacrificial nature of the Mass. In fact, I would question his belief in the Real Presence. Anyone who goes to any great lengths to promote or defend the New Mass is suspect.
I couldn’t agree more. Any priest who can ask “Is the Tridentine Mass an aberration?” is seriously questionable himself.
I too agree. I wonder what the first priest would say if presented with Dan Graham’s article, showing the difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.
(If anyone remembers, this article appeared in the Catholic truth newsletter some time back).
He seems not to understand the damaging effects of the new Mass.
Sadly, I suspect most Priests would feel uncomfortable at a TLM – because they aren’t actually Catholic at heart – a lot don’t even appear to be Christians since they refuse to obey and teach Christ’s commandments etc. – and they seem to think the altar area is just a ‘floor’ for their jokes and performances etc.
“Which priest is right – Comments invited – how did YOU vote in the poll: and why?” I voted for the Traditional Catholic Priest. The other is a Jesuit. Enough said!
And the Jesuits are just set to get worse:- http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/10/exclusive-marxist-revolutionary-new.html#more Rotten to the core.
I feel sorry for the first Priest. Because he has no idea;
1. Who he is.
2. What a Priest is supposed to be and do.
3. That the Mass of the ages, is just that.
I wonder if he is starting to sense that something is wrong and that’s why he went along. His summation of his visit could be caused by a bit of panic. Who knows.
That is the most scary thing of all, a priest who hasn’t a clue about the priesthood. I think there are a lot of them around, too, and it is really and truly awful to think about. Just the fact that a priest prefer the novus ordo, shows he’s completely misunderstood his vocation.
One of the things I have always struggled with in the Novus Ordo is the sheer ‘busyness” of it. The service might begin with a lay person at a microphone welcoming everyone and even thanking us for coming (outrageous!) then the priest might wish everyone a good morning, then a flurry of different readers and maybe a cantor, then after the Gospel a sermon, the interminable, often banal, bidding prayers, then the so called children’s liturgy and general mayhem while the children’s drawings (is this liturgy?) are applauded. Then finally in a flurry of more words we are at then past the Consecration before we know it. Then handshakes all round before the sanctuary is again invaded by a crowd of ‘Eucharistic ministers’. It is awful! And quite dreadful that this sort of thing is the norm in most parishes these days and all that most young Catholics have ever known.
And yet this Jesuit priest found the quiet, reverent , God centred Traditional Mass made him uncomfortable! Obviously the challenge of witnessing what a priest should be about was too much for him to grasp. Sadly I rather think that if our parish was to be offered the choice of a traditional Mass, even if only monthly, there would be robust opposition from both priest and people.
Your comment went into moderation and originally appeared minus your avatar because your email address was missing the letter “t”. Thus, the system thought you were a new blogger submitting a first comment. I added the “t” and voila, all is restored to good order.
Hopefully, we will soon be able to say the same about the Mass – your comment brought back vivid memories of my rising temper on Sundays witnessing all that you describe. Shudder!
Since going along to the Latin Mass every week since it was started in Motherwell Diocese . There is certainly more emphasis on The Blessed Sacrament. Also the emphasis on Our Lady and the Martyrs throughout the Mass makes it more Holy But I am not going to knock or run down what I personally think is wrong to call it the new mass . Many faithful priests put their hearts and souls ( as they should) in saying Mass. What I find is that if someone going to Mass if they want to and not as an obligation certainly participate more . There are of course certain practices I would like to se stopped in Mass . I believe the Priest should be the only one to give out The Blessed Sacrement. And also the shaking of hands in peace be with you again for obvious reasons should stop.
What should “stop” is the new Mass itself. It was uncalled for – nobody but nobody was asking for a new Mass and those “liberals” who were agitating for it behind the scenes should have been sent packing.
Your sympathy for those people who, in good faith, are going along with it and making the best of it, should not blind you to the fact that the novus ordo is highly displeasing to God. Highly. That is much more concerning that the sensitivities of people who are doing their best to participate in what is, by definition, by the definition of those who concocted it, a protestantised service.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s not only the outrageous novelties that go along with the New Mass that is the problem – the problem is the New Mass itself. It should be ditched and every single New Missal burned.
America magazine, along with the Order (more aptly called a DIS-Order) that publishes it, left the Catholic Faith long ago in favor of liberation theology, which is pure Marxism with some Catholic accidentals added, to make it seem palatable. It is, in short, a disgraceful rag. Unfortunately, these apostates still insist on remaining within the Church, and on their “right” to dismember her according to their Utopian fantasies. They are characterized and distinguished by the preferential option for disobedience, narcissism, amorality, intellectual sloth, effeminacy, impiety, depravity, and even paganism. Therefore, their only purpose in referring to Tradition will be to undermine it – subtly, if necessary, and heavy on the irrelevant social justice gibberish.
Speaking of added accidentals to make things seem Catholic, the Novus Ordo is Protestantism with said accidentals added. But it fails the palatable test miserably, no matter how “reverently” the priest says it.
OK Editor, you know very well which way I voted! What struck me about this priest’s narrative was his emphasis on “feelings”: he wanted to see if he could feel comfortable, he felt very uncomfortable, the Mass seemed remote and distant, his feelings were very raw…etc. etc. ad nauseam. In other words, as Petrus has already pointed out, he doesn’t a clue as to the purpose of Mass.
So congratulations, members of the Lodge: you have achieved your objective.
And it’s “feelings” that is the rationale among the laity as well today. When (on the very few occasions) I enter into a conversation with a novus ordo friend or relative, they invariably tell me that I did the right thing switching back to the TLM “if that is how you feel…. if you are not getting anything out of the new Mass…”
The importance of the Mass has been reduced to how we all “feel” about it – our changeable emotions are the main thing… Gimme strength!
It passes my understanding how anyone can get anything “out of” the NO, spiritually speaking; maybe those who do are much better than am I.
How anyone of my age group, and older, who grew up with the Traditional Mass, can tolerate the NO is inexplicable to me, and only goes to show that the Church was failing badly before VII. For sheer banality, the NO can’t be beaten; it seems to attract a significantly large number of attention seekers and wannabe priests, alongside a significantly small congregation – and growing smaller year by year. So, Editor, I bags Angry and Impatient Faces.
I would bags Livid and Even More Livid, if only they were up there!
I would bags Fizzing and even more fizzing! LOL!
When I first decided to attend a Catholic Church in 1999 (having left my Protestant “church” in disgust), I was a little worried that the Mass would be so far removed from what I was accustomed to that I wouldn’t really understand what was going on. But as I sat through my first (NO) Mass, I was quite relieved – it was very familiar after all!
Just some personal proof that the NO is Protestant.
And then, in 2002, I heard my first TLM, and sat there choking back tears the whole time. I knew immediately and instinctively that this was the true Mass. This from a baptized Catholic who was raised Protestant, left religion altogether and jumped into New Age foolishness, returned to Protestantism, and then left for good.
So if someone like me could recognize the true Mass, despite my prodigal wanderings near and far, apparently the sensus fidelium was still present. Which makes you wonder why those who never left the Church can’t see it. I suspect it is mostly due to either papolatry, tepidity in the Faith (i.e. paying our Lord mere lip service – and lip service has become much easier since the VII revolution), or sheer inertia.
RCA – This was exactly my experience too. After trundling along in second gear for 16 years my faith really flourished after I discovered the traditional Mass.
The article by the Jesuit is sad to read. I had read it before, but its no less sad to read it again.
The priestly author doesn’t use his title of “Father” when he signs off the article, or when his name appears at the intro. It begs the question what does it mean to him, to be a priest? What does he understand by his ordination?
His article is built on very dishonest foundations. He continually seeks to give the impression that the banal, lay-dominated, protestant liturgy – which can be found in most parish Churches today – was what Vatican II asked for. But anyone who is even partially informed knows that to be a lie.
It is quite upsetting to read his claim that the new mass is about “emphasis on the important things”. That’s a whopper of a lie. Its not uncommon in modern Churches to see the tabernacle, where Our Lord resides, pushed off to the side of the Church or even in a location where it cannot be seen at all by most of the congregation (as in St Andrews Cathedral, Glasgow). What could be more important than Our Lord?
He does ask some pertinent questions:
Why would the Catholic faithful seek out and attend this older form of the Mass?
Call me crazy, but perhaps because they are Catholics? His confusion only betrays how out of touch he is with the dynamic currents in the Church today.
He ends with:
I myself will never freely choose to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
These people are something else, aren’t they? He boldly states what mass he will or will not celebrate, while his ilk for years have denied the same freedom of choice to faithful priests.
That the author is a Jesuit is hardly a surprise.
Earlier I posted a link to a recent +Fellay speech in General Discussion. One of the parts which made me smile was when the good Bishop, discussing the talks with Rome regarding Vatican II, said:
There was even someone who had fun demonstrating that we were more faithful to the Council than the Jesuits.
The article by Fr Schineller SJ only confirms this statement, given the erroneous things Fr Schineller attributes to the Council.
The pool result is significant!
It would be good that you send it to your bishop…
While I have no hesitation in saying that the Latin Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo if such a comparison can be made I nevertheless have some observations on why the Latin Mass may be unpopular. When I was young I was taught the Mass was everything and indeed that is true. My teachers and the visiting priest took me through every part of the Mass and made me understand what was happening and I grew up as thousands did ‘praying the Mass” The reformers claim we just sat there like dummies understanding nothing and saying our rosaries. But the reformers always fall short when it comes to telling the truth. When I looked a the priest I knew at any moment what was going on by his words and movement and I prayed for my unworthiness. All this is lost in the Novus Ordo. It is assumed that because people are. talking like parrots they are therefore participating. But participating in what? When I talk about the Holy Sacrifice people look at me as someone strange. They go to the Last Supper to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. Yes they will talk about the Real Presence but often their ides are different to mine. If I say Jesus reached out from the Cross to be present as a Sacrifice in every age so that the sins of every age can be redeemed they do not understabd. If I further ask why did he not just give us His Body why does he give us His blood – they are really lost. the blood speaks of the Sacrifice rather than the Last Supper.. All this is part of the Latin Mass and the confusion I mentioned is pafrt of the Novus Ordo. But do you catch on to what I am saying. Neither or school children nor Adult Catechesis teaches the people and children of today what the Mass is. So the Latin Mass is almost beyond their understanding so when they experience it they do not have the knowledge to understand just as the priest who criticised did not understand. He is happy with his Mass where there is no such emphasis on the divine presence, where people do not have to kneel, and unconsecrated hands can take the host like a sweet being offered. If he believed deeply that the host was indeed our Very God, he would be asking people to prostrate themselves rather than preaching as some do that the host is not meant for individual worship but for the community.
Here is what Yves Dupont had to say about the NOM at the end of Catholic Prophecy (1973 edition):
With devilish cleverness, they [Bugnini, his Commission, and his 6 Protestant advisors) stopped just short of outright heresy, and abusing the trust which their position entailed, they prevailed upon Pope Paul to ratify it…The New Missal is indeed a radical attack on our Faith. It will destroy the Mass more effectively than Luther’s brutal efforts. Having destroyed the Mass, it will inevitably destroy the Church. Having destroyed the Church, it will – inevitably again – destroy the world. For when the blood of Christ is no longer offered on the Altars of our churches, then the blood of men will have to be spilled on the asphalt of our streets…The New Missal is an ominous sign of the destruction to come, and these dire forebodings are in complete accord with what the prophecies say, and which can be paraphrased thus: “They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs. The false Church shall be destroyed, and the enemy shall overcome Rome. The pastors shall be scattered, persecuted, tortured, and murdered. The Holy Father shall have to leave Rome, and he shall die a cruel death. An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome.”…Today…the Church’s sin is even greater because it is a sin against the first of the cardinal virtues, namely Faith. The punishment must needs be commensurate. The latest and most significant contribution to the process leading up to this is the New Missal, a pre-heretical rite, which has made the Mass as changeable as the passing fashions of the world.
It is an irrefutable argument
“The New Missal is indeed a radical attack on our Faith.”
That is the whole thing in a nutshell. I agree, 100%.
Our Lady of Fatima told the children that Portugal would remain faithful to the teachings of the Church which by implication means that other countries would not. The rest of Europe has indeed fallen into heresy and indeed the Church has no influence whatsoever on the majority of Europeans. We are faced not just with a battle against Atheists but against militant Moslems whose Faith was built on hate rather than love. Islam has sworn to destroy the Vatican and indeed if the Pope is to be martyred as the Third Secret tells us, there is no force on earth more willing to do the killing than the militants of Islam My wife and I receltly visited Oxford and while sitting on a bench we began to say the Rosary. We spoke in hushed voices and hid our rosaries since we did not want people to stare and embarrass us. Then the thought came to me. Surely this is not what Our Lady of Fatima wants. So we held our Rosary beads with pride and prayed in a normal voice. Surely this is what Our Lady wants. I have a T-shirt now with a picture of Our Lady of Fatima and next Monday I will start a street Rosary. Maybe just myself at first, but I have been making sacrifices in preparation and asking her help so I am sure that she will send others to say the Street Rosary. I may be mocked, yes, but that will be something to offer. I will keep you informed of what happens.
that is very brave of you to start a street Rosary. I hope you can find a few people to join you. I look forward to hearing how you got on.
I agree. It is very brave to do the street rosary but I would wonder at the prudence of going alone. I think ask around and get at least one other person to join you. There has to be at least one Catholic in your parish who would do that?
The SSPX in Glasgow used to have a rosary walk from Glasgow Cross (site of the martyrdom of St. John Ogilvie) to St. Andrew’s Street (where the chapel is located). It was quite a walk, uphill most of the way. If memory serves, there were around 25 of us and we said all fifteen decades. No one ever passed comment on us, it was almost like Our Lady shielded us from criticism. There were one or two signs of the cross from passers-by as well.
As for the two priests and the two Masses. I think it is clear that the NO has had a drip, drip effect over the decades to such an extent today that Catholics, including many, if not all, priests, no longer really know the faith they profess. The entire shambles is due to a combination of indifference and utter ignorance. One has to know the faith one professes and this is a lazy age in which people just go along with what others tell them. Few ever read a book, much less a Papal Encyclical.
Why / when did the SSPX rosary walk cease?
I am aware that, during the recent anniversary of the martyrdom of St John Ogilvie, it was suggested to Archbishop Tartaglia that the former Archdiocesan “Ogilvie walk” be restarted. (I think this used to start at St Mungos in townhead, and then progress down High Street to Trongate).
However, I am told he was strongly against the idea of restarting such a practice, probably fearing the effect on the meaningless ecumenical platitudes he is so keen on.
The archdiocese of Glasgow used to have a walk in honour of St John Ogilvie every year to mark his feast. It was stopped by order of Cardinal Winning, because – wait for this – he didn’t want to disrupt the traffic, add to the congestion for shoppers. On a Sunday, remember.
The same man, undoubtedly, would have fallen over himself to defend the “right” of the Orange Order to march through the streets of Glasgow on any day of the week – which they appear to do regularly throughout the summer and not just on one particular day – used to be to mark the 12 July, now it seems to be an ongoing event throughout the summer months.
Was that Cardinal Winning, or Cardinal Losing? That sort of phony reasoning wouldn’t be too far off from saying that people shouldn’t go to Mass on Sundays because their cars might take up too many parking spots…
“Cardinal Losing”? Very funny. He’s now deceased, RIP, so I suppose we ought to put a lid on the jokes.
I’m not entirely sure why the rosary walks ended. I’m going back more than 20 years, to a particular French/Canadian priest, exceptionally holy, who was prior at that time and favoured the walks. When other priests took over as prior the whole thing just seemed to evaporate. To be fair, the priests were having to deal with more chapels and bigger congregations as the SSPX grew, and I think also that the numbers of the faithful on these walks diminished over time, so that combination is probably why the walks ended.
Perhaps someone could bring up this subject with Fr. Brucciani – I’m sure he’d be very receptive.
Public rosary walks are a form of Catholic proselytism, and we know that Pope Francis has called proselytism a sin!
An ecumenical march singing “bind us together Lord”, now that would be a different propostiion altogether. I’m sure even the Pope would fly to Scotland for that one, especially if it was arranged to mark Luther’s anniversary. Some Catholics!
What’s your take on this article written by Bishop Robert C. Morlino on Amoris Laetitia? – ‘fraid my analytical ability is somewhat impaired at the moment.
Bishop Robert C. Morlino offers Holy Mass Ad Orientem as does Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln. Bishop Dominique Rey of the Diocese of Frejus-Toulon said he would follow suit. Don’t know yet if they have asked their Priests to do the same.
I’m sure there are many more Good Bishops out there who recognise “Modernism” for the evil destructive Heresy that it is. Stating their position openly can only be beneficial to their people, although there may be fear of causing schism underlying their silence.
While I have no reason to doubt the bishop’s good will, I’m afraid I do have serious doubts about his commitment to the Traditional Catholic faith when it comes to a fearless defence of morality.
Once again we have a bishop who praises Pope Francis for his Apostolic Exhortation when, in all truth, he should be warning the faithful of the dangers inherent in those 256 pages of text, especially Chapter 8 which is scandalous.
It seems from his overall statement that Bishop Morlino is trying very hard to deflect blame away from these Modernist Popes with the old chestnut that it’s the media which is at fault for deliberately misinterpreting what they say and write.
We know this is not the case, however. Pope Francis plays to the media. He knows exactly what he’s saying and how it will be interpreted. His words are always constructed to obscure previously clear magisterial teaching and the media loves it. That’s why he never corrects what they convey to the world.
Pope Francis, tragically, is a Pope of contradiction and confusion. He contradicts Traditional teaching, sometimes even denigrates it, and he writes huge wordy documents on moral issues that the Church has long infallibly declared on and which should take up no more than a page or two to reiterate.
So why 256 pages, if not to sow doubt and confusion amongst the faithful on what has always been clear, while at the same time arming his fellow liberal reformers with much ambiguous ammunition for change by the back door.
Bishop Morlino is either not well educated when it comes to the doctrines of the faith and the magisterial teaching of the Church of all time or he is simply cowardly when faced with the obvious obfuscation of Pope Francis.
Another hint that this Bishop is not truly Traditional was in his reference to “St. Pope John Paul the Great”. Why call him “the Great”? The great what? The great syncretist Pope (Assisi), the great Pope who received the mark of a pagan deity on his forehead and participated in Animist rites?
In all fairness, I will say that John Paul II was much stronger on the moral teaching of the Church than Francis. However, like Francis, he was a theological Modernist who damaged the Catholic Church immeasurably with his liberal reforms and his weakness when it came to stamping out liturgical and sacramental abuses. It’s a hard thing to say but these Popes have been disastrous for the Church and yet Bishop Morlino refers to them with the utmost piety and fidelity. Can he be that blind? I doubt it.
This is the problem in the Church today, especially with the prelates, they try to sit on the fence and they are the more dangerous to souls because of their vacillation.
Preferring the Mass ad orientem while justifying Papal scandals is not what I call being true to the faith. I’m sure Our Lord thinks likewise. The brave ones are the ones who are prepared to put everything on the line for truth, and there are very few of those around today. Bishop Morlino doesn’t impress me, I’m afraid. Far too timid for a successor of the Apostles.
St. Pope John Paul the Great”. Why call him “the Great”? The great what?
The greatly over-rated, in my opinion!
I’ve heard him described as “The Great Mistake” – naughty!
Forgot to say, I hope you are keeping well.
Many thanks for both posts Athanasius – much appreciated!
Comments are closed.